[kbenson]

> does not discount the experience you're describing

It's not about saying it's not possible, it's about setting expectations, and scaring people away from a medication which may be helpful.

>> Ritalin and other behavioural drugs are administered for the benefit of the teacher and other students in the class - not necessarily for the child receiving it.

That clearly states the reason it's administered is not primarily for the child's benefit. While it doesn't discount that the child may benefit, it clearly sets the expectation that it's not the child's well being that's being considered. The natural extension of accepting that is to wonder if there's any actual benefit to the child or if that part is just in service to "the secret".

Implying that the reason a specific medicine is prescribed is not actually for the benefit of the patient might have real repercussions if it scares away someone that it could have haloed. At a minimum, I think a statement like that should be backed up in some manner.

[hirako2000]

I'm sorry, we cannot easily back this up. It would take confession of an intent, which most prescribers aren't even aware of.

A single mom, exhausted with 2 part time jobs and 3 young kids put them in front of tele tubies all day long. Is that for her own benefit or for the benefits of the children? We don't even have clear evidence of the overall impart of such educating programs on child development. But we have to use common sense and agree it benefits carers if they want to get more time for themselves. It doesn't imply careless attitude, or consciousness of the motive, the kids appear to enjoy anyway. I think the comment was made out of common sense: attention deficit of just one student can cause serious classroom management issues, it isn't naive or prejudicial to point out what we don't hear very often: the prescription isn't for the child own' benefit.