That's like saying skilled pipefitters who can lay pipelines that will not leak are not the best people to build safe gasoline stations in population areas. I can understand some of it, but imho, mental health professionals should be equipped to discern best who is and who is not fit to be out in society as safe and functioning individuals. I think they have challenges, though, eots, as mental health is a most complex issue. We need more science looking through microscopes to determine what brain chemistry is misfiring, and how to fix it. The reason that's difficult is that child behaviors (and adult) are often the product of neglect so off the wall you might not believe what you saw if you entered their home to find the child or young adult locked in a closet with all sensory stimuli omitted while a parent is so irresponsible he or she is not providing them with adult guidance and support in their time of needing adult supervision. OTOH, the child may be a true ninnyhammer of impatience, driving an immature adult to seek escape from the day-to-day responsibilities of child care due to media proffering certain habits as glorified pastimes for "normal" people that aren't all so normal as hollywierd shows them to be. And with politicos engaged in steamy debates over taboo issues of generations past, Hollywood tends to frame taboo behaviors as desirable ones. As their chief teachers, Hollywood is the hand that rocks the cradle in America while idiots believe all that they say. I recall a ruckus over a Hollywood production entitled "It Takes a Thief" as glorifying stealing, back when Robert Wagner was the drop-dead good-looking cat burglar who made a mint off people who "deserved" to have goods stolen from them.
The thing I find most interesting about the legal end of the drugs debate is that those who have ADHD a lot--that was almost unseen when I was growing up, and it's almost a given now, that a lot of children have that. One of the things I picked up from your link (which linked to other links) is that one of the links said ADHD (other than heredity) was thought to be largely the property of a child whose mother smoked during her pregnancy.
And in tomorrow, what about the life, body, brain, and ability to make decisions by posterity? These are the earnest issues of our lives, and people are too self-absorbed to care what is happening to the birthing end of things, where tomorrow's future leaders, speakers, athletes, statespersons, and decision-makers will be coming from.
The thing I find most interesting about the legal end of the drugs debate is that those who have ADHD a lot--that was almost unseen when I was growing up, and it's almost a given now, that a lot of children have that. One of the things I picked up from your link (which linked to other links) is that one of the links said ADHD (other than heredity) was thought to be largely the property of a child whose mother smoked during her pregnancy.
When I was studying human health administration, one of my classes was in addictions. In the chapter on alcohol, it was describing fetal alcohol syndrome as being caused during the developmental time of the first trimester, when certain cells were dividing. This disease causes a child born that will never compete intellectually and may have facial deformities--all because the mother had as few as one drink in the first trimester or a history of alcoholism (most cases). It never appears in women who never drink. Doh! So what do doctors do when the FAS baby is born? They do not bother to tell the mother she caused her baby's deformity! So what happens? The next pregnancies are at risk for the same issue! More kids are born with FAS out of ignorance imposed on the family by the doctor whose panacea is "do no further damage to the patient," the patient being the mother and her mental health. By not telling her she caused the problem, she is free to repeat the same problem on subsequent new additions to the family. It didn't make sense to me, except I could understand not wanting to be the cause of depression in a mother who may be having post-partum issues as well.
Drinking while pregnant and smoking while pregnant seem to be a human race footshoot. That's where we could avert the problem entirely, but doctors won't get a spine overnight, and babies in the same family will repeat the disease until it is thought the disease is hereditary.
Also, our particular class got into a debate over what is hardest of all to prove--the father's habits causing problems in infants. They just don't know, because a guy might not remember being drunk or having participated in a cigar-smoking marathon the week the fusion of gametes took place.
Yet, in our society, it's leave me alone, it's my life, my body, my brain, my decision.
Your link is linked to areas of studies that implicate smoking during pregnancy as a strong indicator of producing an ADHD child. These studies may seem poor proof to someone who likes smoking and thinks they're gonna live forever, but for those of us who came up through understanding social measurement skills and obtaining information that is quite reasonably reliable, the writing is on the wall: a mother who smokes is a likelier candidate for having an ADHD child than one who does not smoke, has never smoked, does not allow smoking in her home, and who likely never will smoke so long as she has children under her roof.The thing I find most interesting about the legal end of the drugs debate is that those who have ADHD a lot--that was almost unseen when I was growing up, and it's almost a given now, that a lot of children have that. One of the things I picked up from your link (which linked to other links) is that one of the links said ADHD (other than heredity) was thought to be largely the property of a child whose mother smoked during her pregnancy.
When I was studying human health administration, one of my classes was in addictions. In the chapter on alcohol, it was describing fetal alcohol syndrome as being caused during the developmental time of the first trimester, when certain cells were dividing. This disease causes a child born that will never compete intellectually and may have facial deformities--all because the mother had as few as one drink in the first trimester or a history of alcoholism (most cases). It never appears in women who never drink. Doh! So what do doctors do when the FAS baby is born? They do not bother to tell the mother she caused her baby's deformity! So what happens? The next pregnancies are at risk for the same issue! More kids are born with FAS out of ignorance imposed on the family by the doctor whose panacea is "do no further damage to the patient," the patient being the mother and her mental health. By not telling her she caused the problem, she is free to repeat the same problem on subsequent new additions to the family. It didn't make sense to me, except I could understand not wanting to be the cause of depression in a mother who may be having post-partum issues as well.
Drinking while pregnant and smoking while pregnant seem to be a human race footshoot. That's where we could avert the problem entirely, but doctors won't get a spine overnight, and babies in the same family will repeat the disease until it is thought the disease is hereditary.
Also, our particular class got into a debate over what is hardest of all to prove--the father's habits causing problems in infants. They just don't know, because a guy might not remember being drunk or having participated in a cigar-smoking marathon the week the fusion of gametes took place.
Yet, in our society, it's leave me alone, it's my life, my body, my brain, my decision.
there is no proven genetic cause of any of these mental illnesses..it is completely subjective..there is no medical test
It was before December 3 when the APA decided to drop it from its list of Mental illnesses. I think they should review their decision as possibly a quite erroneous one considering the wake created last week by one of its sufferers.
