Just so you all know

major bean wrote: Good parenting includes protecting your child from social scrutiny. A parent should never voluntarily say publicly or privately that their child has a personality, character, or mental problem.

This is not in the best interest of the child and it may follow him/her for the rest of life, in commerce, with the government, and in relationship with civil liberties. Certain things should be kept private.

MB, I'd ask you to consider that there is social scrutiny: from other parents and from teachers when you are called to leave work and collect your child from daycare when your child commits an atrocious offense. In kindergarten, get a call that they are in the principle's office because they hit their teacher in the face. Twice. All because the teacher attempted to re-direct them after they hit another child - does that sound normal for a 5 year old? You say that you cannot fathom a parent putting their child on drugs, but I assume that this means that you haven't had to deal with a child who throws themselves around screaming bloody murder every morning just because it's time to get dressed, and I thank the Fates that you have not experienced this because it is hell. When you've tried changing their diet, taking a 5 year old to a psychologist, or sensory integrative therapy combined with sound therapy and jin shin, all to no avail, you have nowhere left to turn. The despair that you as a parent feels because your child is shunned at daycare and school because the other kids have no idea when he's going to go off and don't want to be around when, not if, it happens. All the while knowing that your child is a good-hearted kid, doesn't maliciously mean to hurt anyone, and you are doing your damndest to raise them to be respectful of others and make good choices. You can see them struggling to understand how to make the good choice, but getting frustrated and angry because they don't have the tools/capability.

And also the child should not be told that he has a problem, or is different, or deficient. This destroys a child and the results will wreak family and social havoc whenever he starts into adulthood.

Of course, this is going to follow him - it's a life-long battle. As I stated clearly earlier,

we live in a society in which differences are not celebrated but scorned, and in which victimhood is common - I prescribe to neither notion.

My son has learned that his ADHD means only that he has to try harder than his peers to focus and get his work done, NOT that there's anything wrong with him, and to make sure that he eats on a regular basis, especially protein sources that provide the amino acids that his brain needs (we pack extra snacks for school and it is in his accommodations that the teacher make sure that he eats when he needs to - at the recommendation of the teachers who recognized that he was getting hungry at school and when that happened he was more likely to make poor decisions acting out, being disruptive, or even belligerent). We've even almost filed a 504 Plan with his school so that his records transfer from year to year and each teacher can review what methods were instituted that worked best to help him succeed in school.

I cannot imagine a parent who would subject their child to drug treatments. A parent must research after the recommendation has been made to them, and then deny approval after seeing all of the questions concerning such a treatment. If for no other reason than doubt.

Trusting doctors and other "experts" is extremely foolish. ALL medical treatments are the decision of the patient or guardian, not the doctors. That is the reason that consent forms were invented.

Doctors and experts are human, with human motivations, limitations, and agendas. Parents should have ONLY ONE motivation: what is the absolute wisest upbringing for their child.

There is too much controversy in the area of ADHD for a parent to consent to this diagnosis and treatment. Psychotropic drugs have dangers which will affect the child that are irreversible.

Do you really think that I didn't research all the alternatives available, and try them first, before acceding to medication? Or that I didn't research everything about the drugs available, benefits and negative consequences? CG pointed this out in her post, but I notice that you skipped right over it. If we can't trust doctors and the accumulated observed evidence then what's left as a society for us? Of course all medical treatments are the decision of the parent, absolutely no one pushed us into it; as a matter of fact, we were so reluctant to go that route that our pediatrician helped us find a psychologist to take our son to when we consulted with him as to what our options were. And we held off until we had no other option to try, even then doing it with the thought that it would be temporary. I agree that the only motivation should be to make the decision that is in the best interest of the child - we tried it, took him back off, tried school without it again, and when he requested it because he could tell the difference in his ability to self-regulate, we realized that he had gained an important first step in his ability to recognize his limitations to go it alone and ask for help - there's nothing shameful in that. And as he gets older, and gains more and more skills of self-discipline, awareness of his body and what his emotions/physical symptoms mean and how to address them effectively, he won't need the medication any longer. We look forward to that day immensely. We've enrolled him in Taekwondo with the hope that the discipline and focus he learns there will speed along the process (in one year and 3 months time, he's moved up 3 belt levels and is now in the Black Belt Club - extra classes with the adults! And he's fearless going up against them). In the meantime, we do our best to keep his environment stable, reduce negative effects of diet, provide additional assistance with his schoolwork (he tutored over the last summer with his old teacher and at Regis University Reading Program). I invite you to spend half a day with him and see that he's an extremely intelligent, thoughtful, enthusiastic, curious, astute, assertive, authoritative (and authoritative questioning!), awesome boy who treats his little sister very well as an equal and, mostly, respects his elders (he is still a kid after all, but he says Yes Sir and Yes Ma'am more than most kids his age).

