| |
|
Which scientists, exactly
Those which form the 90% of the "scientific" community who are most quoted by the news media. Those "Independant" researchers who are employed by companies which are owned by oil companies and large farming corporations, both who have great government lobbying powers, of course...
Which brings about my scepticism: Pharmaceutical companies such as Novartis have vested interest in funding studies and research so they can promote the need for drugs like Ritalin.
Does Ritalin work? Sure. But it's a band-aid solution, and the large companies want to keep such a soultion as the only alternative rather than have people look at other causes of behavioural problems such as socio-economic issues, poor nutrition, less attention to parenting which leads to discipline problems, less teachers with more students, etc... The people making the money don't want to look at root causes because that may one day lead to a cure, or reversal of behaviour, in any rate. I'm sorry, but I have to take a conspiracy theorist stance on this: Follow the money to see much of our ills.
I do know that when I grew up we ate less processed foods, were allowed less soda, and had a healthier respect (sometimes fear) for authority. I'm not saying that kids are worse today; They're not. But they do have more stacked against them: Less freedom, worse food, more drugs(such as Ritalin), prone to more allergies and enviromental pathogens, less discipline, and to top it off they're the targets of massive consummerist advertising campaigns which can become mind-boggingly confusing as they try to teach each child to try identify themselves with such-and-such a product.
Either they have no structure at home and become rambunctious, or they have too much organized for them (soccer, karate, dancing, swimming, piano, etc...every day in some cases) in an effort to make up for lack of actual parenting, and they develop stress disorders. (OK, it's not really an either/or, but both examples are becoming increasingly common)
Kids are no longer allowed to be kids, and because they are overprotected, they're not allowed to be grown-up, either. They're left in a limbo of sorts, trying to figure things out for themselves, in many cases with no one to guide them.
I know of a woman whose little boy, five years old, pretty hyperactive,kept reaching up to the stove when she was cooking. She patiently explained to him why he shouldn't do this because he will get burned. Still, ignoring her, he would try reach for the element. Finally she decided that all her reasoning was not them getting anywhere, so one time while the element was on low, she decided to let him reach for it, figuring that he'd feel the heat and learn his lesson. Well, he pushed the pot away and grabbed the element, recieving 1st degree burns. The mother freaked out and rushed him to my wife's clinic (This is how I learned the story) to get him treated. The doctor was shocked and disgusted at the woman's "lesson" and called social services, who now keep a close eye on her.
I've once dated a woman and was in a very similar situation with a similar outcome*, and I wonder... If after the 4th or 5th time she would have taken him, given him a firm slap on the ass and said, "No! Hot!" this could have been avoided. Maybe not, but I don't think it would have hurt.
(*Marie's kid ran strait for a fireplace at a friend's cottage. I grabbed his arm and said "No, you'll get burned!" I was frightened for him, and I guess that frightened him, so Marie yelled at me, then sat Nick down and explained why he shouldn't touch the fireplace. He was almost 3. As soon as she put him down, he ran past me and touched the fireplace and blistered his little fingers. Marie yelled at me again because "I let him do it"...) |
|
|
