The New School Nurse Is Nurse Ratched 196
theodp writes "In Ken Kesey's 1962 novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Nurse Ratched maintained order in the mental institution by dispensing antipsychotic and anticonvulsant drugs to the patients. Fifty years later, the NY Times reports that some physicians are prescribing stimulants to struggling students in schools starved of extra money, not to treat ADHD, necessarily, but to boost their academic performance. 'We as a society have been unwilling to invest in very effective nonpharmaceutical interventions for these children and their families,' said Dr. Ramesh Raghavan, an expert in prescription drug use among low-income children. 'We are effectively forcing local community psychiatrists to use the only tool at their disposal, which is psychotropic medications.'"
We've Given Up on Poor Kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of providing this, we drain schools of funding and treat teachers with hatred and distrust. Students in low income schools are subjected to draconian learning environments where their future is ruled by testable metrics and a discipline fetish.
So doctors - despite knowing the significant risks of drugs that alter brain chemistry (especially with children) - are using their own tools to step in and help. Either they are way out of line, or they have hit the nail on the head by classifying academic performance as central to a child's long term health. Either way: they wouldn't be in this mess if we just invested in schools with a fraction of the enthusiasm with which we invest in bailing out banks and fighting wars.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Smaller classes, highly qualified and motivated teachers, involved parents.
And community values.
Ever wonder why Asian stiudents, no matter where they go to school, excel at academics while their American counter parts don't do as well?
Community values which includes lots of parental encouragement - not all good admittedly.
Asians as a whole value academics above sports and other activities.
We Americans value the football hero, the entertainer, and the bling and superficial.
Re:We've Given Up on Poor Kids (Score:5, Insightful)
You are over generalizing (on Slashdot? The Horror) and mixing up symptom and cause.
One of the several root causes for academic failure is social failure. The vast majority of human children need a consistent, controlled and supportive environment if they are to get as much as possible out of schooling. Chaos doesn't work well for most. Since we've not done such a good job with the society at large, especially for economically disadvantaged people, we now try to take it out on the schools which are forced to be in loco parentis for a while. That hasn't been working out well either.
So we turn to drugs. Simple. Easy. Better living through chemistry and all that.
Ought to be an interesting experiment.
If I were the DEA or persons of similar persuasion, I would be shaking in my combat boots. Another generation even more attuned to psychotropic medication than the last couple of generations - who were doing pretty good with just amateur status. How are you going to get these kids to try to make the artificial distinction between 'good' and 'bad' drugs. Especially since a lot of these are pretty 'bad' drugs - they can make you feel crummy, they have significant side effects. They work in the brain (natch) so somebody is going to actually like the way they make you feel and want to buy them off of you. Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
(Complacently sips caffeinated beverage).
Re:We've Given Up on Poor Kids (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were the DEA or persons of similar persuasion, I would be shaking in my combat boots.
What's in it for the DEA to actually end the use of illegal drugs?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So why do any of these things work?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So why do any of these things work?
Doctors, technicians, mechanics, etc aren't monopolized industries. The mechanic will genuinely try to fix your car, because if he doesn't then customers will take their money somewhere else.
Government agencies, on the other hand, don't need to 'fix' their problem just so long as they can make a pretty powerpoint that says they are.
Re: (Score:3)
So, legalize every drug in existence.
I'm mostly libertarian, but I fear a society where this would occur. It would look like the fucking Walking Dead. Have you been in communities with drug problems? It is terrifying.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be parental involvement and the emphasis that individual Asian families put on academic success. In most of America, there aren't strong enough Asian local communities to really influence students. They just live too immersed in white, black or hispanic communities to feel much influence of Asian culture outside their home.
But I agree that the excessiv emphasis on sports and other interests that is so common in America is not helpful for the long-term success of most minority students and the
Re: (Score:3)
We Americans value the football hero, the entertainer, and the bling and superficial.
Well, those folks seem to make a lot of money, and they also seem to be constantly doped, coked, wiggin' and wasted to their eyeballs.
