Ritalin

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Maybe you should address yourself to the topic of why family law courts routinely deny fathers access to their kids and routinely favour mothers over fathers.

Maybe in your country, but if you want me to pull out the Canadian statistics, I can guarantee you that you will look quite uninformed. Times are a-changing.
 
I see no pot-shot. I see a teacher offering a legitimate perspective on an issue relevant to the thread.


I fail to see how stating that pediatricians should prescribe less ritalin has any relevance whatsoever to a plan to label uninsured Americans as "insured by an emergency room."

I also find it oddly coincidental that this irrelevant statement, which could be taken by a pediatrician to be offensive, comes in a thread in which I clearly state that I am a pediatrician. And that it comes from Dreadsox mere hours after I implied that Dreadsox might be an idiot (without actually calling him that, of course). :happy:

Yup, I think too highly of myself. A discussion of ritalin prescription has everything to do with not calling the uninsured "uninsured." :doh:
 
You mean they're more likely to need said practices and strategies, or that they aren't more likely to need them, but we just think they do? I'm a little confused by your wording here...

I think that my profession contributes to the problem by not adapting teaching practices that meet the needs of all children in general. I will use my son for example....

He HATES what he is reading in school. Put a graphic comic novel in front of him and he can read. Bring him to the museum of natural history, and he will read about fossils....but the materials that are inside of the books we use to instruct children, time and time again, are not material that he would want to read.

Lets look at culture. Time and time again, we see that subgroups, of some minorities score lower. We know that there are cultural barriers, and learning styles that help overcome these barriers. But, they are not consistently implemented.

And I honestly believe that there are NOT enough fathers being role models. There are not enough male teachers at younger ages.

I also think that parenting, has a major major influence on this. It is easier to put a kid on a video game and have peace and quiet than to parent.

It all contributes to the problem.
 
I fail to see how stating that pediatricians should prescribe less ritalin has any relevance whatsoever to a plan to label uninsured Americans as "insured by an emergency room."

....A discussion of ritalin prescription has everything to do with not calling the uninsured "uninsured." :doh:

I'd argue that it could possibly be connected.

Who benefits from over-prescription of these drugs? When you think about it, it's probably the drug companies, and they could be the ones lobbying for minimising public healthcare in the US, conceivably.
 
Why though?

They weren't seen as inadequate in dealing with the needs of boys 40 or even 20 years ago, why are they inadequate now? What changed?

Divorce, Computers, Video Games, Single Parent Homes, Text Books, declining male role models.....
 
The last on-record year in Canada where sole-custody (maternal) outpaced joint custody was 2002, where the numbers were 49% - 42% with the remainder being sole-custody (paternal). The reason that the joint custody cases are now "in the lead" so to speak is because the courts have rejected some of the older case law. One example is the tender-years doctrine which basically encouraged sole-custody to mothers for all children under the age of 6. The belief was that mothers were psychologically better equipped to deal with the needs of small children. Nowadays, we no longer hold these views, but I would caution that while it sounds harsh, it isn't necessarily a malevolent idea. Remember that for a long time, mothers stayed home with children before they went to school, so that the bond between mother and child was different (not better necessarily, but different) than that of the father and so many child psychologists would testify to this. In any event, this doctrine is outdated and has been struck down by the courts, except in the obvious examples, like babies and toddlers who are still being breastfed in which case the mother almost always gets sole custody on a temporary basis to be revisited based on a specific timeline.

There are other burning issues now - for example, you have more women reporting incidents of domestic violence than ever before. The question is, if the father did not physically abuse the children, but the children watched him abuse the mother, should that be a determinant in custody cases?
 
Divorce, Computers, Video Games, Single Parent Homes, Text Books, declining male role models.....

Do you think that any of these factors could conceivably be linked to the liberal agenda or the influence of left wing ideas in general?
 
