Hyper Kid? Give Em a Pill

            For those of us that spend much of our free time watching television, rather than spending spare time doing more productive activities, it seems like there is a pill or drug for every possible condition we may posses. It seems like the commercials that advertise these products have been increasing over the past decade. It was the memories of these commercials that made me want to write my blog post on erectile dysfunction, but due to it not being really a mental issue I had to abandon the plan and turn to another well publicized conditions. This would be the condition of attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This blog is not discrediting that some do suffer form ADD/ADHD, but rather takes an approach that it is over-diagnosed and over-medicated. Growing up as a child of the 1990’s ADD/ADHD was not a stranger to the classroom. It become largely diagnosed in the mid 1990s and continues to today, when kids are often off task or not wanting to sit still and partake in lessons. Back then, these kids were known as “hyper”, but now they are seen as “sick”, and in this culture of pharmaceuticals there is a pill that can make them all better.

Taken From http://whosright.com/poll/could-adhd-be-genetic

The DSM-IV criteria for ADHD states that “symptoms of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity have been present for at least six months to a point that is disruptive and inappropriate for the development level”. It includes that they may have trouble staying focused on tasks, dislikes things that take lots of mental effort, is forgetful, is disorganized, fidgets in seat, and may blurt out answers. Personally, I do not see these as characteristics that are outside of typical childhood behavior. Also, the “development level” that these children are being measured to is nothing more than a social construction of how the children of a particular age should act. It is even seen in a class reading that the younger students in a grade are 60 percent more likely to bediagnosed with ADD/ADHD than the oldest students in a grade. It also addresses that due to these guidelines the younger children may be being over-diagnosed. The common treatment for ADD/ADHD is to prescribe these “sick” children with a psychostimulate drug, such as Ritalin or Adderall. It functions by blocking the transmission of dopamine and noradrenaline in the brain, very similar to the effects of methamphetamine and cocaine. These drugs have also contributed to a wide spread abuse of proscription drugs. These kinds of drugs can actually alter the brain, and how it develops. This is especially true for children, who still have developing brains.

Taken From http://www.soberlanding.com/category/prescription-drug-addiction

The use of media to advertise these pharmaceutical drugs can also cause parents and other adults, such as teacher, coaches, etc., to self diagnose children as having ADD/ADHD, even though they lack the proper training. The doctors they subsequently take them to may even stand to profit from the pharmaceutical companies for prescribing their product. Other countries, such as Canada, have taken approaches to limit prescription drug advertising on television; much the same way that tobacco companies are not allowed to advertise in the US. Even celebrities such as Adam Levine are used in a ADHD advertisements made by Shire Pharmaceuticals. The parents believe that these cure all drugs will fix their “sick” children. If these drugs are not completely working luckily there is a new drug to take in addition to the stimulant drug they are likely already prescribed. “Your child’s stimulant medicine may be helping, but some ADHD symptoms can still get in the way,” is stated on the website for Intuniv. Now children can take several pills to cure their “illness”. With advertisements like this it is hard to not think the pharmaceutical companies are wanting to make a profit off a new segment of the market and are taking us for a ride. This argument is even the focus of Common Radius Films’ Generation Rx. Can one really blame a child for not wanting to be stuck in a classroom to learn for six hours a day, especially with an increased focus on standardized testing? It’s also the children that don’t fit into the socially constructed ideals of what a student should be that are targeted. It is all about conforming and fitting into the mold.

Taken From http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20441463,00.html

The children that don’t fit in this mold are often thought of as having something wrong with them and a fix is searched for, and for some the result if medication. It is these children that live outside the box that make the great changes in society. These include great thinkers like Da Vince, Einstein, and Aristotle. The use of these medications could be killing off the next generation of great thinkers by quite literally rewiring their brains. One subject that cannot be ignored is that some children do require additional help and supervision, but with much of the society having both parents working (if even still together) they may not be able to provide the additional time for their children, and turn to medication for help. One must be sure to not think that ADD/ADHD is not only in children, but is also diagnosed to many adults and they also get medication to “cure” them.

Taken From http://ritalinsideeffects.net/

There is a reoccurring theme of what is considered deviant is a social construction. It has been stated in the blog posts before this one as well as here. Not fitting into the ideas and molds for how one should act is how someone becomes deviant. Unfortunately there are many ways for school children to not fit in and become deviant. Acting a specific way could get one diagnosed and not only labeled as deviant but also as “sick”. Through advertisements about this “sickness” people become worried about their children and more and more take them to a doctor to get diagnosed and prescribed a drug to “fix” them, and the doctors also might get a kick back from the pharmaceutical companies in one form or another. The effects of these drugs then can actually alter the development of a child’s brain and turn them into a different person than if they had never taken these drugs. Again, this post is not to say that some people legitimately have ADD/ADHD and need help, but that it is over publicized and over diagnosed so that drug companies can make a profit off of parents’ fear that their might be something wrong with their children, and that drugs are the only way to make them better.

