Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 372169)

One of my nieces is a high school sophomore. She's a little high-strung -- trust me, she comes by it honestly -- but otherwise seems like a totally normal kid. She's witty, a fast talker (it seems they all are at that age), and empathetic. Her parents are both pretty successful in their fields and can both be a little retentive, but their home life is comfortable and at the high-end range of functioning. She lives on the East Coast so we don't see her all the time, but when she talks about problems it seems like normal teen girl trauma -- school, bitchy friends, and more school.

So here's the thing -- we just found out that they're thinking of putting her on Xanax. Her mom says that some of her friends are already on it, and it has improved their outlook a great deal.

I'm outraged. Of course, I don't have complete insight into her day-to-day, but with the information that I know and putting it into the preexisting narrative of What I Think Is Wrong With America, this seems completely wrong to me.

I appreciate that there are real things called mood disorders and that some people need medication in order to do chemically what their brain cannot do organically. I get that. Depression and anxiety are real things.

But so is being a teenager. Let's assume that there's something going on here where she's struggling more than I've been led to know. Still, I'm gobsmacked that someone would even consider taking a teenager and attempting to treat symptoms without knowing whether she has a permanent condition that requires medication. Call me silly, but I thought these drugs were supposed to be prescribed when other approaches to a particular pathology had failed. I've go no objections at all to adults taking these drugs, because I trust that they would only do so as adults, figuring out that they needed to get past whatever was blocking their uptake of life's happiness. But a fucking teenager? If my kids are frustrated, anxious and unhappy at age 15 that's how I'll know they're growing up correctly. I didn't realize that adolescence, even in its extreme pathological form, was a condition requiring medication.

Am I being too, pardon the phrase, prescriptive here? Am I old-fashioned to think that pharmaceutical mood alteration is pretty serious stuff, and that even if she experiences a positive outcome there's still moral risk here?

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 372174)

I take xanax because I have severe coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and a history of unstable angina. I find I generally take my xanax about one-third of the presecribed dosage.

When did she have her life-threatening health event that makes keeping her on a low purr sort of a medical necessity?

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 372169)

One of my nieces is a high school sophomore. She's a little high-strung -- trust me, she comes by it honestly -- but otherwise seems like a totally normal kid. She's witty, a fast talker (it seems they all are at that age), and empathetic. Her parents are both pretty successful in their fields and can both be a little retentive, but their home life is comfortable and at the high-end range of functioning. She lives on the East Coast so we don't see her all the time, but when she talks about problems it seems like normal teen girl trauma -- school, bitchy friends, and more school.

So here's the thing -- we just found out that they're thinking of putting her on Xanax. Her mom says that some of her friends are already on it, and it has improved their outlook a great deal.

I'm outraged. Of course, I don't have complete insight into her day-to-day, but with the information that I know and putting it into the preexisting narrative of What I Think Is Wrong With America, this seems completely wrong to me.

I appreciate that there are real things called mood disorders and that some people need medication in order to do chemically what their brain cannot do organically. I get that. Depression and anxiety are real things.

But so is being a teenager. Let's assume that there's something going on here where she's struggling more than I've been led to know. Still, I'm gobsmacked that someone would even consider taking a teenager and attempting to treat symptoms without knowing whether she has a permanent condition that requires medication. Call me silly, but I thought these drugs were supposed to be prescribed when other approaches to a particular pathology had failed. I've go no objections at all to adults taking these drugs, because I trust that they would only do so as adults, figuring out that they needed to get past whatever was blocking their uptake of life's happiness. But a fucking teenager? If my kids are frustrated, anxious and unhappy at age 15 that's how I'll know they're growing up correctly. I didn't realize that adolescence, even in its extreme pathological form, was a condition requiring medication.

Am I being too, pardon the phrase, prescriptive here? Am I old-fashioned to think that pharmaceutical mood alteration is pretty serious stuff, and that even if she experiences a positive outcome there's still moral risk here?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 372178)

Phrases like "some of her friends are already on it" drive my blood pressure to new levels. Too many parents succomb to peer pressure. But, I do know of situations where drugs were not only useful, but almost indispensible, and you might not see them all from afar. Perfectly normal, enthusiastic kids may be unable to focus enough to get through reading a book. Pyschotropic drugs gave us David Foster Wallace's novels, too, so they have some redeeming value.

I am a firm believer though, that drugs should be a last resort, and the earlier resorts should include religion, travel, diet modification, mutliple physician consults (including a good neurologist), a regular night at the theatre with her parents, and even psychological quakery. I've heard success stories for each of these - perhaps most regularly for diet modification and neurological consults. Suggest some of these alternatives. And let me know if you need expamples of cases where they worked.

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen (Post 372181)

On the other hand, and I know this is going to be an unpopular position, you aren't this child's parent. Nor is Atticus. Nor am I.

I'm doing my best to parent the Brazenette. I make decisions about what's in her best interest, because I am her mother, because I love her to distraction, because I know her better than any other living person. Sometimes I make good decisions and sometimes I make bad decisions. But the bottom line is, as her parent, those decisions are mine to make. It is my obligation, my burden and my joy. And I rankle at the idea that anyone other than me knows better what decision I should have made...

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen (Post 372181)

On the other hand, and I know this is going to be an unpopular position, you aren't this child's parent. Nor is Atticus. Nor am I.

I'm doing my best to parent the Brazenette. I make decisions about what's in her best interest, because I am her mother, because I love her to distraction, because I know her better than any other living person. Sometimes I make good decisions and sometimes I make bad decisions. But the bottom line is, as her parent, those decisions are mine to make. It is my obligation, my burden and my joy. And I rankle at the idea that anyone other than me knows better what decision I should have made...

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 372192)

I agree that I have no reason to stick my nose into their business. But he's an Uncle - he gets to interfere. In my family, uncles often interfere in their nieces and nephews lives, even when they're not the father.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 372192)

I agree that I have no reason to stick my nose into their business. But he's an Uncle - he gets to interfere. In my family, uncles often interfere in their nieces and nephews lives, even when they're not the father.

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen (Post 372198)

Why should Atticus assume otherwise, or that he somehow knows better?

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen (Post 372198)

Absent a request for input, I would smack either of my brothers who felt it was within their rights to interfere.

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 372201)

You do read his posts, don't you?

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 372206)

Yay! I'm not on ignore!

Yeah, I get that it's meddling. Family dynamics are such that everyone is allowed to judge one another without too many hurt feelings, because a sense of humor about oneself is prized above all else, but this particular sister is known to lash out over parenting issues in violation of the general rule. Chances I will say something to her are in the low zeroes. I just wanted to know if my emotional response to it was off-base, so I know which side of the family's whispering campaign I should join. I'm leaning toward the "What a terrible decision to face; I would have done the opposite" camp.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 372207)

she tells us she is getting the meds, we tell her she is nuts

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 372192)

I agree that I have no reason to stick my nose into their business. But he's an Uncle - he gets to interfere. In my family, uncles often interfere in their nieces and nephews lives, even when they're not the father.