I agree, but look at what PiKA2001 said, which is what I was responding to:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 2109993) Generally speaking I think it's ridiculous how people are so eager to take a pill to supposedly solve their (non) problems. Aren't they saying that 60% of kids have ADD now? I'm waiting for the day they start putting Ritalin in the water supply along side fluoride (which by the way is being blamed by some for causing health problems. You apply fluoride, you dont ingest it). I suffer from depression and I've yet to take any anti-depressants or any other mind altering chemicals to "fix" me.

The underlying message here is that any medication in and of itself is bad, whether needed or not. There is also the underlying message that AD(H)D may be a non-problem. Sure, too many people label some kids as having it without any basis, but that doesn't mean that some kids actually do deal with it and are sometimes significantly affected by it.

I think it's great when anyone can manage AD(H)D, depression or other issues without any medications. I truly do. And when possible, I think that should be the goal. But some people can't do that, either in the long-term or in the short term while they develop other strategies for dealing.

I will readily agree that overprescribing -- prescribing medicines for children or adults who don't need them -- is a wrong and is a problem. But I think it is equally wrong and problematic to under-prescribe -- to not provide medicines that are needed and are helpful.

No, thats not what I'm saying at all. If you have high cholesterol there's nothing wrong with taking medication to lower it but a doctor isn't going to prescribe meds there because he thinks you may or has a hunch that you have high cholesterol. He's going to actually draw blood and test the level of lipids or whatever it is they check. I feel the attitude is completely different when it comes to psychological disorders especially when your family practitioner or care provider might only have 5-10 minutes for diagnosing and coming up with treatment plans for the patient.

I'm also not saying that ADD or ADHD is a non issue but I do believe it's over diagnosed and over exposed and someone putting their kid on meds for it just because he goes nuts after slamming a Mt. Dew is absurd.

^^^Not to take this off track, but a child who truly has ADD and ADHD would actually focus better if given a Mountain Dew. ADD and ADHD drugs are stimulants (that normally begin in very low dosages). When we had kids who were on meds for ADD or ADHD and forgot to take them, we'd give them 1/2 a Mountain Dew. Isn't the same effect obviously, but it helped them get through.

Other than that - everything MysticCat said - ditto.

My sincere apologies for reading more into your post than you intended. I see what you're saying, and don't really disagree. I noted above that we had a few days of testing, and reports from numerous sources, that the psychologist conducted and reviewed before providing a diagnosis. I think that's how it should work, and I would also have a problem with either a diagnosis or a prescription based on a a 10 minute session and anecdotal evidence.

And ditto what AXOMom said -- we've found that a Diet Mt. Dew or Coke can very helpful. (You get the caffeine without the sugar that way.) And now son has discovered coffee.

Yes, that is how it is now. When I started in the field as an Occupational Therapist in 1988, adults stayed in inpatient for about 6 weeks and adolescents and children could be as long as 3 months. That's weeks of daily group therapy, two hours of OT, two hours of Recreational Therapy, time with a teacher to do their schoolwork (for kids), daily individual sessions and family sessions a couple times a week. There was time to really work with them and to get medication levels right. And, the revolving door syndrome didn't happen. When it got down to 3-5 day lengths of stays and we'd see the same bi-polar patient 8 times a year, I was done with adult inpatient. Medicate them, push them out the door without giving them any skills to cope with their new situation (and sometimes no way of getting more meds), and they are back in 6 weeks. Occupational Therapy involves teaching life skills, working through activity to improve functioning, relaxation skills, self esteem building activities, expressive therapies, activities of daily living, etc. In the old days, we had time to teach them how to use the bus system, where to find healthy activities to do, how to fill out job applications, how to work in a group. You can't do that in 3-5 days. You can't do that once a week for an hour. Back then, once deemed fairly stable, a patient would go on a day pass to home to see how things were when they were at home. Then they'd come back to the hospital and work through issues that had come up. Then they'd go on a two day passes over a weekend and come back to process. THEN they'd go on a weekend pass, overnight, and do the same and if all went well on the weekend pass, they would be discharged. THERAPY happened, people got better.. the statistics showed it. Readmission rates were very, very low. They did start up day treatment programs after inpatient became so short, but those got shorter and shorter too. And you had no control over what patients were doing at home every night so they often did things that ended up sabotaging all the work you did during the day.

It was very different and it was very successful. And nobody wanted to pay for it.

Honestly folks, the way insurances set critical pathways now, they tell the doctor to do a minimal amount of screening and then try a medication to see if it works. That is the standard pathway they are supposed to follow so they don't spend too much on tests.

Our society is so messed up, it's depressing to me. I'm a little passionate about this topic, as you can probably tell...lol.

Mountain Dew is the best soda. That's all.

I heart you. You just described what I wish inpatient treatment looked like. I forget that once upon a time, it did.

No worries. Unfortunately many children aren't in the situation that yours is in with parents or guardians that can afford to or care enough to take them to specialists/get second opinions, etc.

Across contexts, misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis seems to have been more of a problem than underdiagnosis in the past 10 years.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...sis-rules.html

I wonder to what extent this coincides with both malpractice pressures (in my experience, a misdiagnosis via the wrong assigned malady is much less problematic for juries than a non-diagnosis, or inaction), and the changing view of doctor as solution, rather than as an aid in management/prevention.

In short, are doctors themselves thinking they 'should' be diagnosing more, leading to overdiagnosis?

Excellent question.

I know that it is difficult to come across children (and people) who do not have some diagnosis or some prescription for something.

I think that is doctors overdiagnosing combined with the booming prescription drug industry and combined with parents thinking that their child has every illness under the sun.

I agree.

On the other hand, I have noticed that some parents are resistant to having their children checked out because of the overdiagnosing. I have noticed this with parents of my friends and with my friends becoming parents. Since so many children, or the parents themselves, are (were) being so overdiagnosed they resist taking their children to be diagnosed even when they have problems. Some of my friends will not listen to their doctor (or doctors) when it comes to potential health issues with children. I am all for getting a second opinion, in fact I'd strongly recommend it at times. One friend who is currently pregnant child 2, refuses to take advice from her doctor even though she almost lost child 1 due to complications that most likely could have been avoided if she had taken the doctors advice. She refused to allow her first child to take antibiotics when the baby had an infection. This was until the baby's father and the grandmother basically forced her.

I realize that many people are more interested in taking a pill to fix all. I do wonder, however, how far the resistance goes.

What I'm wondering is if it's now seen as better to label someone with a problem they don't have than later find out you missed something. Theoretically, it might be easier to defend oneself in a malpractice suit if one can say "Oh, I gave the wrong diagnosis but at least I took action and was sort of on the right track" then to say "Yes, the patient came to me for help prior to [insert catastrophe here] and I completely missed this." I think it used to be (and to an extent still is the case) that doctors were afraid of diagnosing someone when they did not have to because of the stigma surrounding mental health diagnoses and the effect that label could have on a person's life. However, this concern has taken a backseat to a number of factors including fear of not getting paid by insurance companies.

You'd be surprised.