Anyone know if its legal for sch to insist on adhd medication

Tiddlywinks

nlj1520 wrote: »

I work for the Challenging Behaviour Foundation and have an adult son with autism, learning difficulties and behaviour which challenges. My philosophy (and that of the CBF) is that you medicate a CONDITION, not a behaviour. It sounds to me as though the school are seeking to do the latter.

I disagree - you are playing a game of semantics....

The school is addressing the behaviour because that it what they experience - noise, disruption etc - which impacts on everyone.

The condition may or may not cause the behaviour... they are purely asking that the advice of the medical professional is followed in an attempt to address the behaviour.

nlj1520 wrote: »

As the OP found on her successful trip away, if people support her son appropriately and the environment is adjusted there is no need for medication.

In what way would the school be able to replicate the environment created by a parent giving individual attention to a child - particularly where he is surrounded by classmates and many other diversions. That is just not possible.

nlj1520 wrote: »

Unless he has been formally diagnosed with ADHD (and my understanding is that that requires an EEG) then the teachers are taking too much upon themselves to try to insist he is medicated. I am sure their reasons are good (in the interests of safety), but nonetheless it is not their professional role to diagnose and prescribe. That is what doctors are for.

The OP has said her son has received a diagnosis - what makes you doubt this?

nlj1520 wrote: »

My son is medicated for extreme anxiety, but it is that condition that is medicated, not the behaviour that it leads to. So the dose is as low as possible. enough to make his life bearable, but we still have occasions where stress overwhelms him as it would in a neurotypical person.

As an employee of the Challenging Behaviour Foundation you, more than most, should understand that your son is an individual. The OP's son is an individual. Both should be treated and advised on their own distinct conditions. This is not about you.

nlj1520 wrote: »

IT sounds to me as though the school is seeking to medicate behaviour (and taking away the props that help your son shows a complete lack of understanding of behaviour management in my opinion) and that is no better than using a chemical cosh!

NO, the school is seeking to manage behaviour and a medical professional has prescribed medication... the school simply wants the parents to follow medical advice in the hope that the behaviour might become more manageable.

I'm also concerned that someone who works for an organisation such as the Challenging Behaviour Foundation would take such a position without asking more questions - you are leaping to a frightening conclusion there.

andygb

I have not read the whole thread, but see two very different issues here.
The OP obviously wants the best for her son - good schooling, understanding staff etc.
On the other hand, you probably have twenty to thirty other children whose vital education is being disrupted by one child.
I know that there is no easy fix here, but I certainly would not wish to jeopardise the day to day schooling of the other class members just for one person - alternative education has to be found.

laurel7172

pollypenny wrote: »

While there undoubtably are children with real problems, I do feel that the diagnosis is too readily made: possibly before all other aspects of the child's life have been explored.

I may have been unlucky in my teaching experience, but those pupils with ADHD have had either parents who don't get up with them in the morning, a very poor diet or, most frequently, bedrooms full of televisions and DVD players, which they watch until all hours. Sometimes all three!

It's very hard to separate cause and effect in something like this. While I wouldn't disagree that some diagnosed children do appear to be under-parented, I also know how absolutely knackering a single bad day in a class with a child with severe ADHD can be. And that's a school day, not a real, whole 24 hour one. Hats off to any parent who never succumbs to the TV as babysitter in the face of that level of exhaustion and stress, day after day, year after year. I'm not sure I'd be so perfect. I'm not sure at all.:o

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

nlj1520 wrote: »

I work for the Challenging Behaviour Foundation and have an adult son with autism, learning difficulties and behaviour which challenges. My philosophy (and that of the CBF) is that you medicate a CONDITION, not a behaviour. It sounds to me as though the school are seeking to do the latter.
As the OP found on her successful trip away, if people support her son appropriately and the environment is adjusted there is no need for medication.
Unless he has been formally diagnosed with ADHD (and my understanding is that that requires an EEG) then the teachers are taking too much upon themselves to try to insist he is medicated. I am sure their reasons are good (in the interests of safety), but nonetheless it is not their professional role to diagnose and prescribe. That is what doctors are for.
My son is medicated for extreme anxiety, but it is that condition that is medicated, not the behaviour that it leads to. So the dose is as low as possible. enough to make his life bearable, but we still have occasions where stress overwhelms him as it would in a neurotypical person.
IT sounds to me as though the school is seeking to medicate behaviour (and taking away the props that help your son shows a complete lack of understanding of behaviour management in my opinion) and that is no better than using a chemical cosh!

Surely medication is used in the treatment of conditions where the symptoms are significant?