So why not get kids on to the right career path to success early, and start 'mething them up in grade school?
Bartender: "Another glass of hyper-oxygenated blood and a shot of EPO for you, Mr. Armstrong, sir?"
Re:We've Given Up on Poor Kids (Score:5, Insightful)
But as an Actual Asian Person, there's more to this story than that. Hang around Canal St. in New York sometime. Not all Asians have that hard grit academic drive.
What happened was, a lot of Asian American families are first or second generation immigrants who were already successful and higher status. So they had the strict Asian upbringing AND the tools to enable the hard work ethic.
It's a complicated matter, and I think you're grossly simplifying the scenario here.
Re: (Score:3)
From what I've seen there are significant cultural differences among Asians also. My neighborhood is almost 100% Vietnamese, mostly people who came over after the war. Academics are valued, but not anything like it is in Chinese neighborhoods populated largely by people who came here for graduate school.
I know this is racist, so I'll get flamed for this for sure if anyone even reads it, but I also think genetic differences account for some differences between Asians and white Americans. From infancy my k
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only intelligent thing about your reply is your decision to post it as Anonymous Coward. You have no specific knowledge that supports your worthless claims, have probably never traveled extensively in Asia, and are not well versed in Asiatic cultures or educational practices.
Asia, the content encompassing many diverse, non-Oriental cultural groups, has no unified or enhanced characteristics of diligence or excellence over the rest of the world.
My wife is Turkish, which is a country within the continent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We've Given Up on Poor Kids (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you ever done Peace Corps?
The reason why Asian-Americans excel is because wealthy Asians emigrate to America. If you actually go to Asia, you'll find that it's just like the U.S.: rich kids go to good schools and poor kids go to bad schools. The only difference is that cheating's a-ok beacuse it lets the school, the administrators, and the students all gain face.
Re: (Score:2)
You're looking at the very rich (Score:5, Insightful)
As for Asians valuing eduction, that's because in most places it's a dog eat dog hell hole due to their surplus population (that's surplus, no over, population. Over pop means there's not enough, surplus means there's enough to abuse). Americans value those things not because of a weak culture but because we're wealthy enough we can.
Put another way, I'm sick and tired of this weird cult of frantic, desperate, dog-eat dog work. The puritan work ethic is a scam that the Romney's of the world use to make excuses for their grotesque wealth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that it's a money pit. We're spending $526 billion on primary education. Fire the administrators. Double the teaching staff. Eliminate tenure.
Re:We've Given Up on Poor Kids (Score:4, Interesting)
Plus, I wonder how much you know about schools that you would suggest firing administrators entirely.
Re:We've Given Up on Poor Kids (Score:4, Interesting)
All it takes is working in education for even a brief time to understand that the majority of administrators should not be doing the job they are getting paid for.
It's not so much that they are bad at their job, it's that their job is counter-productive.
They dictate how classrooms should be run when they themselves have either never taught or haven't taught in 15 years. They are often completely out of touch with today's children.
As a result, we end up with classrooms that are dictated to be run a specific way that simply DOES NOT WORK. Teachers get reprimands for straying from administrative policy even though it provides a better education for the kids.
Towards a Post-Scarcity New York State of Mind (Score:2)
http://www.pdfernhout.net/towards-a-post-scarcity-new-york-state-of-mind.html [pdfernhout.net]
"New York State current spends roughly 20,000 US dollars per schooled child per year to support the public school system. This essay suggests that the same amount of money be given directly to the family of each homeschooled child. Further, it suggests that eventually all parents would get this amount, as more and more families decide to homeschool because it is suddenly easier financially. It suggests why ultimately this will be a
Re: (Score:3)
On the parent at home thing, I would argue this is already possible, though it does not happen becau
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone would win with that plan except the parasitic public employee unions and the politicians who the unions own. For this reason, it could never happen.
