PDA

View Full Version : GWB's plan to drug preschoolers


Wigglytuff
Sep 18th, 2004, 05:07 AM
talk about scary.

August 19, 2004

If you have young children or grandchildren, the information I'm going to share should scare you. It should make you angry. But above all it should make you want to stand up and protect them from what I consider a very dangerous threat: mandatory psychiatric screening of each and every school-aged child.

That's right. The plans are in motion to screen every schoolchild for ADHD, depression, social anxiety disorder, and behavior problems. In fact, it's already in effect in Illinois, Texas, and New Jersey.

A Disturbing Trend in Our Schools In April 2002, President Bush created the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Its objective was to enhance mental health services to those in need. But it has taken a diabolical twist. The commission has concluded that there is a need to search for mental disorders, especially in children, and to do this, they plan mandatory mental health screening for everyone,
starting with preschoolers.

According to the Commission's 2003 report, "Quality screening and early intervention should occur in readily accessible, low-stigma settings, such as primary health care facilities and schools."

It is irrational to think that you need to screen 52 million schoolchildren to find those who need help. The ones who really need help are obvious.

But it gets worse. The report goes on to say, "...the extent, severity, and far-reaching consequences make it imperative that our Nation adopt a comprehensive, systemic approach to improving the mental health status of children." That means drugging them!

52 Million Potential Customers The New Freedom Commission's proposed treatment programs are based on the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP). TMAP, which was first used in Texas in 1996 and has since expanded to other states, is a set of very specific medication recommendations, virtually all of them the newest, most expensive, psychotropic drugs available.

It doesn't take a genius to see that this sinister scheme has been masterminded by the pharmaceutical companies, who stand to gain billions of dollars by pushing expensive drugs on our children.

According to Allen Jones, an inspector who worked in the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General, many of these companies contribute large sums of money to political parties and to people in key decision-making roles. When he blew the whistle on this, he was promptly sacked.

Trolling for Patients If you want to see just how biased and ridiculous these screening procedures
are, visit some of the drug companies' websites and look at their questionnaires. Whether they are trying to weed out depression, social anxiety disorder, ADHD, or other psychological maladies, the types of
questions they ask are equally absurd.

I took one test, entitled the Zung Assessment Tool, at the Prozac website. You respond to 20 phrases with one of the following: not often, sometimes, often, or all the time. Phrases include, "I feel downhearted, blue, and sad." "I have trouble sleeping through the night." "I eat as much as I used
to." "I have trouble with constipation." "My mind is as clear as it used to be." "I am more irritable than usual." "I find it easy to make decisions." (As you see, some of these questions are confusing, if not irrational.)

I selected "sometimes" for every phrase, as a normal, healthy person would. My score was 50, and I was advised to show this test to my doctor and "ask him or her to evaluate you for depression."

Folks, sometimes feeling irritable, unable to sleep, etc., are hardly indicative of a serious mental malfunction. Feeling out of sorts from time to time is a normal part of being human. Yet according to this test, I may be a candidate for an antidepressant.

Drugging of Children Is Evil Widespread psychiatric screening of our children isn't only unnecessary,
it's evil.

Children are not miniature adults. Childhood is filled with dreams, vivid imagination, and rollercoaster rides of emotion that we as grownups only vaguely recall. The totality of these experiences is essential in order for children to become fully developed adults.

Psychotropic drugs prevent children from truly experiencing childhood. The drugged child is not real. He doesn't grow into and out of various life stages, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Psychiatric drugs prevent normal development.

The pharmaceutical drug lords, lusting for the billions of dollars that massive psychiatric screening and treatment will add to their coffers, will destroy the essence of your child.

Think back on your childhood. Remember your experiences. Now ask yourself, would you be better off today if five or six years of your childhood had been spent in a drugged-out state?

In my opinion, psychotropic drugs are even worse than some illegal ones. Children are drugged simply because some harebrained test designed by a pharmaceutical company says they should be drugged. Neither the child nor the parent has any say at all in the matter.

What Can You Do? Here's what you can do about it. First of all, refuse to sign those consent
forms when they come home from your child's school - if they can't test them, they can't drug them. Next, take a moment to write your congressional representatives and voice your concerns.

Also, email Laura Bush at firstlady@whitehouse.gov. Ask her how she'd like to have her daughters screened and drugged without her or their consent. We need to get mothers involved.

Finally, don't just say no to drugs. Say no to psychiatric screening

P.S. This article was written for the latest issue of Health & Healing, but
I want to make sure everyone knows about this, newsletter subscriber or not.
To learn more about Health & Healing, and to preview what's in next month's
issue, be sure to check out the information below.

Bacardi
Sep 18th, 2004, 05:10 AM
That is what happens when the prescription drug companies give millions of dollars to the Republican fund.

decemberlove
Sep 18th, 2004, 05:16 AM
well, the dems aren't much better on this issue.

they are both fucking evil.

decemberlove
Sep 18th, 2004, 05:17 AM
can we get a link, please?

or was this an email?