In this case, it would appear that the lad's symptoms of this condition are reduced through the appropriate directed use of medication; were his symptoms less significant, having the condition wouldn't make much of a difference to anybody, including the boy himself.

If he is being disruptive, then he isn't learning, so his education and future opportunities are being harmed. If he is disrupting other kids' education, then that is affecting his social skills and his ability to form meaningful friendships and benefitting from them; thereby harming his emotional health.


If his behaviour has improved that dramatically in school that they are keen for him to continue his medication (and are prepared to take him on a school trip as a result of the improvements), then it is logical to conclude that they feel his social skills, emotional health and learning is being harmed by non-compliance with medication.



We have quite a few kids at school with such diagnoses. Some are medicated; some are not. The extra time, effort and expenses that goes into providing additional lessons in things such as social skills, catch ups with functional skills, etc, for all of these kids is worth it, as they get help with all aspects of their life. But a child who needs medication because their symptoms are severely affecting their life chances, but is denied it, whether because their parents don't like the idea or whether they are refusing to take it (which can easily be a symptom of the condition they have in itself) and it is going unchallenged, is not going to benefit as much from the extra provision as the child who needs medication and is encouraged to continue.

Personally, I far prefer seeing them able to take part in school shows, social events, special occasions, fun lessons and trips than sitting in seclusion because they're so worked up, they need to be placed in an absolutely quiet room, unable to talk to their classmates, in constant rows with others or making it impossible for the teacher to get on with teaching them and the rest of the class. Not as punishment, but as the only place where they can be calm.

GobbledyGook

I think Jojo's point about the school's willingness to take him on the residential with the medication is very telling.

At some schools I worked in there would be no question of a child with ADHD going on a residential. So the fact they are saying he can go shows that there must be a beneficial impact on his behaviour.

I know of several ADHD children who were not even allowed on day trips unless their parent could accompany them because the school simply couldn't (or wouldn't in a few cases) take the responsibility for them.

If the medication had no impact you'd be getting a list of reasons from them why he can't go, not one thing that means he can.

Egypt191

pollypenny wrote: »

Yes, I know, I was being cynical.


While there undoubtably are children with real problems, I do feel that the diagnosis is too readily made: possibly before all other aspects of the child's life have been explored.

I may have been unlucky in my teaching experience, but those pupils with ADHD have had either parents who don't get up with them in the morning, a very poor diet or, most frequently, bedrooms full of televisions and DVD players, which they watch until all hours. Sometimes all three!

On the other hand, the excellent decorator I know, who was a loud, hyper-lively boy in class, very hard to manage, probably has ADHD. No such diagnosis in the 80s,

I got that you were being cynical, me too, its just the written ( or typed) word doesnt always come across the way it was intended

I don't agree that a diagnosis is too readily made nowadays, just that our resources and knowledge are much greater. I don't have a child with ADHD, but I do know that in order to be diagnosed it can be a long, difficult road for all involved.

laurel7172 wrote: »

It's very hard to separate cause and effect in something like this. While I wouldn't disagree that some diagnosed children do appear to be under-parented, I also know how absolutely knackering a single bad day in a class with a child with severe ADHD can be. And that's a school day, not a real, whole 24 hour one. Hats off to any parent who never succumbs to the TV as babysitter in the face of that level of exhaustion and stress, day after day, year after year. I'm not sure I'd be so perfect. I'm not sure at all.:o

This puts it far more eloquently than i could

Brenny

pollypenny wrote: »

I may have been unlucky in my teaching experience, but those pupils with ADHD have had either parents who don't get up with them in the morning, a very poor diet or, most frequently, bedrooms full of televisions and DVD players, which they watch until all hours. Sometimes all three!

People are so quick to judge. Yes, dgd with ASD (very, very real) has poor diet because she would literally starve if we only offered her "healthy" food. She literally cannot put a lot of foods in her mouth. Her sleep patterns are all over the place, and TV (although not in her room) does give her some calm.

As for special education, when the educational psychologist says she doesn't need a statement because her needs are being met (5 hours of education a week) then that's the battle most parents have to have to even have a remote chance of getting a suitable education for their child. On one hand the education authority doesn't want to provide for the child's needs and on the other hand they don't want to provide the education. It's all about cost and not the child. They can't have it both ways. To those who question the diagnosis until you have walked in our shoes you really have no idea.