Get the unions out of education and quality will be guaranteed to improve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait... that's not *really* what you're talking about; rather, your use of the term "freedom to associate" in this context means "demanding legally-enforced special treatment forcing others to negotiate with your group, and, in some cases, preventing others from being able to freely negotiate their own terms of employment".
I've only ever lived in right to work states, so you are 100% wrong. The union doesn't (and can't, by law) prevent others from freely negotiating their own terms of employment. If there was such a problem, why are there so many loontarians choosing to live in locations with bad laws? It's a free market, shop states and shut the fuck up.
Instead the libertardians want to pass laws banning unions (well, not the unions themselves, but collective agreements and strikes and such, everything that gives that as
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen the same thing in comparing private schools. They pick the private schools with no building or administration costs (the small church-run ones where the buildings are free
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever notice the drug commercials... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever notice the drug commercials? None of them address the underlying cause -- they address only the symptoms.
* Your dick doesn't work: Don't get exercise that could actually improve your blood flow. Don't eat right. Take this ridiculously expensive pill. Notice the age of the men on these commercials has dropped from what once was older mean, now the guys could be in their late 30s. WTF?
* Your cholesterol is thru the roof: Don't cut out fatty foods and fried goodies. Don't get exercise. Take this pill that has more side effects that the black plague.
It's all about the money -- and it should be illegal. America hates drugs? Start with big pharma. They kill more people every year than illegal drugs.
If I had my way, I would dictate all pharm companies become non-profit. All money goes to R&D and moderate salaries. Then and only then would the research perhaps be about people and not profit.
These commercials now about one kid in 110 being autistic. No fracking way is this possible. ADHD? Same thing. When I was a kid back in the 70s, kids were hyper. It's normal. Now? Drug the poor things until they comply. People think a pill can solve anything. Want to lose weight? Take in fewer calories than you burn. Make sure those calories are good calories like fruits, veggies, lean meats like fish, turkey. Actually exercise. Almost no one was fat when I was a kid. Fat people were rare. Now? Almost 40% of Americans are considered fat. Why? The crap that passes for our food should be illegal. We need to become like Europe and ban all the junk. When it's about profit, the people get screwed. What's next? Soylent Green?
Re: (Score:3)
Start with big pharma. They kill more people every year than illegal drugs.
1. Citation required.
2. Per user, or in absolute terms?
Not that I disagree with your general point about commercials - I live in a country where this sort of advertising is forbidden.
Re:Ever notice the drug commercials... (Score:5, Informative)
As no one seems to believe these numbers are real, I'll quote the source: The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000, authored by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health.
That study, which is twelve years old -- and drug deaths have risen considerably since then -- documents 106,000 deaths per year from the "adverse effects" of FDA-approved prescription medications.
To reach this number from outbreaks of violent shootings, you'd have to see an Aurora Colorado Batman movie massacre take place every HOUR of every day, 365 days a year.
Re: (Score:2)
As no one seems to believe these numbers are real, I'll quote the source: The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000, authored by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health.
That study, which is twelve years old -- and drug deaths have risen considerably since then -- documents 106,000 deaths per year from the "adverse effects" of FDA-approved prescription medications.
To reach this number from outbreaks of violent shootings, you'd have to see an Aurora Colorado Batman movie massacre take place every HOUR of every day, 365 days a year.
Not surprising. The (only good) reason they are prescription medications is that they are dangerous. A 'drug' is just a poison with a useful side effect.
Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison.
The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy.
Paracelsus - from the 17th century, IIRC.
And modern medicine is all about drugs. So those numbers don't surprise me a bit.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks, reading the paper now. Issues that occur to me so far:
It's mainly for hospitalized patients - how many of these would have died whatever happened? It's hard to tell from the paper directly, since it cites other estimates from around ten years before, and I haven't been able to read them yet.
How many people's lives have been saved or improved by "big pharma"? Same question for illegal drugs and Aurora-style massacres. Yes, it's silly question, but your equivalence between "big pharma" and illegal dru
Re: (Score:3)
If you're going to reference something, at least give us farking title
how about a link to a PDF [jhsph.edu]
Re:Ever notice the drug commercials... (Score:5, Informative)
He can't. He's quoting [naturalnews.com] a website verbatim.