Wigglytuff
Sep 18th, 2004, 05:19 AM
That is what happens when the prescription drug companies give millions of dollars to the Republican fund.

you right about that. i cant image anyone who thinks of children as human beings haveing any supprt for this at all. :fiery: :fiery: :fiery: :fiery: :fiery: :fiery:

Wigglytuff
Sep 18th, 2004, 05:21 AM
can we get a link, please?

or was this an email?

not its wasnt an email. it was from a watchdog site that lists f-ed things about medications or medication related things.

http://www.prozactruth.com/forceddrug.htm

decemberlove
Sep 18th, 2004, 05:24 AM
not its wasnt an email. it was from a watchdog site that lists f-ed things about medications or medication related things.

http://www.prozactruth.com/forceddrug.htm
thanks for the link.

my ex-boyfriend the scientologist will love it...

gentenaire
Sep 18th, 2004, 06:44 AM
We got medical screening as children. Once a year, all school children visit a doctor who tests hearing, eye sight, whether the back is straight, they get measured and weighed and compared to the average chart (which they updated this week, apparently we're now 2 inches taller than 20 years ago) and we got IQ tested too (in order to give us advice on what to study). Mental health screening isn't a big leap from this.

The article uses the questions on the website as evidence the screeing is irrational. I doubt that doctors who check children will use these questions.

decemberlove
Sep 18th, 2004, 07:28 AM
We got medical screening as children. Once a year, all school children visit a doctor who tests hearing, eye sight, whether the back is straight, they get measured and weighed and compared to the average chart (which they updated this week, apparently we're now 2 inches taller than 20 years ago) and we got IQ tested too (in order to give us advice on what to study). Mental health screening isn't a big leap from this.

The article uses the questions on the website as evidence the screeing is irrational. I doubt that doctors who check children will use these questions.
i think it's a huge leap.

i've known too many people who were misdiagnosed as children. and who had serious issues cos of it.

i dont think these drugs help much... they dont get to the core. they just throw a veil over a more serious issue.

gentenaire
Sep 18th, 2004, 07:37 AM
i think it's a huge leap.

i've known too many people who were misdiagnosed as children. and who had serious issues cos of it.

i dont think these drugs help much... they dont get to the core. they just throw a veil over a more serious issue.

I agree that they shouldn't give drugs too quickly. I've always hated it when people would immediately offer me an aspirin when I happened to mention I had a light headache. A lot of aches go away on its own.

If you take drugs for everything, you soon can't live without them. They certainly shouldn't be given kids drugs, not unless it's 100% certain they need them.

I guess my problem with the article is that they're the ones jumping to the drugging bit and I generally distrust any article that ends with "send an e-mail to this address..."

Wigglytuff
Sep 18th, 2004, 02:11 PM
We got medical screening as children. Once a year, all school children visit a doctor who tests hearing, eye sight, whether the back is straight, they get measured and weighed and compared to the average chart (which they updated this week, apparently we're now 2 inches taller than 20 years ago) and we got IQ tested too (in order to give us advice on what to study). Mental health screening isn't a big leap from this.

The article uses the questions on the website as evidence the screeing is irrational. I doubt that doctors who check children will use these questions.

no they dont use theose questions they use worse ones.

"do you get bored in class" was one that i saw that has stayed with me forever.

i mean just look at what defines a child with ADD or ADHD and the defination is really insane. plus i dont think you know how expensive these drugs are. some run 60$ PER PILL. and thats a lot of money to spend for a child who "gets bored in class"

EDIT: i know u said that you are oppesed to drug treatment as a first option, but thats the whole point for these tests. they are not even considering other none drug options like counseling or a change in diet.

the other thing is that i do think that medical care is important, i have always been agaisnt maditory iq tests for children. its really pointless. a good look at class work, talk with the parents and teachers will give you more than you need to know. from that you can asses if the child is at risk for learning disablities. in my city there are no such mandatory IQ tests. and the idea would likely lead to riots up in here.

there is a very interesting thread around here about how go an assesment iq tests are for intellegence, i will look for it laters.

gentenaire
Sep 18th, 2004, 02:22 PM
For the record, we never got an actual IQ as result, just how you compared to the rest of the children. It was meant to help children choose the right options in school. Our school system has three levels. Too often, parents push their kid in the highest level even when it's just too difficult for the child. These kind of tests tell what level, what kind of courses would be good for the child. Parents tend to exaggerate their child's accomplisments.

School results were also taken into account but they don't often tell the whole story. My eldest brother is too smart, a real genius. These days there are special classes for such children, but those didn't exist when he was young. He was bored in school because it was all too easy for him, as a result his marks weren't that high at all. Just going by his school results, you'd think he was average.

