I think that everyone wishes that, Blackcat.
My "situation" (as you put it) is that I got an advanced degree investigating the changes in midbrain neurochemistry initiated by the administration of a variety of drugs of abuse. So I do
know that what I'm saying is factually correct with respect to the molecular neuroscience at work behind the pharmacology. I also have a basis for my opinion which is neither personal nor anecdotal.
I'm not suggesting-- at all-- that it's "abusive" to medicate children who clearly require intervention. That's not my place, and I truly-- in spite of many parents' (understandable) defensiveness on the subject-- don't judge those parents who DO opt to medicate children so that they are functional
while they are children. I agree that waiting it out isn't always an option. I find many of those situations to be
heartbreaking-- but I definitely don't think that it's bad parenting or anything else but biological misfortune at work. I don't really judge parenting (in general) on the basis of child behaviors unless I've seen enough examples of poor management/coping to warrant concern.
What I am saying is that there is not an "undo" on medicating with any of the drugs that treat ADHD/ADD. They really do cause permanent regulatory changes in the reward and learning centers in the brain. Does this set up kids who have been medicated to be
dependent upon those same drugs as adults? I'd consider that (professionally) to be a distinct possibility, based on what I know.
Maybe that's a price that parents feel okay paying, and maybe some of them don't KNOW that this is a thing they are choosing. Clinicians sure sell AD(H)D meds as harmless-- and they most certainly are not. THAT is my axe to grind on this subject. Nothing more and nothing less. I personally feel increasingly convinced that general practitioners probably ought not be prescribing drugs with this kind of addiction liability. But that's me.
My larger question is still-- WHO SAYS that "normal" 8yo children are capable of sitting still for 30 minutes? WHO SAYS-- and how do they actually know this is true? Maybe some kids just need a radically different kind of childhood than seems within reach for most families now...
Large motor breaks in primary school settings really have shifted dramatically over the past 40 years. Not all children
can meet those expectations now, and I don't think that all of them have pathology as a reason
why they can't. Why are so many more BOYS seemingly incapable of meeting "typical" expectations now? Used to be, it was girls who couldn't-- because they were not as aggressive by nature (or perhaps nurture) and schools were set up to favor that more aggressive/assertive, physical style. Times have changed.
I definitely think that ADH(H)D is real, and I wish that it WERE clear during childhood which of them SHOULD (versus should not) get medication. Some kids can have behavior which is
truly extreme. In those kids, yes-- it is WAY clear that they are not anywhere near the center of the distribution. I just think that it
is a distribution-- so not so clear where to draw the line at "dysfunction."
I actually agree with you on most points, blackcat. I'm sorry that your experiences with others judging your parenting have left you expecting judgment from others. My apologies if my post was unclear.
I think that Pearson's article is
heinous.