However, the title of the JAMA [jamanetwork.com] article is "Is US Health Really the Best in the World?", and it's available here [jhsph.edu], though apart from the statement (accompanied by another citation that I'm not ambitious enough to track down) of the number of deaths, it says little else relevant to this story.
However, I used to work with those adverse effect records, and citing them directly is incredibly misleading. The 106,000 deaths is only a tiny percentage (0.06%) of the 170,000,000 Americans on prescription medications (rough mental estimate of 48% [cdc.gov]), and it's inflated. The way adverse effects are recorded, any drug that could possibly be the cause of death is recorded as having definitely caused it. If an epilepsy drug causes a side effect, and the patient takes acetaminophen for it but overdoses and dies, the epilepsy drug is considered to be at fault, because the death was a result of its adverse effect.
The reason for this odd system of inflated numbers is that its purpose. The system was designed to inform doctors and researchers of what could happen as a result of a drug's use, including any previously-unknown interactions. By recording that an epilepsy drug, when taken with acetaminophen, could cause overdose symptoms, researchers could be pointed to an interaction between the two medications.
For direct deaths, the percentage (original research, no source) is closer to 0.001%, and the majority of these (to the point where I couldn't really differentiate "all") were where the prescription triggered an allergic reaction that wasn't already known (or at least recorded in the doctors' notes).
Re: (Score:2)
The 106,000 deaths is only a tiny percentage (0.06%) of the 170,000,000 Americans on prescription medications (rough mental estimate of 48% [cdc.gov]), and it's inflated.
WOW!
That's incredible! Essentially, half of Americans are sick?
(I've tried and failed to find a similar statistic for another country.)
Re: (Score:2)
If "sick" is defined as "taking at least one prescription medication in the past month", then yes. That number includes epilepsy treatments, botox injections, and acne medication.
Now, the numbers cannot say anything about the reason for the prescriptions. America may very well be a nation of hypochondriacs, encouraged by the advertisements of a massive pharmaceutical industry. On the other hand, America may be leading at the cutting edge of medical availability, where a majority of the population has access
Re: (Score:2)
For direct deaths, the percentage (original research, no source) is closer to 0.001%, and the majority of these (to the point where I couldn't really differentiate "all") were where the prescription triggered an allergic reaction that wasn't already known (or at least recorded in the doctors' notes).
I'd like to be able to take you at your word, but I'm going to need a peer-reviewed citation. I imagine I'm not the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, I don't have one. I wrote the software that would be used for peer-reviewed research, but I was given other tasks [xkcd.com] once we verified that one particular piece worked.
My method was basically to find the number of deaths noted to be related to a drug, then find the number of deaths related to a drug and related to an allergic reaction. Since this was dealing with medical records, we had intentional inaccuracy on the numbers of about 2.5% (as I recall). Both numbers were the same (as far as the program sh
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is people using statistics to lie. I'm helping fix that. There's another problem of having harmful side effects, but I'm not involved with that problem any more.
If so many people died, and those drugs could affect their health, it means drugs could have deteriorated health at most that much. The system is intentionally designed to collect every possible side effect incident, so doctors know what to look out for. It is not designed to tell doctors "this is exactly how bad this drug is" (that is,
Re: (Score:2)
Citation required
Let me guess: you're not a shill in real life but you play one on Slashdot. :p (Seriously, though...)
I live in a country where this sort of advertising is forbidden.
Conside yourself lucky that you're not here in the States to see this "over-fed, under-nourished and heavily-medicated" phenomenon we refer to as "society." My girlfriend and I only semi-jokingly refer to it as the NWO's obvious plan for population control here in the Western Hemisphere. No exaggeration: I'm about to turn 40 and virtually everyone I meet in their late 20's and 30's looks noticeably more aged
Re: (Score:3)
Address the root causes, and the market for the drugs evaporates. The last thing drug companies want is for you to take responsibility for your lifestyle and actually be healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Address the root causes, and the market for the drugs evaporates. The last thing drug companies want is for you to take responsibility for your lifestyle and actually be healthy.