Rtael
Sep 18th, 2004, 03:59 PM
Alot of those drugs, especially for ADD are highly addictive. :(

azza
Sep 18th, 2004, 05:29 PM
Its. In. America. I. Dont. Care.

Crazy Canuck
Sep 18th, 2004, 06:29 PM
The ones who really need help are obvious.

If that was true, there wouldn't be so many children who failed to get identified. My sister always had problems in school (and life in general), but the teachers never pegged her as a "problem child" because she wasn't disruptive and wasn't flunking out. When she got to university she had herself assessed - turns out that she had ADD which explained a LOT. Had they found out sooner it could have saved her a few years of floudering, perhaps?

My brother didn't get identified with his problem until he was nearly in highschool.

Very early screening is a GOOD idea, imo. Not all children in need of help are noticable - that is a load of bullocks.

As for the rest... I'll comment on that later. I only read the first few paragraphs because I have to get back to MY real reading now :p

*JR*
Sep 18th, 2004, 07:21 PM
"Also, email Laura Bush at firstlady@whitehouse.gov (firstlady@whitehouse.gov). Ask her how she'd like to have her daughters screened and drugged without her or their consent. We need to get mothers involved."

Actually, those 2 are doing a pretty good job of drugging themselves. :o (And Searchlight, I hope no undecided voter in Akron, Ohio sees my post). :p

~ The Leopard ~
Sep 19th, 2004, 02:27 AM
I'm not going to get into this stuff about ADD etc, but Tine is right that IQ tests have a place. Just going on my own experience as a little tiny kid, it was similar to her brother's. I was bored out of my mind in primary school, and there was a period when I was considered the dumbest kid in the class. Eventually the teachers worked out that the problem was actually that I was the smartest kid in the class, and that I couldn't see the point of work that was so easy and obvious. From things that my parents said during that period, I'm pretty sure that getting IQ results helped the teachers figure it out ... or at least provided confirmation over time of what was really going on. I dread to think what my fate might have been in the early years of the school system, and where it might have led me, if IQ testing hadn't been around to kind of back me up.

geojango
Sep 19th, 2004, 04:01 AM
dubya loves drugs, folks!

Ted of Teds Tennis
Sep 19th, 2004, 04:30 AM
I know people want to play "bash the Republicans" with this (BTW -- I vote Libertarian and don't support Bush at all), but the education establishment (which leans heavily to the Democratic side) is complicit in this, too. From the Libertarian sites I read, there's a big strain of anti-Ritalin advocates in the home school movement -- and we all know the home-schoolers are a bunch of left-wing, Bush-hating freaks. :)

See here (http://www.home-school.com/GetStarted.html), or

This article (http://www.breggin.com/schools) about the 'social workers' going after a family that didn't want to drug up its child. (I'd like to hear somebody claim social workers are a Republican-leaning group. :haha:)

Wigglytuff
Sep 19th, 2004, 04:52 AM
I know people want to play "bash the Republicans" with this (BTW -- I vote Libertarian and don't support Bush at all), but the education establishment (which leans heavily to the Democratic side) is complicit in this, too. From the Libertarian sites I read, there's a big strain of anti-Ritalin advocates in the home school movement -- and we all know the home-schoolers are a bunch of left-wing, Bush-hating freaks. :)

See here (http://www.home-school.com/GetStarted.html), or

This article (http://www.breggin.com/schools) about the 'social workers' going after a family that didn't want to drug up its child. (I'd like to hear somebody claim social workers are a Republican-leaning group. :haha:)

no generalizations or shifting of blame here. not not at all none.

bush signs a bill that forces parents to have thier children tested, and home schoolers and social workers are to blame. perfect and rational logic. nothing questionable at all. nope. home schoolers and social workers are directedly to blame for the bill and its passing. it has nothing at all do with pharmaceutical companies or the fact that is just cruel to drug preschoolers who are FIVE YEARS OLD!!! nope, thats not the problem, the problem is home schoolers and social workers.
and we all know the home-schoolers are a bunch of left-wing, Bush-hating freaks
such rational mature statements really make the WTAworld what it is. but i love how INFORMATIVE this statement is, after all, i always thought that home schoolers schooled thier children at home because of the sorry state of the public education system, and because home schooled children outperform publicly educated children at almost all grade levels.
but you learn something new everyday.

i wonder if anyone who doesnt want to drug FIVE year old children are just : a bunch of left-wing, Bush-hating freaksor just homeschoolers?

*JR*
Sep 19th, 2004, 01:08 PM
From the Libertarian sites I read, there's a big strain of anti-Ritalin advocates in the home school movement -- and we all know the home-schoolers are a bunch of left-wing, Bush-hating freaks. :)
Ted, libertarians worship @ the feet of (fringe figure) Dr. Thomas Szasz (who basically denies that mental illness even exists) on these matters. So they may be mostly Objectivists, but they're less than objective on this issue. ;)

gentenaire
Sep 19th, 2004, 01:18 PM
Speaking of the devil, there's an article about young people with psychological problems today, in a well respected Belgian newspaper (completely unrelated to the article in this thread). It says that about 20% of children and youngster have some form of psychological problem, half of them for life! Yet only 2% sees a psychiatrist.

