A New Drug Controversy
I'm working on a feature for NEA Today about a drug problem in schools. Not pot, but drugs prescribed for students diagnosed with bipolar disease.
The problem is that diagnosing bipolar disease may be much harder in children than in adults, and some of these drugs can have serious side-effects.
Frontline aired a strong documentary on this topic, and the New Yorker ran an article with a similar warning message.
The New York Times reported last year that these drugs, called "atypical antipsychotics," are being prescribed to half a million children in the United States. The Times analyzed records in Minnesota, which the Times says is the only state to require that drug companies publicly report payments to doctors. They found that psychiatrists who took the most money from drug companies also tended to prescribe the drugs more.
Of course, that's not proof that the money led them to prescribe more drugs. The payments are generally for speaking at doctors' seminars, and the companies could simply be choosing those who already prescribe their drugs to do the speaking -- that's the explanation given by a drug company representative in the article. (This explanation is not very comforting, though, since nobody's paying doctors who don't prescribe these drugs to speak about why they don't.)
The strangest thing about this Times story is some comments from psychiatrists -- experts in hidden and unconscious motives -- who deny that money could influence them.
But I'm not looking to make my article a polemic. I'm sure there are arguments on the other side and I'd like to hear them. (I swear, nobody's paying me on either side.)
If any readers have experience with kids taking these drugs, good or bad, I would appreciate hearing from you!
The problem is that diagnosing bipolar disease may be much harder in children than in adults, and some of these drugs can have serious side-effects.
Frontline aired a strong documentary on this topic, and the New Yorker ran an article with a similar warning message.
The New York Times reported last year that these drugs, called "atypical antipsychotics," are being prescribed to half a million children in the United States. The Times analyzed records in Minnesota, which the Times says is the only state to require that drug companies publicly report payments to doctors. They found that psychiatrists who took the most money from drug companies also tended to prescribe the drugs more.
Of course, that's not proof that the money led them to prescribe more drugs. The payments are generally for speaking at doctors' seminars, and the companies could simply be choosing those who already prescribe their drugs to do the speaking -- that's the explanation given by a drug company representative in the article. (This explanation is not very comforting, though, since nobody's paying doctors who don't prescribe these drugs to speak about why they don't.)
The strangest thing about this Times story is some comments from psychiatrists -- experts in hidden and unconscious motives -- who deny that money could influence them.
But I'm not looking to make my article a polemic. I'm sure there are arguments on the other side and I'd like to hear them. (I swear, nobody's paying me on either side.)
If any readers have experience with kids taking these drugs, good or bad, I would appreciate hearing from you!
--Alain Jehlen (ajehlen@nea.org)
Labels: drugs
posted by Alain Jehlen @ Wednesday, June 04, 2008
1 Comments
Links to this post
