Skip to main content

Can We Let Children Outgrow Their 'Mental Disorders'?

From 1994 to 2003, there was a forty-fold increase in the treatment of youths for bipolar disorder — from 20,000 to 800,000 young people in the United States alone. In almost all cases, these children were treated with medications that had not been extensively tested for use in the very young. Thus, nearly one million children and adolescents were treated as adults despite decades of research that clearly identifies the unique developmental trajectory of the pre-adult years.

Many argue that by medicating the very young, mental disorders are caught early, saving the child, and his or her family, years of unnecessary suffering. Yet it is unclear if what is identified as bipolar disorder in children correlates with what is identified as bipolar disorder in adults.

Few children and adolescents actually meet the criteria for adult bipolar disorder. Instead of altering between the intense moods of depression and mania that characterizes adult bipolar, children tend to rage, behave aggressively, and are often hyperactive (hence the likelihood of also being diagnosed with ADHD). Rather than questioning the correlation between adult bipolar disorder and what is being witnessed in children, the diagnosis in children has been changed to incorporate these differences. Dr. Joseph Biederman of Harvard University — who came under fire for failing to report $1.6 million in consulting fees he received from pharmaceutical companies — redefined the symptoms of bipolar disorder in children to include extreme irritability, recklessness, sleeplessness, and hyperactivity. Nevertheless, Dr. Biederman did not suggest a novel treatment to complement his child-centric understanding of bipolar disorder. The method of treatment remained the same as the standard treatment for adults: prescribing medications.

The logic of this approach baffles me. If a new set of diagnostic criteria are needed, why not also identify what is occurring in children as a new disorder? Increasing the number of psychiatric disorders has been the trend in psychiatry the past half century. In 1952, there were 112 diagnoses in the DSM; in 1968, there were 163. The 1994 printing of the DSM listed 374 diagnoses.

One reason to name a set of behaviors in children as bipolar disorder might be because it allows psychiatrists to prescribe medications they suspect might alter behaviors in a desired direction. The parallel between adults and children would thus rest on the drugs’ effects—not the symptoms of the disorders.

Perhaps more disturbing than the use of medications to subdue problematic behavior is the disregard of children’s developmental trajectory. There is every possibility a child will ‘outgrow’ a mental disorder without treatment with potentially lethal medications, largely because of the profound influence the environment plays in the lives of children and adolescents.

According to John March, Chief of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Duke University, “from a developmental point of view, we simply don’t know how accurately we can diagnose bipolar disorder, or whether those diagnosed at age five or six or seven will grow up to be adults with the illness.”

A 1999 report of Surgeon General David Satcher, Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General, emphasized the difficulties with diagnosing children and adolescents with adult mental illnesses precisely because children are constantly changing:

“The science is challenging because of the ongoing process of development. The normal developing child hardly stays the same long enough to make stable measurements. Adult criteria for illness can be difficult to apply to children and adolescents, when the signs and symptoms of mental disorders are often also the characteristics of normal development.”

Satcher also wrote:

“Even more than is true for adults, children must be seen in the context of their social environments, that is, family, peer group, and their larger physical and cultural surroundings. Childhood mental health is expressed in this context, as children proceed through development.”

According to Satcher, several adverse experiences are known to impact a child's mental health:

“Dysfunctional aspects of family life such as severe parental discord, a parent’s psychopathology or criminality, overcrowding, or large family size can predispose to conduct disorders and antisocial personality disorders, especially if the child does not have a loving relationship with at least one of the parents…. Economic hardship can indirectly increase a child’s risk of developing a behavioral disorder because it may cause behavioral problems in the parents or increase the risk of child abuse…. Exposure to acts of violence also is identified as a possible cause of stress-related mental health problems…. Studies point to poor caregiving practices as being a risk factor for children of depressed parents….”

These potential threats to a child’s well-being are often ignored when the primary form of treatment is medications, which leads me to question the ethical implications of medicating children and adolescents for bipolar disorder and other mental disorders. Shouldn't psychiatrists and other mental health workers be responsible for asking about conditions in children’s homes before treating them as if the problem resides in their brains? Shouldn't we care for children before assuming they need to be cured?

Add Comment

Comments (12)

Newest · Oldest · Popular

Thanks for the NPR reference. I recently started assisting the Level II training of sensorimotor psychotherapy, which looks at the relationship between attachment and trauma. The 'intergenerational transmission of anxiety' (if we can call it that) is worth close attention. As you point out, a lot of healthy change in children can come about from focusing on parents' anxious states, including anxiety that results from their past traumas. 

I absolutely agree with you, Laura. The first question should be: "What happened to you?" An interesting story on NPR this morning looked at how anxious parents pass anxiety onto their children. The story focused on how not only the anxious child, but also his anxious parents participated in cognitive behavioral therapy to change all of their responses and behaviors. And it worked...without drugs.  

