4 ms·

That is great, I don't exactly know where you are located. But as someone in California I can tell you that the amount of (at risk) kids that I've worked with

by S-E-P 8y ago

That is great, I don't exactly know where you are located. But as someone in California I can tell you that the amount of (at risk) kids that I've worked with throughout the years tells me over half of them were strung out on a solely medication based treatment. We were the first exposure to actual "therapy" that they've ever had, and it is by far the most effective thing many of them have ever been exposed to. Maybe it's a regional thing, probably a Californian thing.

akiselev 8y ago
I think you're conflating multiple factors here, mainly psychiatry and parenting. Child psychiatry is an extreme because the patient is most often not the one making decisions (which they're often not capable of anyway). Much of the time, the patient hasn't even really figured out what their "normal" is before their parents stick them with a professional. Many parents, especially when looking at-risk demographics, look to psychiatry as an easy fix so that's what the doctors give them. The parents often can't afford to take time to drive their child to a psychiatrist twice a month let alone pay for the sessions. The end result is that psychiatry stuck in a terrible ethical spot, where their duty to treat not just symptoms but causes clashes with the realities where the parents are at the end of their rope. Are doctors stewards of health, responsible for the patient? Or are they professionals that have to meet their clients half way? I don't think there is an easy answer to that question. Obviously there are many unethical and incompetent psychiatrists but my experience in California (as an adult) stands in stark contrast to all the horror stories I hear about child psychiatry from school administrators. As usual, there is a massive wealth gap and your mileage will vary.
- S-E-P 8y ago
  A lot of the kids we've dealt with parents are typically incarcerated, dead, or no longer have custody of their children. In our area sexual abuse is one of the main issues, usually these kids live with relatives(after the conviction) who are usually the most well off in the family. They still by in large get the short end of the stick even though the relatives/guardians try to work with psychiatrists, but we've heard how that goes. That's often how they end up with us, they (the relatives/guardians) bring their troubled kids to us for actual help, not just medication. But hey I don't mind, we do better work (at least in our area), bring 'em all. Gets more kids off of substance abuse, gets them connected to people who care about them, and more times than not equips them to help their families and community by in large. And we don't even get paid (all voluntary), and that's how I prefer it.
  - akiselev 8y ago
    Is your org more of a last resort for these guardians so they go to psychiatrists first or is it a discoverability problem in general? Since you're all volunteering, I'm curious if the simple removal of the profit motive is enough to change the way all parties involved approach treatment or if its a matter of just having more time to devote per person (because the limit becomes your time and patience instead of their checkbook).
    - S-E-P 8y ago
      No, it's for any at risk kid, and many do come first. Most likely discovery since that would take a lot more energy and money. Since there isn't really any motive to reach a solution, and no harm no foul if it doesn't work out. No one's going to really hold us to anything since it doesn't cost them anything more (sometimes less since we will pay for what they need when they are with us, none of that gets reimbursed).
- Spooky23 8y ago
  The other thing is that the parents are often part of the problem. I’ve seen a couple of “monster” children in my kids school who are highly disruptive and have some obvious issues that will be very difficult as they get older. It’s pretty obvious why when you see the parents in action.
  - S-E-P 8y ago
    That's very common. Why would they act any differently, they've seen how their parents treat others, that's their model, even if it's a terrible one. And interestingly enough, even those that despise their parents will still emulate their behavior, that's something I just don't get
kungtotte 8y ago
The cynic in me is prone to blame it on the capitalistic nature of our modern society. You've got to get your numbers up. It takes way more time to properly deal with psychological issues through therapy than it does to just prescribe a pill. They've got their pill, feel slightly better, so now you get to put them in the "done" pile. So your hospital gets to say it treats 1000 patients per quarter instead of just 100, so they are more attractive to pharmaceutical companies which pay them oodles of money. The less cynical way to look at it is that the health care system is overloaded and underfunded, they don't have enough resources to properly treat people so they "have" to take the quick and easy route.
- S-E-P 8y ago
  Either way, it doesn't sound that great. Of course this isn't analogous of the entire system, but I do see that a lot at least around here. But we never had very good hospitals or clinics for miles around. Just due to how much money is actually made, and how much they can spare. Here we don't have too many options, which is why I think it goes to drugs so quickly. Though I personally believe that just about any issue I've seen can be fixed free from the use of drugs. Not a single one in the last few years have stayed on meds after working with us, and none of those have had any severe drawbacks (like suicide, self-harm, etc.) so that's a pretty decent track record. (in fact most are much better off after)