Given the popularity of performance enhancing stimulants even at the schools preferred by those with functionally unlimited educational resources, I'm not sure that is usefully true in this case. Yes, drug companies want your money. And yes, symptom management for lifestyle diseases is a major market; but the idea that there is actually a state of human affairs without a market for drugs? If so, that'd be a first in human history...
Re: (Score:2)
Then start living that way - dont whine about how the business-controlled government fails to act - why would it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANADoctor, but my understanding is that those cures aren't cures, either.
Exercises can help ED a little, but can't repair the damage of time. Valves get weaker and leak more, so to even have enough blood to keep the corpus cavernosum filled, the pressure in the rest of the body would have to be raised to dangerous levels. Cholesterol can be cut out of the diet, but the blood won't be back to normal for decades, and in that time the patient faces much higher risks from having high cholesterol.
Pills are just
Re: (Score:3)
We need to become like Europe and ban all the junk.
Why? Because we have a bunch of fat people? Because somewhere, there's someone making money off someone's headache? Don't you need to have a reason first? LOL.
When it's about profit, the people get screwed.
And when it's about flimsy pretexts for running other peoples' lives, the people get screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Because somewhere, there's someone making money off someone's headache?
Somewhere, there's someone making money off causing someone's headache, and someone (not necessarily the same someone) making money off treating it.
Slashdotters now the target! (Score:5, Interesting)
I have mod points, but since you are well on your way to +5 insightful, I just want to add some data to this. I am interested in this topic, and I have noticed a series of articles in influential venues, like the Economist, the New York Times, etc. beginning a couple of years ago. They all have a common point: they are reporting some kind of controversial news, like here "doctors are prescribing drugs to poor kids to help them, is this good or bad", while the underlying message is unquestioned, that is, whether those drugs work at all. The underlying message is that they do and that would go without saying.
In the case of the Economist article, unfortunately for the drug companies and the PR firms probably doing this work for them, the reader comments were devastating for this underlying assumption. This article was asking whether it was fair that some students could have recourse to "brain enhancing drugs" bought illegally (like the one used in the treatment of ADHD). Dozens of people having taken drugs as students in the hope of helping at exam times reported their horror stories, and shredded every point of the article.
Big pharrna is financing PhD students in prestigious universities around the world, for work on the use of drugs, not for therapeutic purposes, but for enhancing the brain. This is something that I have myself confirmed meeting one of them.
Now it is the Slashdot crowd being targeted. According to the comments I am reading already, I would say this is another mistake of theirs...
Re: (Score:2)
I am amazed at how many people despise profit. Profit and loss are some of the most important things in a society. They are the single biggest factors that helps efficiently allocate resources. Think of it this way. Big profits is a signal that the demand for a good or service is so outstripping supply that people are willing to pay way more than it costs to provide them. In the same way losses mean people aren't willing to pay what it costs to provide something. In this situation those providers operating
Re: (Score:3)
I am amazed at how many people despise profit.
If people weren't going broke or indeed dying right now because big pharma wants to maximize its profit, your amazment would be understandable. Instead, it proves your moral bankruptcy. There's nothing wrong with individuals making a living providing health care or inventing medications, but there's no reason why anyone should die so that some already-rich dickwads can get richer. This is why if you truly want maximum health care at the best possible price it is necessary to take the profit motive out of me
Re: (Score:2)
You are describing a utopia where there is no scarcity and no labor or resources has to be allocated to produce things. Where what people need is magically created just by wishing for it to exist.
In the real world resources and labor is scarce and needs to be allocated. The most efficient way is a free market that respects property rights and contracts.
You failed to read the rest of this sentence. "Get rid of profit and you have no way of knowing what people want and how to allocate resources to meet it." T
Re: (Score:3)
Actually no, he's not assuming resources cost nothing. He's assuming that a drug which costs 3 cents to make could sell for a dollar rather than 100 dollars, especially when the same company DOES sell it for a dollar in other markets.