*JR*
Sep 19th, 2004, 02:06 PM
Speaking of the devil, there's an article about young people with psychological problems today, in a well respected Belgian newspaper (completely unrelated to the article in this thread). It says that about 20% of children and youngster have some form of psychological problem, half of them for life! Yet only 2% sees a psychiatrist.The other 18% post here! :p

Jennifer's wife
Sep 19th, 2004, 02:24 PM
personally i think testing kids mental health is a good idea. in britain kids are just left to get on with it. example: my freinds kid is 4 years old. he can count to 10,000, he can recognise number sequences, count backwards, do simple sums. the other kids in his class are learning to count to 20. while the fact he has an unusual talent may seem like a good thing it poses problems....he is obsessed by numbers, from numbers on lamp posts to car liscence plates, to telephone numbers. he has to read every single one because he will have a temper tantrum if not. and while his math may be developed his reading and writing suffers and he still cannot speak properly, many of his consonnants just sounding like Ns or Ws. and is anything being done for him? by the doctors he has been taken to, or by the school? No. personally me and my freinds believe he needs to be tested for things such as autism because this behaviour for a 4 year old is abnormal.

Ted of Teds Tennis
Sep 19th, 2004, 02:32 PM
Searchlight:

I think you misunderstood the sarcasm in my post. :)

Wigglytuff
Sep 19th, 2004, 03:36 PM
personally i think testing kids mental health is a good idea. in britain kids are just left to get on with it. example: my freinds kid is 4 years old. he can count to 10,000, he can recognise number sequences, count backwards, do simple sums. the other kids in his class are learning to count to 20. while the fact he has an unusual talent may seem like a good thing it poses problems....he is obsessed by numbers, from numbers on lamp posts to car liscence plates, to telephone numbers. he has to read every single one because he will have a temper tantrum if not. and while his math may be developed his reading and writing suffers and he still cannot speak properly, many of his consonnants just sounding like Ns or Ws. and is anything being done for him? by the doctors he has been taken to, or by the school? No. personally me and my freinds believe he needs to be tested for things such as autism because this behaviour for a 4 year old is abnormal.
ok see this is the very reason i oppose testing 5 year old children.

1-Albert Einstein could not speak AT ALL until he was 3 years old.
2-mispronouncing letters at 4 years is PERFECTLY normal, particularly when its clear that the child is extremely talented. i mean the entire population of New York City can not pronounce "th" and uses "d" instead. :lol: :lol:
3-for what you describe it looks like you have a child prodigy waiting to happen. seriously having those abilities that young isn't just something to be proud of, its something to have him put in advanced math class and leaving him with children who are still learning to count may do more damage than anything.

from what you describe it looks like he is talking fine save for a few mispronounced words, and that is again nothing to stress about. you said his reading and writing skills are not up to par, if he is reading and writing at 4 years old, even if imperfectly, that is still doing fine. if he was autistic he would hardly be TALKING let alone reading. seriously just look at and talk to parents of autistic 4 year olds. the tenants who rent from us have an 8 year who is autistic and i have heard him say 10 words i would be surprised. :sad:

this is just based on the little bit of info you proved i am sure there is more to it than that, but seriously it just sounds like the child needs to be in a setting for gifted children, not being tested for disabilities, and in a proper setting for gifted children they will, or at least should be able to get his other areas like reading up to par. after all no one can be a prodigy at EVERYTHING. at WORST, again based solely on the info you provided, the child might have a very mild speech impediment. one of the professors at my undergrad school who was like 24 with a PhD in philosophy (a remarkable achievement) has a severe speech impediment.

i don't think its needed to screen every child unless 1-the parent wants to have a child tested, 2- the child shows clear signs of having problems.

again this is just based on what you wrote and i don't know the whole story thats just my two cents.

----
sorry ted. when people are here post things like that in all seriousness its hard to tell who is joking and who is not. sometimes i think people are not serious and they are and vice versa.

gentenaire
Sep 19th, 2004, 04:10 PM
but seriously it just sounds like the child needs to be in a setting for gifted children, not being tested for disabilities,
Who's talking about testing for disabilities? We're talking about psychiatric testing. If these tests show this kid is gifted, then he can receive the proper care. As long as people are guessing what he has, he's not getting the right treatment.
My first reaction when reading about this boy wasn't that he was exceptionally gifted, but rather Asperger's Syndrome. This syndrome is more common than you think. I happen to know several people with a son with this syndrome (it seems it's mainly boys who get it), all of them weren't diagnosed until they were in their teens and needed a lot of sorting out because for years, they were misunderstood!
Anyway, seems that you, me and Jennifer's wife have a different view of what he might have (though Asperger's is related to autism), if this kid was tested, we'd know for certain instead of guessing.

