Anthony Dillon,

On the contrary - why don't you do some research. You might like to begin with an in-depth study of autistic behaviours and hypersensitivities. You might then learn that a small child displaying deficits in these areas is in need of extra understanding and support by those who will be commandeering his school hours. You might also find that a "label" is required if school authorities are to recognise that this particular child needs extra assistance to fit their square selves into society's institutionalised round holes. You might also learn of the hell that some children and families endure when these needs are not diagnosed and addressed.

I'm not particularly in favour of mass screening for these types of developmental and behavioural "conditions", however, if a child is clearly demonstrating tell-tale behaviours and sensitivities and struggling to keep up or integrate with their peers, it is vital in a homogeneous situation (such as is found in Western mass education) that these be addressed.

Just wanted to add that by the term "extra assistance", I'm not referring to medication. I am not in favour of medicating children so that they will "sit down and shut up" while in class. My point was that extra assistance is often required to help these children in an instutionalised setting - more one-on-one attention. This cannot happen unless the child's problems are assessed in the first place.

Saltpetre, quite a respectful response. Thank you. The effects of placebos are perhaps more powerful than what you might think. Have you read the book 'Bad Science" (I can't recall the author, and a colleague has borrowed my copy)? It gives some amazing studies that look at the effects of placebos. With regard to the 'healing' effect that psychotropic medication appears to have, I suggest you look at the book by psychiatrist Joanna Moncrieff called: The myth of the chemical cure: A critique of psychiatric drug treatment." The drugs have an effect, but it is not one of correcting a chemical imbalance.

I agree that mental disorders, are not generally called diseases, but there are many health professionals who do. I am currently writing a journal article on this now where I make reference to that.

You say "It is horses for courses, and not all horses have the same problems or needs - and it is up to the qualified clinician to determine." What exactly is it that the 'qualified clinician' determines?

You say "It's up to a court, a psychiatrist, or both to determine." That is how it is on our society. But how is it done? The psychiatrist simply makes a claim and is considered to be an expert.

Anthony,

I'm not a psychiatrist or health worker, so I am not in a position to give a definitive response to your questions. I just have had some direct experience, as outlined before, and did some research on the internet to better understand the situation. I became satisfied, both theoretically and in that particular practical situation, that chemical intervention is sometimes efficacious in enabling corrective attention to underlying problems. Does the chemical or the counseling have the greatest effect - I am not in a position to determine. Was some trial and error involved in isolating the most efficacious medication regimen, yes. Did the medication lead to improvement, yes. Was the situation without medication manageable, yes, but was also a hairy ride on some of those occasions. Were some lessons learned on those occasions, yes.

Since there appears to be some disagreement between practicing psychiatrists on the use of medication, I suggest this serves to indicate the complexity of this most human of sciences, the complexity of the human brain and its 'chemistry', and the extensive range of variations possible in what may be termed 'mental illness', both as to cause, and to effect.

If, say, serotonin re-uptake inhibitors do not have an effect on brain chemical balance (as you seem to suggest), then what might otherwise account for the improvement experienced by relevant patients? Clinical trials would surely have established the variance in placebo and genuine medication outcomes, would they not? How else do you think these medications are approved for use in the first place.

Poirot,

Agreed some medications may be designed to make one sit down, shut up, and take notice - but I would expect such to only be used in extreme circumstances or with otherwise dangerous patients. My limited experience demonstrated that correct medication not only enabled but actually facilitated learning and development - for what it's worth.

Saltpetre, another respectful response. Thank you. Certainly there is always the possibility that for some people their moods/disorders, etc are due to a chemical imbalance which some medication can sometimes correct. But I get suspicious when people make these claims as if they were true, and the science is just not there to back up those claims. Jefferson said it is only a lie that needs defending.

You mention clinical trials. Based on your last posting, it would seem that you may not know the full story of clinical testing when it comes to psychotropic medication. I will let you purse that topic if you are keen. Quoting from Dan Carlat again: "If I relied on the published medical literature for information (and what else can I rely on?) it would appear that 94% of all antidepressant trials are positive. But if I had access to all the suppressed data, I would see that the truth is that only about half-51%-of trials are positive." Why a clinical trial shoes that a drug is not effective, why do you think it is unlikely to get published?

Here's another quote from Dr Terry Lunch from his excellent book "Beyond Prozac":

We find ways of repackaging emotional distress to make it more palatable. The main repackaging process society uses is to classify distress as 'mental illness'.

Feel free to email if you wish to continue this discussion as I think I have said all I am prepared to say here.
A

Saltpetre,

Well, yes in extreme circumstances, however, these medications are used relatively commonly for children with high-functioning autism/Aspergers. And the upshot is that it is only for school. I've heard parents brag that they only dose up their kids for school, that when the holidays arrive they take them off medication. The fact that it can often take six weeks for the body to adapt to the medication makes one wonder what a child who is periodically medicated goes through - not to mention weight loss and sleep issues.

Having said that, I do believe, as I've stated above, that these conditions do need to be recognised, but dealt with generally in a non-medicated way. Institutionalisd learning does have serious challenges for children on the spectrum.