�In June 2003, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, following the lead of its British counterpart, issued warnings specifically about Paxil, saying no one under age 18 should be prescribed the drug for major depression because it might increase a child's risk of suicide. [�] Mary Anne Rhyne, a GlaxoSmithKline spokeswoman, told The Star-Ledger that the sales force was told not to discuss the safety concerns because Paxil was approved only for use in adults. �Our sales reps are prohibited from discussing, sharing or leaving behind off-label information with health-care providers,� Rhyne told the newspaper. Deviations from officially approved uses are called off-label use. But like many drugs officially approved only for use in a particular group of patients or for a specific disease, doctors sometimes prescribed Paxil for people under age 18. An official with the FDA's Office of Drug Safety told an advisory panel meeting two weeks ago that 8 percent of all antidepressant prescriptions in the first half of this year were for people under 18.� (Paxil warning Suppressed, The Associated Press, September 2004, http://newsobserver.com/business/story/1686138p-7930169c.html)
�With the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under federal investigation for suppressing evidence that antidepressants can lead to child suicide, alarmed parents across the U.S. are asking members of the U.S. Senate for Federal safeguards against coerced child drugging in schools. In the wake of increasing reports by parents who had been threatened, pressured or forced to give their children psychiatric drugs as a condition of attending school, the U.S. House of Representatives acted swiftly in passing the Child Medication Safety Act by a landslide vote of 425 to one in May of 2003. The bill, which prohibits this abusive practice, was then introduced into the Senate in July 2003, yet despite increasing information on the dangers of the drugs and their lethal effects on children, the Senate has yet to pass the bill.� (http://www.fightforkids.org/press/040510.htm) �Between 1995 and 1999, the use of antidepressants for 7 to 12 year olds increased 151% and 580% for children under six, with some as young as 5 committing suicide. Two million children are prescribed SSRIs; another 6 million take cocaine-like stimulants. Sales of these drugs are more than $13 billion a year�� (Citizens Commission on Human Rights, 1-800-869-2247, http://www.fightforkids.org/press/040503.htm)
In the United States: Kennedy Ties up Drug Bill
"The Child Medication Safety Act has sat in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions all year. Proponents say Senate leaders never told them why the bill had not come up for a vote, but this week Kennedy, who is the committee's ranking member, confirmed to the Globe that he is seeking to delay its consideration. ''This is a complex question that demands a serious study," Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a statement. ''Until we know the extent of the problem, any further action is unwarranted." The bill was prompted by complaints from parents that school officials were threatening to keep their children out of class unless they took behavior-altering medication.� (Washington Post, Published on: 07/21/04) �About 11 million school children and adolescents took prescription drugs for mental health in 2002, and the number is rising. The bill denies federal funds to schools that fail to implement a policy to ''protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance in order to attend school, and for other purposes," such as extracurricular activities. Among the drugs it targets are behavioral drugs such as Adderall and Ritalin and antidepressants such as Prozac and Paxil. Prozac is the only antidepressant approved by the Federal Drug Administration for people under 18, and the FDA is expected this summer to release a study on whether antidepressants increase the risk of suicide..." Nine states have already passed or introduced legislation prohibiting schools from threatening to limit children's participation in classes or activities if they do not go on medication.� (The Boston Globe, Jessica E. Vascellaro, July 2, 2004, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/07/02/kennedy_ties_up_drug_bill) �The Child Medication Safety Act is driven to the Senate by parents who were not only coerced to drug their children, but also their children have died due to the dangerous side effects of many of these psychotropic drugs, some of which are not even FDA approved for use in children.� (http://ablechild.org/alert.htm)
Patricia Weathers was coerced into drugging her child, by school officials. After which, her child exhibited many bizarre behaviors. �I took him to the psychiatrist that the school recommended and based once again on school reports my son was diagnosed with social anxiety disorder and I was handed a prescription for an anti-depressant. I was never at any time made aware that the drug was not FDA approved for children under the age of 18. [�] I picked up the phone and called a doctor located in Texas and scheduled an appointment. This doctor was known to treat children for the many underlying (real medical) causes of behavior and attention. The school, realizing that I was no longer going to drug my child, dismissed him, and then for a final blow preceded to call Child Protective Services on my husband and I.......charging us with medical neglect. That day when a case worker came to my door, my son would have been removed from my care had I not had a second private evaluation stating that he did not need �medication�.� (Patricia Weathers, President & Founder of AbleChild.org, State of New York, [email protected], http://ablechild.org/patricia.htm)