As for the rest, you're saying that if not for the obscene profits on pharmaceuticals we might mistakenly think people want more frequent migraines, floppy penises, poor sleep, and uglier more yellowed nails?
Re: (Score:2)
So how do you explain colchicine going from an $8/month prescription to $400 a month when a producer managed to get exclusivity in exchange for doing a single study (widely considered worthless) for the FDA? It has been in use longer than the U.S. has existed. Pure greed with a dash of corruption is the only explanation.
I clearly did NOT confuse marginal and average cost since my example was a 3 cent marginal cost sold for one dollar in some markets, $100 in others.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I have to make this clearer. Making a killing is important because it lets others know this is where the demand is and it shifts resources towards it which brings down prices and profits. You need someone to make a killing by charging what the market will bear otherwise the demand and investments needed to ramp up production CANNOT be identified.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of that research happens in universities under government grants. Other than corruption,. why shouldn't the taxpayers who pay for it own the results?
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about the money -- and it should be illegal.
- no, what should be illegal is government telling people what they can or cannot advertise, what drugs they can or cannot take.
It should be illegal for government to impose patents and copyrights, that's what should be illegal.
It should be illegal for government to set up agencies like FDA, which destroy competition and cause higher prices for all.
It is all always about productivity, which means money. It's all business and only business is interested in satisfying the customers. But once government is i
Re: (Score:3)
Libertarians are incredibly naive.
The reason we have an FDA isn't that evil Collectivists under Fascist/Communist influence decided to Destroy Freedom (tm). It's that conmen abused freedom by pissing in a bottle, calling it an anti-cancer wonder drug, and charging desperate people their life savings for it. When the modern FDA was created (1906) no Fascists existed anywhere, and Communists did not have any power in any government whatsoever. The President who signed the bill was Teddy Roosevelt. The modern
Re: (Score:2)
Of course with new pharmaceuticals it is impossible to get information on side effects without government intervention. The only people who actually know whether Joe Blow's cancer drug is Joe Blow's piss-in-a-bottle are Joe Blow and his employees. They are also the only people who know whether Joe Blow made up his success stories.
Literally the only non-government-alternative to an FDA that allows a free market is a private cartel pushing something like a Good Housekeeping label. And a private FDA, funded en
Re: (Score:2)
Ever notice the drug commercials? None of them address the underlying cause -- they address only the symptoms.
Every notice that lawyers buy commercial for essentially the same time slots? "Have you or someone you loved taken _____? You may be entitled to financial compensation! Call now!"
Re: (Score:2)
Ever notice the drug commercials? None of them address the underlying cause -- they address only the symptoms.
* Your dick doesn't work: Don't get exercise that could actually improve your blood flow. Don't eat right. Take this ridiculously expensive pill. Notice the age of the men on these commercials has dropped from what once was older mean, now the guys could be in their late 30s. WTF?
* Your cholesterol is thru the roof: Don't cut out fatty foods and fried goodies. Don't get exercise. Take this pill that has more side effects that the black plague.
First, you make the stupid assumption that people aren't already trying these things, or that they are suffering the effects of things that happened in the past. You can't tell someone to go back in time and live a healthier life. Secondly, who cares if they want to spend their money on dick pills? The reason there are so many drugs to treat symptoms is because nobody has figured out how to fix the underlying cause. By your logic, band-aids and casts should be banned- they just treat the symptoms, after
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the GP meant "good" calories in the sense that those foods have nutrients. Of course, it's then the food and not the calories that are good.
Re: (Score:2)
Tech the test and having funding be all about the (Score:2)
Tech the test and having funding be all about the TEST needs to go.
As well college for all over more trades / tech schooling.
Hyperbolic much? (Score:3)
While I'd be hard pressed to say nice things about the cheap seats of US educational policy, isn't it a trifle hyperbolic to equate ritalin and friends with the genuinely hardcore pharmaceuticals you'd find in a '60s psych ward(or even a present-day one, antipsychotics are not a pleasant bunch, on the whole)?