Think of all the dislexic people out there who were considered stupid! An early diagnosis can save a lot of heartache.

gentenaire
Sep 19th, 2004, 05:10 PM
BTW, Searchlight, I notice a rather disturbing trend here;) Back when you were still Jigglypuff, I seemed to be agreeing with nearly everything you posted and I've disagreed with you two threads in a row.

Jennifer's wife
Sep 19th, 2004, 05:17 PM
i know what u are saying searchlight and obviously u would have had to have been around the child since it was born as i have to understand the problem. its not just educational its in his behaviour as well. i probly dint explain it clearly enough. its not the case of misplacing letters its worse than that, he often only says half a word and many of his sentences are incomprehensible even to his mother. he sees a speech therapist-once in a blue moon. oh, and he cant read at all he only recognises letters. and yes an accelerated learning programme for maths is probly just what he needs, but he'll be lucky to get it as schools have to apply to the government because it costs them more money and more often than not for the sake of their budgets they will just let the kid slip thru 'unnoticed'. i was tested for adhd at high school and i think had it been addressed when i was much younger, i may have found the whole education process easier. my mother is now a councillor at a high school working with kids with both learning and emotional difficulties-often the 2 go hand in hand.

im not saying i agree with filling children full of drugs, but im saying from my own experiences both personally and professionally (im a teacher) i do not see the harm in testing children for mental health problems which can very much influence their educational experience and moreover their whole life. i see it as a positive step towards helping childern develop into functional adults

gentenaire
Sep 19th, 2004, 05:25 PM
Off topic, but is it commong these days for kids to start reading so young? I didn't start learning to read and write until 1st grade, so I was 6 at the time.
Besides, I remember reading that tests showed that children don't read or write better when starting younger, the children who learn at a lager age apparently catch up quickly.

Jennifer's wife
Sep 19th, 2004, 05:34 PM
dunno. i could read basic stuff at pre-school. as to whether or not its done me any harm learning to read early, who knows!! :shrug:

Bacardi
Sep 19th, 2004, 05:38 PM
Lucy the thing is, W isn't doing this out of the good of his heart. He's doing it, because the drug companies supply his campaign with tons of money. It's the same reason he refuses to allow many generic (cheaper but the same) drugs into the USA, and also raised the price of medicine. He's allowed the drug companies to charge as much as $200 for certain drugs, that just have 30 pills. Since him our health care situation has really sucked!

Jennifer's wife
Sep 19th, 2004, 05:59 PM
george duhbya bush just sux anyhow! i cant help laughing everytime he opens his mouth! :lol: im just glad i dont have to live there...yet...;) otherwise i would be very afraid!!!

'Bush in for four more years? would the last person to leave the states remember to switch the lights off!!!'
:lol:

Bacardi
Sep 19th, 2004, 06:40 PM
I'll probably seriously leave the states if Bush gets another 4 years. :yeah:

Ted of Teds Tennis
Sep 19th, 2004, 07:25 PM
Gentenaire:

My mother claims I was reading traffic signs when I was 2-1/2 years old and riding in the car with her.

Searchlight:

No problem on not always being able to figure out what's sarcasm and what isn't. The main point I was trying to make is that people here want to portray this as a Bush is evil issue, when there are people who would generally be considered Republican-leaning (homeschoolers*) who have a beef with forcibly drugging kids, and Democratic-leaning groups (social workers) who have been known to use the power of the state to try to foricbly drug children.

Not that all homeschoolers are right-wing fundies, though. Visit the site of the National African-American Homeschoolers Alliance (http://www.naaha.com/)

Crazy Canuck
Sep 19th, 2004, 09:54 PM
1-Albert Einstein could not speak AT ALL until he was 3 years old.

He also could hardly form a sentence until he was about 7, at which point he started mouthing the words to himself first before saying them out loud. He also showed no special ability in any school subject whatsoever.

He struggled with his language difficulties his entire life, btw. He had difficulty expressing himself through the written word. He explained once that he didn't really think in words, but that the words came to him later when he was trying to communicate his ideas to other people.

Now, thankfully, Albert was a genius with remarkable talents. He was able to overcome his difficitulties and make a remarkable contribution to society. The vast majority of children who have these difficulties? Are NOT Albert Eistein, and should not be treated as such!

2-mispronouncing letters at 4 years is PERFECTLY normal, particularly when its clear that the child is extremely talented. i mean the entire population of New York City can not pronounce "th" and uses "d" instead. :lol: :lol:

Yes, having a speech impediment is totally normal at that age. I, along with a few of my classmates, went to speech therapy through the school. I never did drop my lisp entirely :p

While a speech impediment is normal, not being able to communicate period is NOT. The two things should not be grouped together nor should they be treated the same way.

3-for what you describe it looks like you have a child prodigy waiting to happen.