FDA Controlled Drug Schedule ll �These medicines have therapeutic uses and have the highest abuse and dependence potential for drugs with medicinal purposes. Examples include Morphine, Demerol, Speed, Opium, Cocaine and Ritalin. A written prescription is required and refills are not allowed.� (http://www.resultsproject.net/Cocaine_Ritalin_Connection.html)
�Parents are also usually not told that methylphenidate is classified as a controlled substance by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) because of its highly addictive nature and risk for abuse. A highly esteemed behavioral pediatrician testifying at the special hearing of the Texas State board of Education in November 2000, stated his assurance to the board that methylphenidate was not addictive, and that children prescribed psychiatric drugs did not abuse them. He was followed shortly after by Gretchen Feussner, a DEA pharmacologist, who assured the Board that it was a substance controlled and monitored by her agency exactly because of its proven addictive potential. Fuessner also presented data showing that up to 20% of young people with psychiatric prescriptions abuse their prescribed drugs. Parents are almost never told that research has repeatedly demonstrated that neither animals nor humans can tell the difference between cocaine, amphetamine, or methylphenidate when they are administered in the same dosage and form; their effects are nearly identical (Woodworth, 2000). This highly significant fact that psychiatric drugs are generally addictive, creating dependency and tolerance, is typically minimized or denied by psychiatric professionals. The common progression from a relatively small dose of Ritalin to a higher dose of Ritalin to a stronger amphetamine such as Dexedrine to an adult antidepressant such as Prozac or Wellbutrin to some form of polypharmacological cocktail is well-known, but parents are not told about addiction and about this trend in psychiatric prescribing practices. They are not told about the grave dangers of drug combining. For example, consider the findings that mixing three drugs can give patients a 50% chance of a drug interaction and mixing six makes it extremely likely�or that an accumulation of Prozac in the brain results in at least a 10 fold magnification of other drugs�or that one alcoholic drink would have the effect of ten with Prozac and 40 with Paxil (Tracy, 1994). [�] Ann Tracy 1994) systematically details the dangers of these drugs. In a 1999 addendum to her book [Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? the Rest of the Story on the New Class of Ssri Antidepressants Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Lovan, Luvox & More], she reports that the latest FDA figures show Prozac has about 44,000 adverse reports, including 2500 deaths with the large majority of them linked to suicide or violence. Despite this disturbing evidence, the number of antidepressant prescriptions for children continues to soar, reaching 1,664,000 in 1998.� (Informed Consent and the Psychiatric Drugging Of Children, http://www.wildestcolts.com/mentalhealth/consent2.html)
�Today, while the United States consumes 85% of the production of one stimulant, the problem is no longer limited to this country: the world manufacture of this stimulant increased from 2.8 tons in 1990 to 15.3 tons in 1997.27 Australia: Between 1985 and 2000, Australia experienced a 34-fold increase in prescriptions of two stimulants. Over the past decade in South Australia, there was a 54-fold increase in psychostimulant prescriptions for ADHD; in Western Australia a 2,000% increase. Britain: The number of British children prescribed stimulants multiplied from 2,000 in 1992 to 186,200 in 2000. Canada: In Quebec alone, between 1990 and 2000 there was a 750% jump in one stimulant use among small children. Denmark: The consumption of one stimulant increased 16.8% between 1997 and 1998. About 48% of this market was children and adolescents up to 18 years of age, with 88% of these being boys, most between 7 and 9 years old. The number of children and young people being newly prescribed the drug rose 39.4% during the same period. France: A study of psychotropic drug use among children in 609 primary schools in 440 communities revealed that more than 12% were receiving a psychotropic drug at the time of school entry, with 36% first being prescribed the drug at age one or younger. In some of the communities, the number of children entering school on psychotropic drugs was as high as 60%.28 A June 2002 article, entitled 'Between Medicine and Drugs' reported that between 1989 and 1996, there was a 600% increase in the number of children labeled hyperactive. Germany: Between 1995 and 1999, the number of methylphenidate pills prescribed increased 400%, from 7 million to 31 million. In 2001, an estimated one in three German schoolchildren between 5 and 9 were taking psychotropic pills regularly, while the Bavarian Teachers Federation warned that one in five primary school children in Germany were taking medication for stress, or to improve school performance. Japan: There are about 2.5 million stimulant drug users in