Wow. Sickening in both cases. Barring some massive other side of the story, charging a parent with child neglect for taking their kid off of Ritalin . . . well, I can't find the words. Mind boggling. Scary. Orwellian, even.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:John Francis, a detective for the Rio Rancho Department of Public Safety, said that Taylor was not threatened but told KOAT-TV that parents could be charged in situations like his.
"People can be charged with child abuse, child neglect or various other crimes involving a child," he said.
I can see why people can be charged with child abuse and/or neglect for taking their children off some medications on their own and against medical advice. I don't see why this would be the case for Ritalin.
I'd like to see more information about what is actually going on in this case. We know the father states that he was threatened if he did this (and he may well have been threatened, or he may have misunderstood, or who knows?), but at this point the officials are "continuing to monitor" the case. That does seem appropriate.
Regarding the second article, such lies are indeed abominable. In fact, I can't believe that my colleagues will take even free pens and pencils, much less money and free trips, from drug company representatives. Some do, though, and they think nothing of it, almost as if it were a joke or a game. However, the conflict of interest is astronomical.
Still, beware of reading too much into the phrasing of "off-label" or "unapproved" use. Much of standard of care prescribing involves "off-label" use, and this may be entirely appropriate practice. For example, one anti-allergy drug touts itself as being the only one "approved" for both indoor and outdoor allergies. This is a reflection of the parenting company's gamble on the payoff from investing in extra studies, not a reflection of the actual effectiveness of the various drugs (as the physiological mechanism of "indoor" and "outdoor" allergies is exactly the same).