Or the child could be autistic, as she already said. Or the child could be of extremely high intelligence but suffer from a serious communication disorder of some type.

That's why early screening is a GOOD idea. You should never simply assume what might be the case and then treat the child as such. By doing so you may be missing the true source of the issue and hurting the child by not addressing that problem.

seriously having those abilities that young isn't just something to be proud of, its something to have him put in advanced math class and leaving him with children who are still learning to count may do more damage than anything.

Leaving him with children who don't have his COMMUNICATION difficulties would be wrong, imo.

A child isn't going to benefit much from an advanced math class if they can't communicate well, now are they?

That's why it's important to make sure that the child doesn't have any other problems before throwing them into things and hoping for the best. That? Doesn't work. Anybody who has spent 5 minutes studying this crap KNOWS that doesn't work, because history has shown us that it doesn't work. There will always be exceptional cases like Albert E and Nelson Rockefeller (dyslexia), but for every one of them there will be scores of individuals who amount to nothing because they weren't given the treatment they required during their vital growth periods.

from what you describe it looks like he is talking fine save for a few mispronounced words, and that is again nothing to stress about.

Again, I disagree. While it's not necessarily something to "stress" about, it absolutely is something worth looking into as soon as possible, because if it isn't looked into? You can potentially set that child back several years.

you said his reading and writing skills are not up to par, if he is reading and writing at 4 years old, even if imperfectly, that is still doing fine.

Not all 4 year olds can read at the same level and they shouldn't be expected to either. I think that we can agree on that, no? However, those children that are at an extremely low level should be investigated to determine the source of the problem, imo. That way, those that have dyslexia don't need to wait until they are 3 years behind to get special help, those that are simply not at the same cognitive level as their peers yet aren't treated for a problem they don't have, and those with other (psychological or learning) difficulties are given specific help.

if he was autistic he would hardly be TALKING let alone reading.

Yeah, but he is hardly talking, remember? And I was under the impression he was hardly reading too. That said, I'm not saying he's autistic. I don't know what he is, and clearly neither do you or his parents. Hence why these issues need to be addressed and not just ignored.

this is just based on the little bit of info you proved i am sure there is more to it than that, but seriously it just sounds like the child needs to be in a setting for gifted children, not being tested for disabilities, and in a proper setting for gifted children they will, or at least should be able to get his other areas like reading up to par.

See.... you make it clear that not enough info has been provided to fully understand the situation, then you claim that he clearly doesn't need to be tested for disabilities - he's gifted! Erm, okay. He may well be gifted but I don't understand how you came to that conclusion.

after all no one can be a prodigy at EVERYTHING. at WORST, again based solely on the info you provided, the child might have a very mild speech impediment. one of the professors at my undergrad school who was like 24 with a PhD in philosophy (a remarkable achievement) has a severe speech impediment.

I agree that children should not be expected to perform equally in all areas. However, when there is a drastic, marked difference between their level in one area and their level in another, that is a key indicator of a possible problem - whether it be a learning disability or whatever else.

And .. I still don't think she described a simple speech impediment :confused: It sounded to me like she described a child who can hardly form words. I'd have to hear him speak before diagnosing his problem however (and even then I would have no idea what I was talking about since I'm not an expert in that area... or, any area), unlike you :p

i don't think its needed to screen every child unless 1-the parent wants to have a child tested,

Here is my problem with requiring the parents approval for testing: a lot of parents simply don't understand the complexities of the issues that their child may be dealing with, and they don't want to admit that their may be a problem. So they ignore it and try to treat their child "normally", which just messes the kid up even more (a general case - again, there are always exceptions).

So essentially, you're putting the future of a child's education (and ultimately their life) in the hands of people who simply don't understand the possible consequences of their actions, no matter how well meaning and loving they happen to be. (on an unrelated note, this is also my problem with juries: you put any old idiot in the box to examine evidence that they don't have the expertise to understand. 'doh!)

I do believe that the parents in conjuction with a physician or qualified professional should have some say in whether how the child is treated for a problem (medication, learning strategies, out-of-class help, etc).

2- the child shows clear signs of having problems.

The ratio boys to girls identified with learning disabilities is 4:1. The ratio of boys to girls who are identifed being borderline retarded is not quite that great, but it'sit rounds up to 2:1 depending on where you pull your numbers from.

Simply put, boys are generally easier to identify because they act out more. They are more agressive. Girls tend to internalize their issues far more than boys. Think of a boy with ADHD vs a girl with ADD. (That said, not ALL boys with issues act out, and not ALL girls with issues internalize their difficulties)

Thus, only paying attention to those who are CLEARLY in need of help hurts many children, but it hurts girls more than boys, IMO.

Crazy Canuck
Sep 19th, 2004, 09:56 PM
^^^ The above is merely my only somewhat informed opinion. I am not an expert and have never claimed to be, but I AM very passionate on issues like this :p

Crazy Canuck
Sep 19th, 2004, 09:57 PM
I'll probably seriously leave the states if Bush gets another 4 years. :yeah:
And go where?

