We see a lot of mis-prescribing among our admissions. Every week we have at least one where we ask
“Who the hell thought she should be prescribed Adderall? Now she’s manic and
lost her job!” Or “I can see why they were giving her Celexa, because she’s
depressed and the delusions have an obsessive quality. But that’s just not cutting it. She needs an antipsychotic.” Thus I am at one level sympathetic to the the
idea of meds being the problem. I see
lots of it.
We like things to be neat and tidy. Sometimes they are. The sign says STOP. The customer has ordered chicken tenders. To
get a refund you have to mail in the slip. I’m betting your job isn’t always
that simple, and ours certainly isn’t.
The usual criticisms of prescribing are that the doctor only sees people
for a a few minutes, that they are too ready to see certain conditions and are
not aware of others, that they have been fooled by a patient who is
intentionally or unintentionally lying, or that drug reps influence them too
much. All rather true, but
misleading. Personalities are
complicated, and presentations are complicated.
Hell, you can’t even tell in yourself, can you? Am I depressed? Coming down with something?
Not eating right? Refusing to
acknowledge my real situation? Constipated?
Actually anxious, or OCD, or histrionic?
Spiritually dead? Reacting normally to hard times? Too busy? More traumatised than I thought? How’s my
thyroid?
If you can’t tell, living inside your own head, do you think
ten minutes more with the doctor is going to make everything come clear for
her? This is doubly complicated with the
young, or uncommunicative, because then we have to get our information from
others – usually mom – whose input can range from brilliant to
pathological. We all present differently
at different times, and this is magnified when we are uncomfortable. We put in energy to look good, or to describe
precisely how it’s not good at all, or to resolve in out own minds how both
things are true.
Psychoactive medications do have side effects, or unexpected
effects. Are antidepressants for kids
being overprescribed? It’s a great newsy
sort of item. But some kids are getting
them that shouldn’t, and some aren’t getting them that should. We know that no matter what the
general average is. See also pain meds,
ADD meds, anti-anxiety agents, OCD medications.
What is happening as a general narrative is useful only in whether it
red-flags the treatment for a particular patient. People arrive at the doctor’s office in
distress. Sometimes they don’t clearly
meet criteria for anything, but have two or three things that they might be
suffering from. And they are miserable –
or they are disquietingly dangerous in their thoughts – or they are not doing
well in school. What’s the best thing to do?
In the national discussion, this gets further complicated by
people with agendas. They are sold on
organics and hate Big Pharma, so they seize on every problem, refusing to acknowledge benefit. Or their theology
says you shouldn’t need medications (not only Scientology or Christian Science
– there are Christian groups, particularly those influenced by chiropractic,
natural healing, or promise-driven readings that can get you to the same
place. A lot of the Oral Roberts/Kenneth
Hagin theology is pretty cultish, though I don’t know who their current
successors are). Or they just need to
know more than everyone present.
Whenever there is a general narrative about psychiatric meds being
peddled in the wake of a tragedy, I assume that an agenda-driven group
is behind it. Rahm Emanuel is not the
only one who remembers Alinsky’s dictum of never letting a crisis go to waste.
It’s hard not to see them as vultures, actually. I can squint and see that maybe they want to
ease another’s suffering, but no. 9 times
out of 10 that’s the rationalisation, not the reason.
3 comments:
OK -- it's all much more complex than it seems, awash in hidden forces and currents difficult to discern. That's all a given. I too am prone to pass anything pronouncement of doom (or victory) through a grid of "it's not that simple."
But it's also not that easy to dismiss by saying it's not that simple.
Take your one example of the time with the doctor. If you take your argument to it's logical extreme -- we should reduce our time with the doctor to ZERO. Just mail in the payment and skip the appointment. Our results would be the same. You point rather assumes that the extra ten minutes would be spent with you and the doctor simply sitting in chairs looking at each other. Certainly in a less hurried conversation other questions might be asked. Other answers might be given. Causes heretofore hidden might be revealed. I think that is a very reasonable assumption IF one also assumes that the physician is actually trying to do her job.
And granted -- some kids get meds who should and vice versa. My question is more along the lines of how endemic is the prescription of meds to children under 18 and how much as it grown in the past 30 years? If we have an entire age-based swathe of our population awash in psychoactive substances that are NOT tested for safety within that age cohort, is that not worth looking at? My understanding is that clinical tests on many of these drugs involved primarily the affects on adult brains. They affect young brains differently.
I could be completely wrong. Probably am. I don't know.
I'm skeptical of most psychoactive drugs myself, but if I were miserable enough to consider using them, I'd want someone as thoughtful as you to help me decide which ones.
My poor bipolar nephew has tried many medications, none of which seem to help. He's just in and out of the hospital all the time.
The safety is certainly worth knowing about - for someone. I don't know how to measure that, and I'm betting most of the people who write about it don't either. That doesn't mean it's not valuable to know about, just that I have nothing to contribute other than suspicions of all parties.
The larger issues of "what are we medicating?" are worth looking at. The kids can't sit still long enough, keep disrupting class? Why do we ask them to sit for that long? We reward the calmer, not necessarily the brighter or more capable, side of the bell curve.
Or we hate to see sad kids. Of course we do. So we figure something that fixes the feeling fixes the problem. To a point, that's true.
Yet perhaps even the negatives are a net gain. We see all sorts of things wrong that we think we can help kids with - conditions we just ignored and told them to leave us alone in past generations. When we know at some level there is nothing we can do, we just point the kid in directions where we hope they will find some way in the world. Once we suspect we might help, we do stuff, even if we do it badly.
I'm not sure that just because we are doing it badly means we should stop. It still may be a net gain.
Post a Comment