The last on-record year in Canada where sole-custody (maternal) outpaced joint custody was 2002, where the numbers were 49% - 42% with the remainder being sole-custody (paternal). The reason that the joint custody cases are now "in the lead" so to speak is because the courts have rejected some of the older case law. One example is the tender-years doctrine which basically encouraged sole-custody to mothers for all children under the age of 6. The belief was that mothers were psychologically better equipped to deal with the needs of small children. Nowadays, we no longer hold these views, but I would caution that while it sounds harsh, it isn't necessarily a malevolent idea. Remember that for a long time, mothers stayed home with children before they went to school, so that the bond between mother and child was different (not better necessarily, but different) than that of the father and so many child psychologists would testify to this. In any event, this doctrine is outdated and has been struck down by the courts, except in the obvious examples, like babies and toddlers who are still being breastfed in which case the mother almost always gets sole custody on a temporary basis to be revisited based on a specific timeline.

There are other burning issues now - for example, you have more women reporting incidents of domestic violence than ever before. The question is, if the father did not physically abuse the children, but the children watched him abuse the mother, should that be a determinant in custody cases?

Thanks for this information.
 
I do not think this a left or right issue. Not that I can see. What liberal agenda may you be referring to?
 
I'd argue that it could possibly be connected.

Who benefits from over-prescription of these drugs? When you think about it, it's probably the drug companies, and they could be the ones lobbying for minimising public healthcare in the US, conceivably.



Sketchy relevance, at best.

I can make a valid argument that it's the influence of the military. The military, vile cretins who prey on impressionable minds in high school cafeterias across the country, need teens on ritalin to improve the performance and concentration of brainwashed drones in the field of battle. McCain, who apparently is the epitome of a good soldier and in the palm of the US military brass, needs to minimise public healthcare in order to keep kids on ritalin to make his hawkish cronies happy.

Golly, I should bring up ritalin and pediatricians whenever I see a thread about the military! Bastards!
 
I :heart: nootropics

I support the right to use drugs to improve cognition,.

Sure, until your brain won't focus on even a normal level without ritalin, due to dependency.

As far as I see it, there's no free lunch.
 
Do you think that any of these factors could conceivably be linked to the liberal agenda or the influence of left wing ideas in general?

No-fault divorce, computers, video games, single-parent homes, textbooks, and declining male role models all exist in right-wing states, as well, not to mention that, statistically, there's a higher rate of divorce in the Bible Belt than there is in "godless" New England.

It has nothing to do with leftists, and probably more to do with self-centeredness and greed, which, if I remember correctly, are celebrated libertarian virtues, rather than vices. It goes far beyond politics and more to do with culture, and do take notice that the paragons of morality in this country, the GOP and the Religious Right, have expressed no intentions whatsoever to ban or curtail divorce, instead choosing the classic tactic of scapegoating minorities to blame for all their personal failings. Medieval Christian Europe had Jews; present-day Republicans have gays.
 
aren't prescribed (to the best of my knowledge) to anything like the same extent as in the US.
Yes, it's marketing over medicine.
They weren't seen as inadequate in dealing with the needs of boys 40 or even 20 years ago, why are they inadequate now? What changed?
At school; corporal punishment was forced out of schools, less men teachers, less physical education and less outside recess time in grade schools.
 
And I honestly believe that there are NOT enough fathers being role models. There are not enough male teachers at younger ages.

My brother is a teacher and he is wonderful. He's very athletic, 6'4", loves sports, loves doing extra-curriculars, plays guitars and the kids love him.

But he's teaching high school and almost all of his male friends from teachers college are as well, because no guy in today's society wants to go to kindergarten. A little kid bursts into tears and needs a hug and you get called a pervert. So why risk it?
 
At school; corporal punishment was forced out of schools, less men teachers, less physical education and less outside recess time in grade schools.


I don't agree with corporal punishment. But your other points ring very true to me.
 
Interesting point - I have increased recess time - hoping it decreases behavior issues...increasing learning.
 
At school; corporal punishment was forced out of schools

Corporal punishment is legal in well over a dozen states and is still practiced regularly in most of them, I imagine. I'd love to see the statistics as to whether these school districts have better performance than those that do not have it. I have a hunch that they don't.

It is possible to have strict discipline without resorting to physical violence. Catholic schools around the country do it all the time and successfully.
 
It has nothing to do with leftists, and probably more to do with self-centeredness and greed, which, if I remember correctly, are celebrated libertarian virtues, rather than vices.

Wrong. You completely misunderstand libertarianism.