Crazy Canuck
Sep 19th, 2004, 10:01 PM
Off topic, but is it commong these days for kids to start reading so young? I didn't start learning to read and write until 1st grade, so I was 6 at the time.
Besides, I remember reading that tests showed that children don't read or write better when starting younger, the children who learn at a lager age apparently catch up quickly.
It depends on where you are. Every community, culture, blah has different standards for these things. I was reading novels in the second grade. I don't remember when I first learned to read, but I know I could do it on some level in kindergarten. However, I know that wasn't the norm.

Crazy Canuck
Sep 19th, 2004, 10:03 PM
Who's talking about testing for disabilities? We're talking about psychiatric testing. If these tests show this kid is gifted, then he can receive the proper care. As long as people are guessing what he has, he's not getting the right treatment.
My first reaction when reading about this boy wasn't that he was exceptionally gifted, but rather Asperger's Syndrome. This syndrome is more common than you think. I happen to know several people with a son with this syndrome (it seems it's mainly boys who get it), all of them weren't diagnosed until they were in their teens and needed a lot of sorting out because for years, they were misunderstood!
Anyway, seems that you, me and Jennifer's wife have a different view of what he might have (though Asperger's is related to autism), if this kid was tested, we'd know for certain instead of guessing.

Think of all the dislexic people out there who were considered stupid! An early diagnosis can save a lot of heartache.
I got off topic in replying to searchlight ;)

Steam
Sep 19th, 2004, 10:03 PM
Kids suck, drug them all up.

Crazy Canuck
Sep 19th, 2004, 10:06 PM
I'm not going to get into this stuff about ADD etc, but Tine is right that IQ tests have a place. Just going on my own experience as a little tiny kid, it was similar to her brother's. I was bored out of my mind in primary school, and there was a period when I was considered the dumbest kid in the class. Eventually the teachers worked out that the problem was actually that I was the smartest kid in the class, and that I couldn't see the point of work that was so easy and obvious. From things that my parents said during that period, I'm pretty sure that getting IQ results helped the teachers figure it out ... or at least provided confirmation over time of what was really going on. I dread to think what my fate might have been in the early years of the school system, and where it might have led me, if IQ testing hadn't been around to kind of back me up.
I agree that IQ testing has it's place. My opposition to standardized testing of that sort in other threads on the matter is primarily based on possible misinterpretations and misuses of IQ scores.

harloo
Sep 19th, 2004, 10:28 PM
But it gets worse. The report goes on to say, "...the extent, severity, and far-reaching consequences make it imperative that our Nation adopt a comprehensive, systemic approach to improving the mental health status of children."

That means drugging them!


I fail to see how the author of this article can come to the conclusion that kids will be drugged from this statement alone. I think the writer grasping at straws. Hell, I don't even like Bush and his regime but I see no evidence that children will be drugged without the consent of their parents.JMO.;)

Crazy Canuck
Sep 20th, 2004, 01:43 AM
Okay, time for my ON topic comments ;)

For starters, I know very little about clinical practice and psychological disorders in children. However, I would have to think that the tests the author is refering to that are found on certain website will not be the exact tests used to screen the children. Quite obviously if they are going to screen 3-6 year old children they are going to need new tests (or old tests that have already been standardized), that are geared towards children in that age range. It's awfully hard to get an accurate read on a child when you are asking them questions that they can't fully understand. So I really don't see what there is to be worried about in that area. I don't really follow the author's point here. Some online IQ tests are pretty stupid too - does that mean that administering true IQ tests to children is a bad idea? :confused:

I also agree with harloo. I don't see a definitive link between the given quote and the possibility of initiating medicinal treatment to children against a parents own will. Unless they plan on suing millions of parents who aren't willing to go along with it, odds are the parents will be involved in the process somehow ;)

Much like I don't have a problem with intelligence screening and what not, I don't have a problem with this either. If it was to mean such things as forced medicinial treatment yada yada, then yes, I would see a problem. In reality, I don't think that is going to happen.

And again, I want to voice my disagreement with the suggestion that children who are in need of help are obvious. That is just so not true, so to base one of your arguments against the practice on it, doesn't really speak a whole lot for your case.

Wigglytuff
Sep 20th, 2004, 08:14 AM
Okay, time for my ON topic comments ;)

For starters, I know very little about clinical practice and psychological disorders in children. However, I would have to think that the tests the author is refering to that are found on certain website will not be the exact tests used to screen the children. Quite obviously if they are going to screen 3-6 year old children they are going to need new tests (or old tests that have already been standardized), that are geared towards children in that age range. It's awfully hard to get an accurate read on a child when you are asking them questions that they can't fully understand. So I really don't see what there is to be worried about in that area. I don't really follow the author's point here. Some online IQ tests are pretty stupid too - does that mean that administering true IQ tests to children is a bad idea? :confused:

I also agree with harloo. I don't see a definitive link between the given quote and the possibility of initiating medicinal treatment to children against a parents own will. Unless they plan on suing millions of parents who aren't willing to go along with it, odds are the parents will be involved in the process somehow ;)

Much like I don't have a problem with intelligence screening and what not, I don't have a problem with this either. If it was to mean such things as forced medicinial treatment yada yada, then yes, I would see a problem. In reality, I don't think that is going to happen.