by S-E-P 8y ago

akiselev 8y ago

I think you're conflating multiple factors here, mainly psychiatry and parenting. Child psychiatry is an extreme because the patient is most often not the one making decisions (which they're often not capable of anyway). Much of the time, the patient hasn't even really figured out what their "normal" is before their parents stick them with a professional. Many parents, especially when looking at-risk demographics, look to psychiatry as an easy fix so that's what the doctors give them. The parents often can't afford to take time to drive their child to a psychiatrist twice a month let alone pay for the sessions. The end result is that psychiatry stuck in a terrible ethical spot, where their duty to treat not just symptoms but causes clashes with the realities where the parents are at the end of their rope. Are doctors stewards of health, responsible for the patient? Or are they professionals that have to meet their clients half way? I don't think there is an easy answer to that question. Obviously there are many unethical and incompetent psychiatrists but my experience in California (as an adult) stands in stark contrast to all the horror stories I hear about child psychiatry from school administrators. As usual, there is a massive wealth gap and your mileage will vary.

S-E-P 8y ago
A lot of the kids we've dealt with parents are typically incarcerated, dead, or no longer have custody of their children. In our area sexual abuse is one of the main issues, usually these kids live with relatives(after the conviction) who are usually the most well off in the family. They still by in large get the short end of the stick even though the relatives/guardians try to work with psychiatrists, but we've heard how that goes. That's often how they end up with us, they (the relatives/guardians) bring their troubled kids to us for actual help, not just medication. But hey I don't mind, we do better work (at least in our area), bring 'em all. Gets more kids off of substance abuse, gets them connected to people who care about them, and more times than not equips them to help their families and community by in large. And we don't even get paid (all voluntary), and that's how I prefer it.
- akiselev 8y ago
  Is your org more of a last resort for these guardians so they go to psychiatrists first or is it a discoverability problem in general? Since you're all volunteering, I'm curious if the simple removal of the profit motive is enough to change the way all parties involved approach treatment or if its a matter of just having more time to devote per person (because the limit becomes your time and patience instead of their checkbook).
  - S-E-P 8y ago
    No, it's for any at risk kid, and many do come first. Most likely discovery since that would take a lot more energy and money. Since there isn't really any motive to reach a solution, and no harm no foul if it doesn't work out. No one's going to really hold us to anything since it doesn't cost them anything more (sometimes less since we will pay for what they need when they are with us, none of that gets reimbursed).
Spooky23 8y ago
The other thing is that the parents are often part of the problem. I’ve seen a couple of “monster” children in my kids school who are highly disruptive and have some obvious issues that will be very difficult as they get older. It’s pretty obvious why when you see the parents in action.
- S-E-P 8y ago
  That's very common. Why would they act any differently, they've seen how their parents treat others, that's their model, even if it's a terrible one. And interestingly enough, even those that despise their parents will still emulate their behavior, that's something I just don't get

kungtotte 8y ago

The cynic in me is prone to blame it on the capitalistic nature of our modern society. You've got to get your numbers up. It takes way more time to properly deal with psychological issues through therapy than it does to just prescribe a pill. They've got their pill, feel slightly better, so now you get to put them in the "done" pile. So your hospital gets to say it treats 1000 patients per quarter instead of just 100, so they are more attractive to pharmaceutical companies which pay them oodles of money. The less cynical way to look at it is that the health care system is overloaded and underfunded, they don't have enough resources to properly treat people so they "have" to take the quick and easy route.

S-E-P 8y ago
Either way, it doesn't sound that great. Of course this isn't analogous of the entire system, but I do see that a lot at least around here. But we never had very good hospitals or clinics for miles around. Just due to how much money is actually made, and how much they can spare. Here we don't have too many options, which is why I think it goes to drugs so quickly. Though I personally believe that just about any issue I've seen can be fixed free from the use of drugs. Not a single one in the last few years have stayed on meds after working with us, and none of those have had any severe drawbacks (like suicide, self-harm, etc.) so that's a pretty decent track record. (in fact most are much better off after)