Japan. In 2000, the number of minors arrested for illegally using stimulants rose 45% from the preceding year. Sweden: Since 1990, the number of children on one stimulant increased 100-fold, climbing to 2,400 in 2000. Unofficially, the number is suspected to be much higher. Switzerland: Between 1996 and 2000, in the Neuchatel region, the total number of prescriptions for methylphenidate increased 690% and the number of people prescribed the drug increased 470%. Between 50% and 60% of the treated population was aged 5 to 14, with the number of children treated increasing 770%. United States: In the 1990s, the use of one stimulant for ADHD increased 700%.29 Between 1997 and 2001, prescriptions for drugs used for ADHD increased 37%, with more than 20.6 million prescriptions written during the 12 months ending in June 2001. Additionally, prescriptions for one of the newer stimulants for ADHD increased 26% between 1995 and 1999, mainly for children aged 10 to 14. Over the same period, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) antidepressant prescriptions rose 62% for under 20-year-olds.� (Citizens Commission on Human Rights, http://www.cchr.org/doctors/eng/page05.htm)
�A Quebec report showed that the probability of high school graduation for students with mild learning disabilities was 38%, for those with behavioral difficulties it was 15%, and for those with severe learning difficulties it was 13%. All of these are in contrast with a probability of graduation of 83% for those with no declared disability.� (PCERA, Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda 2000).
I believe that although giving the children medication may be a necessary temporary solution, we must consider prevention being key to a happier long-term vision for our society and our children. Medicating our children should be a choice given to parents and not the school. Society has been �led down the primrose path with promising new drugs, approved by the FDA, and seen them withdrawn from the market 6 months later because of dire effects on the liver, kidneys, bone marrow, GI tract, and/or pregnancy. How many more do we daily prescribe which result in only occasional �idiosyncratic� lethal effects with approved doses within the acceptable risk-benefit ratio? (but over 106,000 in the year 1997 died in hospitals from reactions to properly prescribed and taken drugs, as reported in JAMA July 26, 2000. This is the fourth leading cause of death in the US, outnumbered only by: Heart Attacks, Cancer, and Diabetes).� (http://www.resultsproject.net/medpros.html)
�The burden of suffering for any health problem may be characterized by its frequency, morbidity, and associated human and fiscal costs (Offord, Kraemer, Kazdin, Jensen, & Harrington, 1998). According to these criteria, child and youth mental disorders cause a large burden of suffering. In terms of frequency, studies over the past 20 years have indicated that approximately 20% of children and youth may experience mental disorders at any given time (Costello, 1989; Angold and Costello, 1995; Brandenburg, Friedman, & Silver, 1990; Roberts, Attkisson, & Rosenblatt, 1998). Recently, significant progress has been made in incorporating impairment into the thresholds for defining clinically important mental disorders, which has lead to somewhat lower overall prevalence rates. The findings of this research update indicate that 15% of children and youth have clinically important mental disorders if measures of impairment are included. Nevertheless, this prevalence rate is still high. Given that 140,000 children and youth in BC may be affected, it is unlikely that clinical services alone can achieve a marked reduction in the burden of suffering. Rather, a multi-faceted approach is required that includes universal programs to promote health for all children, targeted programs for children at risk, and clinical services for children with severe disorders (Offord et al., 1998)�� (http://www.cf.gov.bc.ca/mental_health/mh_publications/02a_cymh.pdf)
Prevalence of Mental Disorders in Children and Youth: From http://www.cf.gov.bc.ca/mental_health/mh_publications/02a_cymh.pdf
In British Columbia : The approximate number who may be affected is based on a population estimate of 936,500 children & youth in B.C. (MCFD, 2002)
Disorder Prevalence (%) Approximate Number in BC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any anxiety disorder 6.5 60,900
Conduct disorder 3.3 30,900
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder 3.3 30,900
Any depressive disorder 2.1 19,700
Substance abuse 0.8 7,500
Pervasive developmental disorder 0.3 2,800
Obsessive-compulsive disorder 0.2 1,900
Schizophrenia 0.1 900
Tourette�s disorder 0.1 900
Any eating disorder 0.1 900
Bipolar disorder < 0.1 < 900
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any disorder 15 140,500