Word Count: 1091

           

Generation Rx Film Review

What is the main thesis of this film?

What appears to be the main thesis of the film is that the prescription drug companies have created an epidemic of ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, and depression in school aged children, and that medication is the only answer. This is done only to gain a profit for the drug companies at a disregard for the effects, both short and long term, that they may have on the children.

Taken From http://forum.baby-gaga.com/about1937535.html

What were the main arguments in support of the thesis?

The main arguments that were in support of this thesis were that there has been an increasing amount of children that have been diagnosed with the aforementioned conditions and received psycho stimulant drugs to help treat their conditions. These drugs alter the brain and can cause a developing brain to develop in a different way than it normally would. On top of this, there is some evidence that the FDA not only failed to acknowledge dangerous side effects, but many people in the FDA also stood to benefit from profits made by these drugs.

How does the thesis of this film relate to the course?

This thesis relates to the theme of the class by showing that almost everything we know or believe is the result of a social construction. This not only addresses how certain actions that many used to attribute to great thinker that made great breakthroughs in many fields of study have become deviant illnesses, like described in “The Frowners”, but also the accepted treatments can vary by time, place, and context. 

Taken From http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=6084

Which arguments/points did you find the most convincing?

What I found most convincing was the effects that the drugs can have on still developing brains. I took bio psychopharmacology last year and learned how substances can actually change a brain, and this happening to a still growing brain can have very extreme effects. These changes can then have very dangerous side effects of violence towards others or towards one’s self.

Which arguments/points did you find the least convincing?

It was hard to find something that I did not see as convincing in this film, but it does seem to focus a decent amount of time in the beginning of the film towards school shootings. The film seemed to really attribute these actions to the side effects of the prescription drugs these kids were taking. This is a bit of a different approach than what was talked about with masculinity in class, and Michael Kimmel’s “What Triggers School Shootings?” with it being a result to boys having their status of masculinity being challenged.

Research Study:

If I was to conduct a study based off of some of the facts that were presented in this film, I would want to study how the definitions of ADHD vary between the US and other western nations. I would want to see which countries have the broadest definition for what behaviors constitute having the disorder. I would then want to compare the countries with the broadest and narrowest definitions with the amount of the diagnosed populations that are receiving medication. This would be done in an attempt to see if people’s diagnosis is based on receiving a profit from prescribed medications.

Tough Guise Film Review

What is the main thesis of this film?

What seemed to be the thesis of the film “Tough Guise” is that men use violence and aggression as a way to support their masculinity in society. Also, that over time the image that is seen as being masculine has changed. They used the example of the G.I. Joe action figure to show how they have become much more buff and muscular over the past fifty or so years.

Taken From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139643/

What are the main arguments in support of the thesis?

The main arguments in support of the thesis had to be how the image of masculinity has changed. It can be summed up in how the images of wrestlers, guns, and even children’s toys have increased in size over time. Guns have become larger in movies, and action movies have become more violent in a way to show that anger and aggression is an appropriate way to settle issues.

Taken From http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/2007_11.html

Taken From http://cooeystoybox.blogspot.com/2010/04/gi-joe-rumble-in-jungle.html

How does the thesis of the film relate to the course?

The thesis of this film is related to the course because it shows how the acceptable social norms are socially constructed and can have very large effects on the society. Also, gender identities are social norms that can change over time, and there are sanctions for not following the gender norms.

Which arguments/point did you find the most convincing?

The argument that I found the most convincing was that the image of masculinity has become much more violent over the last fifty-sixty years. This was supported with the provided evidence of how professional wrestlers have become much buffer, as well as action figures such as G.I. Joe. This has created an unobtainable image of masculinity, and that the frustration that comes from not obtaining this image can also result in violence. This very publically can include suicides and school shootings. This could very much be explained by James Gilligan’s “Shame, Guilt, and Violence”, and Michael Kimmel’s “What Triggers School Shootings?”

Taken From http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm

Which arguments/points did you find the least convincing?

What I found the least convincing actually came from the fact that the film is a bit out of date. In the 13 years since the film was made the image of masculinity continues to change and evolve. I believe that the ideal image of masculinity has actually started to go back the other way, with muscles and size not mattering as much. This may coincide with a greater acceptance of types of lifestyles that has happened since the film was made. Possibly also through the media using what would be considered previously unmanly men in more and more comedic roles.

Research Study:

If I were to conduct a study I would want to interview high school students on what makes a man a man. I would want to interview both male and female students, and compare what they said to what was said by what appeared to be high school aged kids in the movie. I would want to see in the definition has appeared to change.