DSM5, PSYCHIATRY and MEDICAL ETHICS : Is using psychotropics for normal behavioural patterns in kids + social control unethical! The Stanford University 4 key principles are clearly breached in the U.S. and the U.K.for children on psychotropic drugs - unethical practice is the 'trump card' in the campaign against the influence of DSM5 and the safeguarding of our children in the U.K.and the U.S. - Let's deal our children a better hand!-

Map of U.S. showing skewed prescription rate for ADHD - (low prescription use in west, with the sun and surf outlets, and higher across the 'flatlands' and further east to the big population centres where there is pressure to conform to access 'Ivy League' Colleges etc.) from Sir Ken Robinson's excellent youtube video 'Changing educational paradigms’) - this is evidence of one breach of ethical principle on justice.

Don't let's be apathetic to the mass drugging of kids or 'the brave new world' / '1984' Dystopic State will be here soon!

Paraphrasing a quote by Ghandi.

What are the Four Basic Principles of
Medical Ethics?


Bioethicists often refer to the four basic principles of health care ethics when evaluating the merits and difficulties of medical procedures.  Ideally, for a medical practice to be considered "ethical", it must respect all four of these principles: autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence. 

    Autonomy

          Requires that the patient have autonomy of thought, intention, and action when making decisions regarding health care procedures.  Therefore, the decision-making process must be free of coercion or coaxing.  In order for a patient to make a fully informed decision, she/he must understand all risks and benefits of the procedure and the likelihood of success or potential occurence of side effects. 

Is the process of medicating children for their behaviour free of any coercion or social pressure and are they fully informed of the risks involved with psychotropic drugs? Are they free to cease medication? Certainly children in State Care are not due to Court Orders for administration of prescribed psychotropic drugs.

Many children are neither fully informed nor free to refuse the psychotropic drugs due to parental and/or legal pressure, especially children in state care in the U.S. who have to take them by Court Order. If they refuse or their carer objects a peripetetic 'hit squad' will come and forcibly give them the medication. In the U.K. there is undoubted pressure put on disadvantaged parents to provide drugs for their children via Disabled Living Allowance (DLA) which is worth up to £600 per month.Not to be sniffed at in times of financial hardship.

Is it right that this 'Brave New World' be accepted more globally and is it likely to be translocated across 'the pond' to the U.K. to potentially harm our children and breach the NON-MALEFICENCE principle below?

    Justice

    The idea that the burdens and benefits of new or experimental treatments must be distributed equally among all groups in society. Requires that procedures uphold the spirit of existing laws and are fair to all the stakelolders involved.  The health care provider must consider four main areas when evaluating justice: fair distribution of scarce resources; competing needs; rights and obligations; and potential conflicts with established legislation. 

Is  this is being breached by the huge geographical and social class variations of medication rates in the U.K. and U.S.? Some countries it is the lower socio-economic groups who receive disproportionate medications and in others it is is the 'upper classes' for educational enhancement. In other European countries very few are medicated = less than 0.5%.

There is a 23 fold variation in the U.K. and so this is a potential 'post code lottery.' The distribution in the U.K. is scewed towards socially disadvantaged working class areas with the exception of a few affluent areas which implies it is used more for 'social control.' In the U.S. it is scewed towards white middle class areas to promote concentration and 'enhanced learning' for children in the same way it is happening with many U.K. middle class university students.Also now there is clear evidence of variation within a single yeargroup depending on the child's birthdate with the youngest being prescribed more psycho-stimulants more frequently (See recent top ten post on 'Youngest in class more likely to be diagnosed.')

Is this class, location, and age based variation morally acceptable?
    
    Beneficence

    Requires that the procedure be provided with the intent of doing good for the patient involved.  Demands that health care providers develop and maintain skills and knowledge, continually update training, consider individual circumstances of all patients, and strive for a net benefit to the service user.

Is the 'balance of risk' tipping in favour of the helping thousands of young children on psychotropic drugs or towards them being  harmed by cumulative adverse drug reactions and dependency in the longer term? We now know there is an increased likelihood of later in life reliance on psycho-stimulants, either legal or illegal. Also anti-depressants have recently been implicated by research in higher levels of dementia in older age.

Evidence from the field is mounting dramatically to show clear patterns of harm caused by 'drug cocktails' for younger and younger children e.g. 200+ under 6 years of age on anti-psychotic drugs in the U.K.(CHANNEL 4 NEWS) and 200+ under 2 years of age on antipsychotics just in the state of Florida.The AEP feels this is bound to affect the normal development of a young child's brain.

Is this socially and morally acceptable?

Let's deal our children a better hand in life.

    Non-maleficence

Sudden child deaths flow diagram.

    
  

    Requires that an intervention does not harm the patient involved or others in society.  Psychiatrists prescribe psychotropics under the assumption that they are doing no harm or at least minimizing harm by pursuing the greater good.  In some cases, it is difficult for doctors to successfully apply the do no harm principle when the drugs are so toxic.

IS THERE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF HARM CAUSED TO CHILDREN ON PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS  AND DOES THIS CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF THE DOCTOR'S HIPPOCRATIC OATH?


There is indisputably more evidence of sudden child deaths of children on long term psychostimulants in both the U.S. (52 in a nine year period) and U.K. (9 in a five year period) - Guardian article, due to sudden heart failure thought to be triggered by over-stimulation(see above diagram). Increased suicide of young people on cocktails involving anti-depressants in also regularly documented. 
The most commonly reported harm is the damage caused by psycho-stimulants to a child's sleep pattern, so that they need another drug to counteract this.(Melatonin) We all know how vital sleep is to a child's wellbeing and that disturbance causes the very behavioural problems that are supposedly being treated with the psycho-stimulants and drug cocktails from medical interventions.

Can we tolerate this practice in a 'civilised' society?

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SAY 'NO' TO THE 'BUSINESS PLANS' OF MULTI-NATIONAL DRUG COMPANIES AFFECTING OUR KIDS' HEALTH?