Are you for or against children younger than 16 being prescribed psychiatric drugs?

By a licensed, trained, psychiatrist who has correctly diagnosed an illness - for, of course. Would you be against a diabetic child younger than 16 being prescribed diabetic drugs?

Depends on the child and the illness... teens go through many things while growing up that don't really need drugs to correct... I think doctors are to quick to prescribe drugs to anyone... children included...

Against. It's particularly been abused on young boys who are penalized for having energy. If they can't act like a middle aged woman teacher and sit quietly for 8 hours straight, that's not a sign of mental illness, and drugging them isn't the answer.

I am against children under 16 being prescribed any drugs that are not life saving!

As you put the question under category 'antidepressents' I will say I am against.
Children below 16 could be got out of depressions without use of any drug.
Counseling sessions and encouragement to participate in more outdoor activities should do the trick.

sadly, it can be necessary. Kids and especially young teenagers are just as likely to get a depression as we are.

prescription drugs for these reasons should not be taken lightly. 90% of the time they don't need it, but in the quick fix world we live in has sadly made it a common parenting tactic.

If the child is mentally ill, then, I am for it. As the last resort after proper thorough diagnosis, and or appropriate counseling.

If it is done responsibly, I'm for it.

I don't trust any of the drug companies so I have to say against as most problems seem to stim from enviromental conditions, these companies and their investors have a vested interest along with the insurance companies in "Genetic" causes, it limits liability, yet the supposed sky rocketing numbers of pre teen and teenage cases that need these drugs are what ALL "Genetic" ? enviromental conditions are triggers for certain genetic conditions, with so much "Enviromental Pollutants" in the air, water and soil and FOOD it would make sense to remove the person from the enviroment first before giving any kind of drugs, of course with the amount of drugs now in the water supply they may not need to take any drugs at all just drink from the fountain do you think they would poison you just to make a buck, I do so don't trust them with your children ...

cover all the other bases first unless under absolute emergency conditions keep all enviromental factors basic including clothing and in 3 to 6 months should tell you, and YES it takes time and there are no "Mircle" pills it takes work and study on your part and take EVERYTHING you hear read and study with a grain of salt ...

~Nemo~

I am against it..but, I realise it may be be necessary :D

Yes.

Just as I am for children younger than 16 being treated for broken bones.
And just as I am for 40-year-olds being prescribed psychiatric drugs.

I would consider that option to be one of the ultimate last choices.

That depends on the strength of the diagnostic tools. I'm a great follower of Janice Egeland's work, I've been following her study for about 15 years. She has been working among the Old Order Amish for more than thirty years. She has been able to trace the patterns of Bipolar among the Amish back to one couple in the original thirty families. From there, she has isolated five genes, any three of which lead to the expression of the disease. Last I read, she was soliciting biomed companies to help her develop a blood test for bipolar. Her findings were that once a kid had a manic phase, he/she became addicted to the manic phase and they would go off their meds so they could experience it again. Her hope was to develop an accurate diagnostic test that could be used in families known to have the disease to diagnose and medicate children before they had their first manic phase so that they could have a normal life. That seems like a good goal to me.

However, I have real problems with kids being prescribed psychiatric drugs when the diagnostic criteria is iffy and it could be the kid's problem stems from poor parenting. You can't abdicate teaching a kid and providing consequences for a kid and expect good results. And when you get bad results, it isn't fair to medicate the kid because you don't want to be a parent.

In general I'm against it. There are very few children who need these drugs. They're mostly prescribed as a way of turning little kids into little robots the teachers adn psychiatrists can control.

Dead set against it!

In general, against. Drug studies are not done on young children. We do not know the effects of drugs on growing bodies and brains. The children being prescribed the drugs are the guinea pigs, so if we shouldnt be giving little kids these drugs we wont know about it until after many innocent children are harmed.

Circumstances dictate, but in general I'm not in favour of over-medicating kids. I realise there are circumstances that are so severe that psychiatric drugs are necessary, but I do think I would prefer alternative forms of therapy if it was necessary for my child.

Against. I am against chemical solutions to attitude/ character problems. It creates a dependence which undermines the child's self-esteem. It is better to invest time and energy in training the child to manage their thoughts and behaviours/ habits. IMHO.