And again, I want to voice my disagreement with the suggestion that children who are in need of help are obvious. That is just so not true, so to base one of your arguments against the practice on it, doesn't really speak a whole lot for your case.

ok i havent gotten a chance to reply to your first post, but i wanted to say, was the problem is not in testing children, some children do need to be tested, the problem is in making it mandatory and against the will of the parent and the child. and yes it does mean drugging them, the drug industry is all over this. and though i can see how there might be some confusion with this statement the whole of what is going on taken together there can be no doubt that the drug industry is behind this. but again, if someone whats to have their child tested, fine, but why should the children who are proforming and developing "normally" with no signs of any problems to the parents and friends and teachers who see them everyday, be tested for something that they have no risk of, no family history of, no signs of AGAINST thier will and the will of the family because someone who has never seen or talked with them says so? how does that help?

why spend money and resources this to test 5 year old who are functioning and developing "normally" and has no history and shows no signs of these "conditions" when the books in the classroom are outdated? who benefits from this?

Wigglytuff
Sep 20th, 2004, 08:26 AM
i also wanted to add that even though jen mentioned autism and testing for such conditions, thats NOT what this about. this in NOT A SCREENING FOR LEARNING DISABLITIES. THIS IS SCREENING 5 YEAR OLDS FOR DEPRESSION:

ADHD, depression, social anxiety disorder, and behavior problems


and again, i know you disagree CC, but NONE of these conditions, show no signs. these particular conditions that they want to screen ever 5 yeard old for are things that teachers, couselors and family members can and do spot. the idea of having a child with "behaivoral problems" but shows no signs, and funtions "normally" BUT need to be medicated for these "behavioral problems" that appearently no one but the drug companies can spot is really nothing more than a ploy to drug children.

again it can not be said enough that this bill is not about testing for learning disablities.

ps. i understand that adhd is considered a learning disablity by some who are unfamiliar with it, it is not, ADD is a learning "difference" ADHD on the other had is similar but is a behaviorial condition. not a learning one

Crazy Canuck
Sep 20th, 2004, 03:19 PM
NOT A SCREENING FOR LEARNING DISABLITIES. THIS IS SCREENING 5 YEAR OLDS FOR DEPRESSION

Uh, yeah. I caught on to that part. I even mentioned in a later post that I had gone OFF TOPIC in replying to you. Then later, I replied to say that I was now posting my ON TOPIC comments and I discussed the issue of screening for psychological disorders.

But thanks for going all Captain Obvious on me anyways.

Crazy Canuck
Sep 20th, 2004, 03:20 PM
ps. i understand that adhd is considered a learning disablity by some who are unfamiliar with it, it is not, ADD is a learning "difference" ADHD on the other had is similar but is a behaviorial condition. not a learning one

Come on, you were clearly not reading my posts if you think I need a lecture on what ADD and ADHD are, seeing as I've had first hand experience with both.

If that wasn't intended for me then you probably should have made that a little bit more clear.

Crazy Canuck
Sep 20th, 2004, 03:23 PM
why spend money and resources this to test 5 year old who are functioning and developing "normally" and has no history and shows no signs of these "conditions" when the books in the classroom are outdated? who benefits from this?

This is a point that I already addressed under two different issues. Just because a problem isnt' noticable doesn't mean that it's not there. Some children internalize their issues far more than others.

I LURVE repeating myself.

Get back to me if I need to push that line out one more time.

Wigglytuff
Sep 20th, 2004, 04:31 PM
Uh, yeah. I caught on to that part. I even mentioned in a later post that I had gone OFF TOPIC in replying to you. Then later, I replied to say that I was now posting my ON TOPIC comments and I discussed the issue of screening for psychological disorders.

But thanks for going all Captain Obvious on me anyways.

you are both rude and stupid. when i was replying to you i qouted you, if i didnt qoute you i wasnt replying to you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

i swear people like thinking that everything is about them. i added that as a general comment, when i talking to you, i will *gasp* talk to you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Crazy Canuck
Sep 21st, 2004, 02:32 AM
Oh, relax. I'm snippy, self centered and short fused but I'm far from stupid.

I actually came back in here to apologize for going off so quickly earlier today. But... eh. I guess it still holds.

Crazy Canuck
Sep 21st, 2004, 02:33 AM
It's funny... when we were on the same side of a topic (gymnastics gold) you kept good repping me and telling how brilliant I was. Funny how things change ;)