The controversy stems from the fact that no therapy is fine-tuned well enough to be effective for everyone. There is still much that we have to learn about the functioning of the brain. Medicine available today is crude in its use; but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's dangerous, ineffective, or wrong to try. There are controversies because people don't adequately/fully educate themselves on all the pros and cons and efficacy of each therapy - just like the controversies surrounding vaccines.

Nmysys, MB provided the judgmental side of the coin, and nothing else with his first post. He didn't bring up the other therapies/viewpoints until I made my post - and he brought up nothing that I hadn't already researched. What he posted afterwards is good info for others out there who are just beginning to discover this in their children, and was an affirmation of what I posted - to research all the available therapies and decide which works best for you and your child, and try new ones if at first you don't succeed. The difference being that I presented mine without judging the decisions of others. Consider his first statement:

ADHD. Any parent who would let their child be doped up is unloving and not fit to be a parent.

Any parent: that means all of us, including me. Now, he didn't know that there'd be someone on this board who falls into this category, but this is a big sweeping categorization.

"Who would let" - an assumption that every parent just passively lets doctors/teachers/schools make the medical decisions for them in regards to their child. I pointed out that that is also a big assumption, albeit with my own experience but I have no other to draw from. None of my other friends thankfully have had to deal with this in their children.

"Be doped up" - this has a negative connotation associated with illegal drugs; mood stabilizing drugs are not illegal. There's also a huge difference between drugging your child to the point of stupor and starting with a low to middle dosage and re-evaluating on a regular basis for modification base don physical symptoms and behavioral modifications observed.

"Is unloving and not fit to be a parent" - a subjective judgment made by MB based on his own personal preferences for how to parent. Do you think I'm unloving and unfit to be a parent, based on what you know of me and how I interact with my kids Nmysys? How else would you take this, if this statement applied to you somehow?

As for your friend who grew up to become a scientist, how do you know that their life still wouldn't have turned out the same, or better for that matter? You've seen my son - would you ever have guessed that he's on medication, based on his energy level. active engagement of others, and incessant questioning? I can answer that for you, because when I've told others, they've 100% expressed incredulity. There's a huge misconception that putting kids on stimulants makes them zombies - it is absolutely untrue if you have a good doctor who knows the correct dosages to administer. Just because it wasn't labeled before 1994, or because the label has such a negative connotation, doesn't mean that that child is disabled for life, just that they need a little extra effort and unconventional intervention in order to succeed to their fullest.

major bean wrote:

Sunshine Girl wrote:

major bean wrote: Good parenting includes protecting your child from social scrutiny. A parent should never voluntarily say publicly or privately that their child has a personality, character, or mental problem.

This is not in the best interest of the child and it may follow him/her for the rest of life, in commerce, with the government, and in relationship with civil liberties. Certain things should be kept private.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here MB. You sound like SC should be ashamed or embarrassed because her child suffers with something that MANY other people have too. I don't believe that there is ANYTHING that needs to be swept under the rug or only dealt with privately. Quite on the contrary in fact. Let's take Alzheimers disease for a different example. This is something that effects older people instead of younger people. If my parent was afflicted with this ailment I would not be embarrassed or ashamed either. I believe the only way to NOT stigmatize people is for people to talk about it and share their experiences in dealing with it. Also by not sweeping it under the carpet do we make it a very real issue that we NEED TO talk about and find a cure or ways of alleviating some of the symptoms it causes. There is NO SHAME when anyone has a disorder, disease, or condition. As a society our first responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors should be compassion and understanding. But that is just my opinion. When you look at the situation in the way of "Good parenting includes protecting your child from social scrutiny. A parent should never voluntarily say publicly or privately that their child has a personality, character, or mental problem" then it is no wonder we have bullying in schools, a partial close-minded society, and a lack of compassion to our fellow human beings.

That post concerned the child. To hell with how the parent feels. The child's best interest is what the parent should have in her/his heart.

If a parent has issues with what problems that their child may have, then the parent has some major issues.

Absolutely, agree 100%!