It certainly seems like a bad plan to make psychiatrists(or GPs and nurses forced to fill in because real psychiatrists are expensive) the first-line people for problems that often have social fixes; but are the common psychostimulants really serious enough to fill the role of terrifying bogey-man here?
Re: (Score:3)
No, because a significant number of 'those' drugs are the same drugs that Nurse Ratchet was dispensing, or, at best, their slightly better behaved cousins. It's not just amphetamines (and they're pretty potent in and of themselves). It's haloperidol (Haldol), respiridone (Respirdol), Quetiapine (Seroquel) - all somewhat improved versions of Chlorpromazine (Thorazine).
Drugs that I think twice of giving in the ER with an acutely psychotic person.
This stuff goes well beyond antidepressants and benzos. It is
Its not society's problem (Score:2)
Daily Show, my source for news for nerds (Score:2)
Apropos of nothing in particular, I got this story first from the Daily Show, downloaded yesterday, broadcast the day before, and summarising TV news stories from earlier in the week.
Re: (Score:2)
Doh. Sorry - Colbert Report not Daily Show. Wednesday: The Word - Meducation.
Schools don't get the best and brightest nurses. (Score:2)
Being a school nurse is not a resume enhancer. It's not a position most nurses will seek out. It is often a last resort because they've screwed up or washed out elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Life has no rewind button.
Yes. But thanks to drugs, it has a fast forward button.
THX1138 (Score:4, Insightful)
Really! They made a movie about this.
no biggie (Score:2)
As a child of the sixties, I can testify that psychotropic medications are fuckin'-a great.
I was medicated through half of high school and all of college. I was too broke to score during grad school, but managed to bogart enough from the trust fund babies in my class at Columbia to maintain.
And look how well I turned out. My twelve-toed daughter is very proud of her old dad.
Its been this way for years.... (Score:2)
See the racket is with big phrama, its a shell game. They get everyone hooked on drugs, and when they can't pay, they get the government to subsidize it.
If the government subsidizes it, the poor can pay for the life destroying chemicals, and the tax payer foots the bill. Big Phrama is still getting paid somehow.
Like other industries, they can use celebrities, hollywood PR goons and famous "liberal" personalilities to spin their racket into a "postive good".
This is a weird situation (Score:2)
"The War on Kids" Documentary (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_on_Kids [wikipedia.org]
"The War on Kids is a 2009 documentary film about the American school system. The film takes a look at public school education in America and concludes that schools are not only failing to educate, but are increasingly authoritarian institutions more akin to prisons that are eroding the foundations of American democracy. Students are robbed of basic freedoms primarily due to irrational fears; they are searched, arbitrarily punished and force-fed dangerous pharmace
How is this not malpractice? (Score:2)
Surely the State medical boards should be reminding doctors that they are there to treat ILLNESS, not act as equivalents to the team "medical consultants" on your average Tour de France team or whatever.
society "investing" is the cause of the problem (Score:2)
The slashdot summary has this sentence quoted from a doctor: "We as a society have been unwilling to invest in very effective nonpharmaceutical interventions," hyperlinked to this [salon.com] blog post on Salon. However, there appears to be no logical link between the quote and the blog post. The blog post doesn't describe any "effective nonpharmaceutical interventions." Actually, what it describes is a situation where a sixth-grader wasn't interested in doing his school work, the parents tried dealing with it using no
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe the story (and I find it eminently credible, if biased), there simply was no problem with the kid. His test scores were high, but the teachers were put off by the fact that he "didn't seem to do any work". He had teachers who "were ready to retire, a little jaded and bitter". The principal was "a woman concerned primarily with the condition of her hair and nails". One teacher "notoriously disliked boys", another "could neither teach history nor control the class". Turning to drugs to cop
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it matters whether we believe her story or not. Regardless of whether we believe her interpretation of the situation: (1) there was a problem, which consisted of a mismatch between the kid's genetically determined, natural behavior and the modern social environment that his beh
The American Way (Score:2)
Ignore the problem as long as possible and, when it no longer be ignored, look for the fastest, easiest fix without considering the long-term consequences (because, hey, it'll be someone else's problem by then, right?)
