in Search

Lynne McTaggart - What Doctors Don't Tell You

Not quite human

Last month, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took the unprecedented step of requesting that pharmaceutical companies take a list of cold remedies for children off the market. Rarely has such a sweeping and categorical ban ever occurred, but the evidence surfacing regarding deaths related to these drugs has become difficult to ignore, even for an agency as fond of Big Pharma as the FDA. We can only hazard a guess as to the damning nature of the evidence that would prompt so sanguine a federal body as the FDA to take such action. But it’s long overdue. As the Special Report in our latest issue reveals, many of the types of drugs routinely given to adults—antibiotics, asthma drugs, painkillers, cold and cough medicines—are highly dangerous to children and, more shockingly, have never ever been tested in any basic way to ensure that they are either safe or effective for this age group.

How could such a situation arise, considering all the regulatory bodies in the US and Europe? The answer lies in the medical model of children. Until recently, doctors operated under the assumption that a fetus, a baby, even a young child, wasn’t yet human—not in the fully formed sense of the word. In this view, as babies and young children don’t develop certain nerve receptors until age seven, they don’t, for instance, feel pain. We now know that idea to be completely fallacious—a fetus is as exquisitely sensitive as you or me. However, that mindset—that a child isn’t yet a proper human being—has enabled medicine to deny children the most basic regulatory protection.

Besides assuming that children don’t suffer as much pain or even side-effects as adults, medicine also assumes that children have ‘paradoxical’ effects with drugs, so that a drug with adverse effects in adults (such as amphetamines) can actually ‘improve’ children.

Astonishingly, doctors often don’t consider the basic fact of scale. Because a child may not, in their view, react to a drug in the same way an adult would, they often administer a drug dosage appropriate for a full-sized adult to a person one-third that size. Years ago, we reported on the shocking death of nine-year-old Lexie McConnell, who was given steroids at a dosage even higher than would be administered to adults (WDDTY vol 4 no 8).

As adverse drug effects aren’t tested in children, doctors operate with impunity. A hospital can insist on administering these drugs to children without having to ask for their parents’ permission, and many parents who resist emergency drug treatments risk losing custody of their children on a temporary basis. And because doctors haven’t the slightest idea what a drug can do in children, if it all goes wrong, they look elsewhere—usually at the parents.

Dr Mohammed Al-Bayati, a Los Angeles pathologist and toxicologist, is often called upon as an expert witness for the defence when parents are accused of killing their children. In virtually all the cases he’s handled, babies and children have died as a result of some cocktail of drugs: vaccines, antibiotics, steroids and even over-the-counter preparations.

For instance, Ezbjörn Hahne was convicted of killing his 40-day-old daughter Nadine, based on evidence that she died from old and new intracranial bleeding. However, Al-Bayati’s investigation discovered that the intercranial bleeding was likely to have been caused by the three doses of antibiotics prescribed by the hospital doctors.

At the moment, because no one considers deaths in children to be drug-related, we have no idea of the scale of the problem. But the FDA’s move is the most important first step in recognizing that current paediatric medicine is nothing but a house of cards.

Published 08 November 2007 16:50 by Lynne McTaggart
Filed under: , ,

Comments

 

Royals said:

Your report just isn't accurate.

Physicians understand children are developing.  Of course a fetus or a child is not fully developed.  That is obvious.  How can there be an argument there?

And who ever said that children do not feel pain?  That is a clear misrepresentation.

No one would ever suggest medicines have 'paradoxical effects' on children.  Your example of amphetamines is inaccurate.  Amphetamines have similar effects and side effects in children and adults.  No one would ever say there are paradoxical effects.

You statements that doctors don't consider size is pathetically ridiculous.  Do you actually know dosages given?  Dosages of medicines are given on a mg/kg basis.  Obviously size is considered.

Adverse drug effects ARE observed and recorded in children.  That is one more inaccurate statement.

Doctors DO NOT give drugs to children with impunity.  Good lord, where does that idea come from?  And you say 'doctors don't have the slight idea what a drug can do to children'??  Have you ever simply opened a text book of Pediatrics?  Have you ever read a journal covering Pediatrics.  There are dozens of such journals published each month discussing those exact issues.

And EVERYONE would consider a drug overdose a cause of death in children.

While it is true, medicine needs to exercise caution while treating children with medications, your premises are wildly distorted and inaccurate.

November 8, 2007 19:42
 

dgehring said:

Evidently by the extreme reaction of removing cold remedies off the market for children is in recognition of the fact that children have not been prescribed medicines accurately.  The accepted norm for medicines is inaccurate, therefore the physicians who are recommending these medicines are misinformed.

The incorrect statements that you have said are incorrect have, in fact, been believed at some point in the medical world.

Lynne's premises are not inaccurate, but yours are.  Drugs are prescribed as an immediate cure-all and quite often not even prescribed accurately.  Drugs prescribed to adults are not even monitored properly.  Why would you expect the ones prescribed to children to be monitored accurately?

November 13, 2007 17:47
 

R Lindley said:

This diatribe is plain wrong.

I note that you do not give any references to support your bizarre assertions.

"Until recently, doctors operated under the assumption that a fetus, a baby, even a young child, wasn’t yet human" - source please?

And...

"Astonishingly, doctors often don’t consider the basic fact of scale."  Please look at the British National Formulary for Children, the standard drug reference for children in the UK.  It is routine for drug doses to be calculated based on a child's weight.  This has been standard practice for years, as anyone connected with the field would know.  Why don't you?

November 13, 2007 19:02
 

Noelle P said:

It is perhaps unfair to lump all doctors in the same category. It does not take a big quantity to taint the whole. However if doctors really do consider foetuses are human, why are there so many abortions performed even at the age where some rescued foetuses survive and live into adulthood??? It doesn't quite balance up.

November 14, 2007 00:40
 

ajmcglynn said:

I see this issue differently.  A justification for the FDA action was that the over-the-counter potions are ineffective.  Seems to me that's up to the parents to assess.  

Safety and effectiveness trials of new drugs cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Next the FDA will attempt to remove vitamin/mineral/herb supplements from the over-the-counter market, claiming they're ineffective, since their manufacturers haven't spent the money for safety/effectiveness trials and can't afford to do so.

December 9, 2007 19:45
Anonymous comments are disabled
Terms and conditions | Advertise | About us | Contact us

(C) 2006 Copyright Conatus plc. All Rights Reserved.