In Ontario: �Support for students with behavioural, physical, intellectual, communication and multiple exceptionalities is one of the key responsibilities of the Ontario education system. Since 1985, it has been provincial law to provide access to public education to all Ontario children, regardless of the individual challenges they may face. In 1998, a new system for funding education supports for children with special needs was created with the new provincial education funding formula. It consisted of two parts. The first, entitled Special Education Per Pupil Amount or SEPPA, was to help meet the additional educational needs of students with mild and moderate special needs, with a per-student amount determined on total enrolment. The second part was called the Intensive Support Amount or ISA and was based on the idea that the rates of students with acute and severe needs would vary from board to board. The system required schools and school boards to laboriously document professional diagnoses, classroom conditions and services provided for every eligible student, in conformance with uniform provincial profiles and report-writing standards. Boards were required to submit student ISA claims to be validated by the ministry. The amount of the grant per case was either $12,000 or $27,000 depending on the levels of qualification, but there was no requirement to spend these set amounts on a particular student. Boards were responsible for allocating the grants at the local level. This was designed to provide local flexibility. [�] From 1998 to 2001, the number of ISA cases declined then rose slightly. From 2001-02 to 2003-04, a provincial initiative to review all ISA files was undertaken� [�] From 1998 to 2001, Ontario's recognition of acute or severe special needs was somewhat lower than the rates for some other jurisdictions with similar funding systems. By 2003, however, Ontario exhibited the highest prevalence of any province or state in North America where there is a comparable system. [�] The general trend at boards was for successive years of growth. While there was some clustering of need between boards towards the average, in general, the spread between boards became greater at the extremes. Factors reported by boards include: previous lack of professionals to conduct assessments in northern, rural and francophone areas particularly; prior cuts at the time the new funding formula was instituted; the relocation of group homes to suburban and rural areas; high levels of migration of First Nations children off reserve; increased poverty; and the appeal of specific school programs. One common internal factor cited in different ways by several boards was the concept of �created need.� In these examples, students demonstrated serious behavioural or other issues because of deficiencies in the school system in areas such as English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) or lack of initial response to mild disabilities, which then became worse. [�] A significant influence in the results appears to have been the change in criteria for eligibility in 2001. Two categories in particular, Behaviour and Learning Disability, seem to have become more straightforward and easier to attain. In total, 72.7 per cent of the increase from 2002-03 to 2003-04, or 7,399 cases, came from these profiles. [�] Some boards have overlapped special education grants with the intent of other grants provided by the Ministry of Education, such as English-as-a-Second Language, Learning Opportunity, Literacy/Numeracy and Student Success grants. Concerns have been raised that the preoccupation with process has affected the primary goal of improving education for students with special needs. Despite the large investment in question, there is no requirement to demonstrate good outcomes. Provincial standardized test scores show some greater improvement for students with special needs than those without, but none since the funding was increased in 2003. While a student's exceptionality must be identified in order to provide appropriate accommodation, the increased 'labelling' of students raises the prospect of custodial care rather than better education. The ISA system rewards negative descriptions, and there is no funding incentive to reward progress. Boards staffing plans for 2003-04 included 4,166 new special education positions. This included: 1,275 more teachers, 2,374 more education assistants, 294 more professionals and para-professionals, 26 librarians and guidance counsellors, 108 administrative staff, and 90 coordinators and consultants. Yet much work has to be done on the actual best approaches and outcomes for students with special education needs. The reasonable expectation of parents is that funding and staffing increases will equal educational improvement. The general standard of joint management of grants by the ministry and school boards needs to be improved. As the provincial auditor noted: �Neither the school boards�nor the Ministry�had the information or processes in place to determine whether special education services were being delivered effectively, efficiently and in compliance of the requirements.� (2003, Annual Report of the Provincial Auditor) �� (Review of Growth in Claims for Students with Severe Special Needs , http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/ssn/index.html)
"In 2002, the U.S. President�s Commission on Excellence in Special Education report revealed the source of a deeply troubled Special Education system: 40% of kids are being labeled with �learning disorders� and placed in Special Education programs simply because they have not been taught to read. Of the approximate $50 billion spent annually on Special Education, $29 billion was spent for children labeled with subjective and unproven mental disorders." (Citizens Commission on Human Rights, http://www.cchr.org/topics/educators/index.htm)
If you have been coerced into giving you're child drugs to deal with any of his/her behavior issues, please complete the following form at the Citizens Commission on Human Rights.