Wow. What an important discussion. This issue was the most perplexing part of my pediatric practice for 25 years. Help parents be the best parents possible in conjunction with teachers and healthcare providers is a huge issue. Including family is a must in addressing societal ills within the family. We all need help in addressing childhood stresses and moving past them into the future as the author has done. But I agree, most need help doing this and most don't get that help in a 'system' incenting band-aid medication-first processes. Teaching others how to implement coding workarounds to include group sessions and family is the way forward. Covering up past issues or hoping they will improve without directly addressing them does not work. Let's teach the world how to do this as a multi-disciplinary integrated group of consultants, starting out by highlighting practices already doing so. I'll be the pediatrician.

Thanks to both of you for this background on how you handle the challenges of delivering the most comprehensive services you can under existing constraints. Derrick, I appreciate that you have very strong opinions on this, and I think it's great to share them in a mutually respectful way. I hope this conversation can continue with more contributions from our members on how they deal with the challenges we've discussed. 

Rebecca,

I handle this, per your question, in one of two ways - I try to offer a roughly budget friendly option, provided there is a commitment for sessions beyond 3-6 months (usually 6 months or more), and I offer group sessions which I am also endeavoring to get the local school board to bless so it can be offered to parents more openly and easily.

Both are cost effective - but the groups are the most cost effective and can be supplemented with sporadic family/individual/parent sessions in my office.

My unique approach is, fix the parents, fix the children, fix the family, which will fix education, fix social impacts and fix the transgenerational patterns that follow every individual and family.

In my view, more programs or skills-based "solutions" aren't the answer.  That's not to say those things cant be helpful, but I have found that most families (i.e. parents) cannot adequately implement boiler-plate solutions and prescriptions - most just don't have the emotional "gas" or emotional development to pull that off on their own.

Why is this?  The vast majority of parents only know what they have experienced - the template their own childhoods and parents gave them become the latticework that the next generation hangs their efforts on.  Thus, they wind up trying to fix what has been broken, as if a patchwork of fixes will give them something that is actually new and different.

They need a completely new paradigm - that is what I offer in my counseling sessions and groups.  I teach what health looks like and I give specific homework and recommendations for counselees to take care of.  Which means, I don't buy the milk-toast wishy washy idea that everyone's truth is different or that what works for one wont necessarily work for others.

In my mind, that's utter bunk.  There are definitive healthy ways to relate and operate in life - few counselors know what those are, and even fewer teach or coach clients in how to achieve it. 

Rebecca, the story you are working on is very important, especially the angle you are taking towards impediments to care.

In response to your question, when working with people with acute traumatic stress, and insurance only reimburses for certain circumstances — including number of visits — I have provided phone support between visits. I have also invited clients to bring in family members so I could give the entire family education about trauma and how it effects the body and relationships. Fortunately, this doesn't count as family or couples therapy; rather it is called "collateral" work, and thus can be billed as personal therapy. But I found that when people would take me up on this option, family members often were more supportive of treatment, and even sometimes became interested in getting attention for their own trauma-related stress. 

By the way, I have written an article on trauma and ADHD you might find interesting:

http://www.laurakkerr.com/2013/02/23/adhd-trauma/

Thanks for all the wonderful work you are also doing for ACES Connections!

Laura, 

Thank you for this post. I am currently working on a story about ADHD and trauma that will appear soon on ACEs Too High that touches on some of the issues you raise. It will certainly look at the structural obstacles to conducting thorough assessments of children demonstrating emotional or behavioral symptoms of trauma, adversity, stress or mental illness.

From what I understand, a major obstacle for pediatricians, psychologists and other clinicians is that insurance and Medicaid does not adequately reimburse for the many hours required to conduct a comprehensive assessment where questions about early life development and parenting behavior could be asked. Similarly, Medicaid does not pay for group therapies, where many parent behavioral training courses are set. Finally, and perhaps this speaks to the reimbursement problem, many clinicians don't have trauma training and/or don't know about behavioral interventions to which they could refer patients. 

If that all sounds accurate, I want to pose a question to you, Derrick and other ACEs members who have had to grapple with these structural issues: What have you done in your practice to provide trauma-informed services to clients even when the system will not pay you for spending the time and effort to do so? Maybe your experiences can help others take on this problem with solutions they hadn't thought of before. 

Thank you for your clarification, Derrick. I am trained in the treatment of trauma — sensorimotor psychotherapy. And I agree; the treatment of trauma does take a specific orientation.

I have also provided psychotherapy to children who have been in households with the conditions Satcher identified. When given a chance to be engage in 'normal' childhood behaviors, in healthy environments, and with opportunities to reach normal developmental milestones, children are often profoundly resilient. Trauma-focused therapy wasn't necessary. Rather, play-focused therapy was sufficient.

My reference about children not being able to out-grow trauma has to do with it NOT being an automatic self governing process. It requires a specific protocol to walk the client through in order to get past the trauma largely in its entirety.

I feel you misunderstood my point, Derrick. Rather than medicating children, there are many ways we can support them as they grow and change, even when there is trauma present.

I also disagree with your belief that children cannot get over trauma. As a person who had trauma in my childhood, I have indeed overcome. And so have many others. 

And, there is no such thing as "children growing out of their mental disorders," let alone getting over trauma's, drama, chaos etc in their families.  They need help and the adult children of those families need even more attention so the Family Transmission process is stopped.

Post
Copyright © 2023, PACEsConnection. All rights reserved.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×