It goes far beyond politics and more to do with culture, and do take notice that the paragons of morality in this country, the GOP and the Religious Right, have expressed no intentions whatsoever to ban or curtail divorce, instead choosing the classic tactic of scapegoating minorities to blame for all their personal failings. Medieval Christian Europe had Jews; present-day Republicans have gays.

While I wouldn't dispute any of that, the reason the religious right don't try to restrict divorce rights is surely that the public simply wouldn't have it.
 
my son, who is 10 yrs old takes a form of ritalin, called Concerta and it has been a godsend for him. He was diagnosed with ADHD/ODD when he was 6. His ability to focus and succeed academically in school has been amazing. He is a supersmart kid and does especially well in math and science. There have been days where he hasn't taken his meds and it was noticable but not extreme.
 
My brother is a teacher and he is wonderful. He's very athletic, 6'4", loves sports, loves doing extra-curriculars, plays guitars and the kids love him.

But he's teaching high school and almost all of his male friends from teachers college are as well, because no guy in today's society wants to go to kindergarten. A little kid bursts into tears and needs a hug and you get called a pervert. So why risk it?

Do you believe it is not worth the risk? I have been doing this for fourteen years. I have worked with no more than one other male at any time. My current staff is now up to 70 people. It is the custodian and I.

Now, what does that say? I do not know?

But I know when I was a classroom teacher, the boys with issues worked out well when they were placed with me.

I know that when I go out to recess, it changes the attitudes of students who have been labeled "severly emotionally disturbed" if I play catch with them.

I know that the student who has arrived at my school who was suspended for over thirty days in grade one and could not possibly survive without an aide, has somehow made it...

Why risk it?

Because it makes a difference.
 
Wrong. You completely misunderstand libertarianism.

Most American libertarians have wet dreams over Reagan still, and, again, are only "libertarians" because they don't want to pay taxes. I cannot comment on non-American libertarians.

While I wouldn't dispute any of that, the reason the religious right don't try to restrict is surely that the public simply wouldn't have it.

Indeed. How dare we condemn or restrict the behavior of heterosexuals, when we can just condemn and restrict the behaviors of minorities instead, and claim everything is fixed now?
 
I'm not commenting on it either way - I didn't choose teaching nor would I ever in a million years choose it except at a university level because I simply don't have the patience and trust me the kids are better off.

But I'm saying to you that this is the perception right now in teachers' colleges among the young males, for better or worse.
 
Most American libertarians have wet dreams over Reagan still, and, again, are only "libertarians" because they don't want to pay taxes. I cannot comment on non-American libertarians.

Is it fair to say that most American liberals are only "liberals" because they are envious of rich people? No, clearly not, so I don't think your above characterisation of most American libertarians is fair either.

Incidentally, on US libertarian forums I have visited, Reagan is not particularly venerated (Thatcher more so) and the Christian right are largely despised.
 
I'm not commenting on it either way - I didn't choose teaching nor would I ever in a million years choose it except at a university level because I simply don't have the patience and trust me the kids are better off.

But I'm saying to you that this is the perception right now in teachers' colleges among the young males, for better or worse.

Believe me I understand the perception. I am never alone with kids without my door open or another adult in the room. When I get hugged, I make sure my hands are in sight of everyone.

But it is worth it...

The best part of my day today involved kids: I was sitting on a hill with a child who did not speak to anyone a year ago...and he told me about his summer.

An African American child in the first grade, told me today that she was going to be president like Barrack Obama.

A down syndrome child from kindergarten walked up to me outside this morning and said "Hi Mr S. this is my Dad" and made me shake his hand. She then told her dad she liked my school.

It was a great day. So when my military buddies bust my chops - I laugh, because they would not understand that the things like these little stories mean more to me than the jokes and public perception of males in my profession
 
Incidentally, on US libertarian forums I have visited, Reagan is not particularly venerated and the Christian right are largely despised.

Well, then it appears that things are finally changing. Here's hoping we'll get a true libertarian movement in the U.S. that supports both smaller government and positive rights, rather than just the former. I think it's no secret that I despise both "paleoconservatives" and "paleolibertarians."
 
Back
Top Bottom