It's easier to shove pills down their throats than it is to foster a supportive and productive environment (that takes time and effort ... who wants to do *that*?), but how will these kids cope in the future when their minds haven't learned how to function without psychoactive drugs?
Oh, that's
Academic performance lacks intrinsic value (Score:2)
I think the major problem here is the inflated role of academic performance. Our society drains the individual of value and reduces him to pieces of paper. What we need is to change society, such that people are judged on their individual merits and not on academic performance.
Reform the educational system, provide alternate routes to good employment. Shutdown the school-prison pipeline.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the major problem here is the inflated role of academic performance. Our society drains the individual of value and reduces him to pieces of paper. What we need is to change society, such that people are judged on their individual merits and not on academic performance.
Reform the educational system, provide alternate routes to good employment. Shutdown the school-prison pipeline.
Absolutely. Now, we need to figure out a way to judge someone on their merits... without paper... and there was that employment thing... Whoa. This is too hard. Maybe that idea to make more prisons WILL solve the unemployment problem. At least we could try it. Some more.
WHAT? (Score:2)
"All drugs are sedatives" (Score:3)
There is an interesting misconception that all psychotropic drugs have sedative effects or make the user more submissive. That's not true. Antipsychotics are sedating, the older typical antipsychotics more so than the newer ones. However, stimulants are the opposite of sedatives. Antidepressants aren't sedatives. Most psychotropic drugs aren't sedatives.
Let's see if I have this right (Score:2)
Taking drugs so you can hit more home runs and command a higher salary is bad bad bad and may result in congressional hearings.
Taking drugs so you can get a letter grade higher on that all important pre-algebra test is good good good!
Does that about cover it?
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I choose to give up a little more bombing brown people, a little more bailing out banks, and I'll throw in giving up all of TSA.
Or is it that "nonpharmaceutical" interventions... (Score:2)
for the most part, are about as effective as showing the kids pictures of fluffy pink bunnies? Just maybe. Sorry, but after you get a psychology degree, you're likely to get *really* unromantic about human behaviour. It's not magic, or unpredictable. You can fix certain things with chemicals, or other direct neurophysiological interventions commonly called "punishment" or "reward," but virtually all other merely cognitive or verbal efforts fail miserably.
This is an interesting approach... (Score:2)
Of course, there is a difference between using drugs and abusing drugs, but good luck getting drug warriors to admit that. As unhelpful as DARE has been since it's start, it reaches a new level of absurd when police officers come to schools to teach classrooms ful
The Dog has ADHD? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You name your blow up dolls? Creepy...
Re: (Score:2)
Except the stimulants they give kids are bad for them, personality changes, repetitive behavior, loss of creativity, abnormal development of normal executive function skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you're complaining about -- all the things you list are the intended effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The personality changes are desired; the child is expected to become less of a problem. The repetitive behavior is desired; that's what schoolwork is. I might be pushing it with loss of creativity, but I suspect that helps with the schoolwork as well. And the "abnormal development of normal executive function skills" are intended as well -- although the abnorm
Re: (Score:3)
We can make the kids parents pay for pills to almost fix the problem.
Instead of actually fixing the problems which might be expensive and take a long time.
Cheap easy short term gains are awesome! Lets build an entire country like that!
I think you missed the description: "....said Dr. Ramesh Raghavan, an expert in prescription drug use among low-income children."
low-income probably meaning welfare section 8 food stamps. The parents can't afford a roof for themselves or their children, much less pills.
I say, whatever works. If pills make these kids stay in school and out of jail off welfare and section 8 there's nothing wrong with that, and the pills are probably cheaper.
Positives:
1) More productive life for individual
2) Ta