And to OP I would strongly suggest you get the answer to your original question from people who can give you the correct advice or at least point you in the right direction such as the autism society.

neverdespairgirl

laurel7172 wrote: »

It's very hard to separate cause and effect in something like this. While I wouldn't disagree that some diagnosed children do appear to be under-parented, I also know how absolutely knackering a single bad day in a class with a child with severe ADHD can be. And that's a school day, not a real, whole 24 hour one. Hats off to any parent who never succumbs to the TV as babysitter in the face of that level of exhaustion and stress, day after day, year after year. I'm not sure I'd be so perfect. I'm not sure at all.:o

I don't think that's about children with particular needs, either. Surely, every single parent can recognise (if honest) that sometimes the most average of children can be extremely hard work, and that you sometimes need to do less than ideal things to get through a difficult time. The "ideal all the time" parent doesn't exist, apart from in guilt-ridden parental fantasies.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

pollypenny wrote: »

Yes, I know, I was being cynical.


While there undoubtably are children with real problems, I do feel that the diagnosis is too readily made: possibly before all other aspects of the child's life have been explored.

I may have been unlucky in my teaching experience, but those pupils with ADHD have had either parents who don't get up with them in the morning, a very poor diet or, most frequently, bedrooms full of televisions and DVD players, which they watch until all hours. Sometimes all three!

On the other hand, the excellent decorator I know, who was a loud, hyper-lively boy in class, very hard to manage, probably has ADHD. No such diagnosis in the 80s,

What do you do with a kid that doesn't sleep more than a few hours at a time, or wakes up at a sparrow's fart and then will be on the go constantly for the next twenty hours if you need 6-7 yourself to function?

You find whatever you can that will keep them calm, peaceful and not in danger. For a lot of kids (and adults), that means getting them used to background noise which will hopefully mask any sound they would normally wake up to, something that keeps them still long enough to fall asleep or will keep them occupied for as long as possible.

I still remember the sinking feeling every morning when I had to get up to go to the loo - I knew my (non ADD/ADHD) daughter's eyes would snap open and that was it for the day. Once she was old enough to quietly watch videos and be safe, my life got so much better - because I had a chance to doze or at least just lie there and rest for another hour or so.

I don't sleep much myself. Never have done (other than when pregnant, then it was 12 hours and even then it wasn't ever enough), but I still needed more than her; after settling her down for the night, because my difficulty is actually going to sleep in the first place, I could still be awake when she'd had all she needed for the night, and if I'm woken up when I'm actually sleeping deeply, I'm dizzy to the point of falling over, nauseous and good for nothing.


Some people find having a TV or radio on helps calm their mind so they can sleep; a lot of people with anxiety, for example. Those people were probably similar as kids.



There's no glamour in being a martyr. A realistic parent goes for what works - and if providing a kid with a TV and DVD player in their bedroom makes it possible for parents to work, drive safely, get up and walk to school, look after the other children, then that's good enough.

If you add in a genuine condition (which as I remember it, was known as hyperactivity in the late 70s, early 80s - it was one of the things bandied around about me as a kid) - then what else can a mere mortal be expected to do?

GobbledyGook

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

There's no glamour in being a martyr. A realistic parent goes for what works - and if providing a kid with a TV and DVD player in their bedroom makes it possible for parents to work, drive safely, get up and walk to school, look after the other children, then that's good enough.

If you add in a genuine condition (which as I remember it, was known as hyperactivity in the late 70s, early 80s - it was one of the things bandied around about me as a kid) - then what else can a mere mortal be expected to do?

I can only echo this.

A TV/DVD in my daughter's bedroom with a timer plug saved my sanity. She functions on very little sleep - something I simply cannot do. I'm not talking about the usual 'baby wakes in the night'. She's at school now and does not sleep until shortly before midnight and wakes around 5.15am every morning. That's a vast improvement on what she used to be like.

Her TV/DVD was bought the morning I had to pull over at the side of the road in fear of falling asleep at the wheel. Her sister's teacher also commented (quite sneerily in fact) that 'perhaps I should consider a reasonable bedtime' as my other daughter was exhausted from being disturbed.

I'd love to be able to say I never use the TV to entertain my children, but the simple fact is I can't. However I'd rather have a child/children who watch a few too many cartoons than dead or seriously injured ones because the sheer exhaustion of a child that does not sleep broke me.

Parenting isn't easy. Neither is teaching, but sometimes teacher's forget that the children they find 'constant' during the day don't always turn that off after school so their 'helpful' suggestions might seem like they'd make their life easier during the school day, but have zero thought for the parent - who for the most part have tried every single thing they can thing of, read about or try long before it was suggested.

The vast majority of people with children who have ADD/ADHD type conditions are good parents who are trying their best in extremely difficult circumstances. It's simply another myth that they are mostly lazy parents who want a label stuck to their kid to excuse bad behaviour. The few who are like that make it ten times harder for the rest.