1. What is the main thesis of this film?
The main thesis of this film is that drugs, psychotic drugs to be more exact, are destroying the brains of the people taking them. It spoke a lot about the adults who took them, and what began happening to them. But it also talked about giving the drugs to kids. All of these horrible things are happening to the adults who take them, I can only imagine what it does to the children's brains. Our children are not becoming worse kids, all kids throughout time have never been able to sit still through school and have always wanted to just run around. However, because there is now a diagnosis of ADHD, it would seem that many more kids have something wrong with them because of these reasons.
2. What were the main arguments in support of the thesis?
The main argument to support this thesis is that the chemicals from all of the psychotic drugs are actually blocking the normal functions of the brain, when the drug is supposed to do the opposite. Another argument is that these drugs were never designed to be used in children. If these drugs where never designed for the use of children then how can they be safe for kids to use?
3. How does the thesis of this film relate to the course?
This film relates to the course because we are currently talking about deviant minds. Deviant minds in this film are those kids with the ADHD. However, back in the 1950's ADHD was considered being a kid. In the 1960's this disorder became known because of the controversies about the drug treatments. In the 1970's this diagnosis became the most common child psychiatric problem in the United States (Thio, Calhoun, and Conyers: 2010). It's hard for kids to stay still and pay attention for hours. Maybe even, the children that they now think have the disorder could actually be too young for the grade that they are supposedly in, causing them to be behind the rest of their classmates. Those kids whose birthday's are just before the enrollment cutoff for the school are going to be the youngest kids in the class. These kids are going to have a greater chance of being labeled with ADHD than the kids that are just a couple days younger than them causing them to be the oldest in the next years class. Are some ADHD labeled kids just too young for their grade?
4. Which arguments/points did you find the most convincing?
The argument that I found most convincing from this film is that four out of one hundred children either commit suicide or other violent acts such as murder. Not only this, but most of the stories that we heard, both about children and adults, had only been taking their particular drug for a short while. After only a few days or so people can have such awful thoughts. How can the FDA not find anything wrong with this?
5. Which arguments/points did you find the least convincing?
There wasn't a point that I found most convincing. From this film I will never give my future kids any of these drugs!
6. Choose one argument, point or question that most stands out for you. How would you study this point? Briefly design a research study around that point.
The point that most stood out to me that I would want to study would be how many of the board member on the FDA council were working for the drug companies. If I were to study this I would look at the FDA member who were not working for drug companies (if there were any) and then look at those who were working for drug companies. I would ask each group how they felt about these issues and see if the two groups were say opposite opinions.
The main thesis of this film is that drugs, psychotic drugs to be more exact, are destroying the brains of the people taking them. It spoke a lot about the adults who took them, and what began happening to them. But it also talked about giving the drugs to kids. All of these horrible things are happening to the adults who take them, I can only imagine what it does to the children's brains. Our children are not becoming worse kids, all kids throughout time have never been able to sit still through school and have always wanted to just run around. However, because there is now a diagnosis of ADHD, it would seem that many more kids have something wrong with them because of these reasons.
2. What were the main arguments in support of the thesis?
The main argument to support this thesis is that the chemicals from all of the psychotic drugs are actually blocking the normal functions of the brain, when the drug is supposed to do the opposite. Another argument is that these drugs were never designed to be used in children. If these drugs where never designed for the use of children then how can they be safe for kids to use?
3. How does the thesis of this film relate to the course?
This film relates to the course because we are currently talking about deviant minds. Deviant minds in this film are those kids with the ADHD. However, back in the 1950's ADHD was considered being a kid. In the 1960's this disorder became known because of the controversies about the drug treatments. In the 1970's this diagnosis became the most common child psychiatric problem in the United States (Thio, Calhoun, and Conyers: 2010). It's hard for kids to stay still and pay attention for hours. Maybe even, the children that they now think have the disorder could actually be too young for the grade that they are supposedly in, causing them to be behind the rest of their classmates. Those kids whose birthday's are just before the enrollment cutoff for the school are going to be the youngest kids in the class. These kids are going to have a greater chance of being labeled with ADHD than the kids that are just a couple days younger than them causing them to be the oldest in the next years class. Are some ADHD labeled kids just too young for their grade?
4. Which arguments/points did you find the most convincing?
The argument that I found most convincing from this film is that four out of one hundred children either commit suicide or other violent acts such as murder. Not only this, but most of the stories that we heard, both about children and adults, had only been taking their particular drug for a short while. After only a few days or so people can have such awful thoughts. How can the FDA not find anything wrong with this?
5. Which arguments/points did you find the least convincing?
There wasn't a point that I found most convincing. From this film I will never give my future kids any of these drugs!
6. Choose one argument, point or question that most stands out for you. How would you study this point? Briefly design a research study around that point.
The point that most stood out to me that I would want to study would be how many of the board member on the FDA council were working for the drug companies. If I were to study this I would look at the FDA member who were not working for drug companies (if there were any) and then look at those who were working for drug companies. I would ask each group how they felt about these issues and see if the two groups were say opposite opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment