Talk:Oppositional defiant disorder

Opposing views

I would like see at least mentioned in this article the view held by many that ODD, like so many disorders that have been defined in recent years, is essentially a marketing campaign by pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs to children. Drugs cannot be prescribed without a patient being diagnosed with a specific disorder. I include a couple websites to show that this is not just a personal opinion- [1] [2]. --Karuna8 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's completely ridiculous. ODD is a serious behavioral disorder that affects several hundred thousand children in America. I treat them every day. There is no medicine used in the process, as it's a behavioral disorder not a psychiatric one. Treatment involves retraining and major changes in parenting and management.

The opinion about pharmaceutical companies trying to sell drugs to children has some validity in a general sense - they're a business and business in psychotropics has been especially good in the last fifteen years. However, unless Karuna8 is qualified to speak expertly about the topic, it's probably best to hold off on the wayward opinions. - Ward Halverson at whalvers@twcny.rr.com

That isn't ridiculous. Stigmatizing and controlling people who exhibit social behaviours you disapprove of is what's ridiculous, drug-peddling scum. What does this "treatment" involve? "Listen to your parents, they're always right. You disagree with them because of a chemical imbalance." This is bullshit, with the diagnostic criteria mentioned here, essentially 99% of American children could be diagnosed with this "disorder". This is clearly an example of treating a form of supposedly unacceptable forms of social interaction into some form of mental impairment. If you had your way we'd all be on enough drugs to wake up in the morning, go to work, work all day, come home, go to sleep, wake up & repeat ad nauseam. That is inhuman and dangerous. You can't prove it's a chemical imbalance, but it's certainly easy to make a case that it's merely caused by social factors (such as abusive parenting or some long-standing perfectly justified grudge). If I seem aggressive it's because you had the nerve to dismiss another logical point of view as "ridiculous", you contemptuous fool. Think what you want, but if you make incendiary remarks, expect to be replied to in such a way. You are somewhat correct near the end though. The "wayward opinion" is definitely more than valid. Humanity's greed would certainly dictate that one would jump at such chances to make money. Why bother putting up a strong, professional argument against a "disorder" when you can act professional and make a lot of money? This is sickening. Maybe you should be medicated for your blatantly quick dismissal of a valid point. Are there any pills or therapy that can cure greed? 70.49.88.111 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummmmm Oppositional Defiant Disorder? You're kidding, right? According to the DSM Criteria, EVERY CHILD IN THE WORLD suffers from this condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashcleaner (talk • contribs) 06:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You are all so right that the pharmaceutical company is behind this disease! Now they will fight back with those testimonies and all that theory. Please search for the book... No! I will not put the name of the book here because it tells the story of the raise of the pharmaceutical industry empire. --Justana (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)justana

To those who think that every child could be diagnosed with ODD, that is simply, mathematically, untrue. The DSM Criteria state that the behaviors must exceed what is normal: "Consider a criterion met only if the behavior occurs more frequently than is typically observed in individuals of comparable age and developmental level." A large number of people may exhibit the behavior described (i.e., a normal occurrence of the behavior), but the ODD diagnosis requires departure from the norm for at least four of the criteria listed. Sjb0926 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Conveniently, the very nature of defining and publicizing ODD subtly shifts over time what is to be considered "normal". Shame on you! ThVa (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ODD is a controversarial subject that many individuals like to dismiss as being the new hype to explain the poor behavior of children due to poor or should I say lack of parenting. It is really easy to dismiss a problem if you are not dealing with it personally. I agree that in some cases doctors and therapist are too quick to pin a name on a problem, or blame behavior on some mental disorder, but this is not always the case. Children with ODD go beyond the realm of behavior that is based on "relaxed" parenting. A parent dealing with a child with ODD can not use any of the standard behavioral methods, such as time out or removing privileges. None of this works with a child with ODD because they don't care what the consequences may be, they are going to do what they want. This is not to say that every child should be treated like a robot and unable to have their own opinion and preferences; however, we have to be realistic. A child has to learn to grow up to be a responsible adult that, whether they like it or not, lives in a world that has some rules that have to be followed. We are fortunate to live in a country that allows us the freedom of not having to do everything the way we are dictated to do it, but there are limits. There is a fine line here and I totally understand the view of those who believe they had a terrible childhood because they were not allowed to be themselves. This is beyond that and unless you have personally dealt with it you just do not understand. I have a child with ODD, it is mild, but it is there. I also have two that do not have ODD so I understand the difference. Raising them has been completely different. We focus on dealing with the issues that will effect him in the long run, as an adult. The other things we let go and let him enjoy doing things differently than others. He has friends, but has difficulty in school because we have encountered numerous teachers that believe every child should fit a certain mold. So although I agree with parts of all of the post, it is important to remember not to judge before you have actually walked in someone's shoes. Ynotme21 (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The pharmaceutical industry counter-attack. The way they write is already known. Funny because they contradict themselves in one paragraph. I will not waste my time arguing with this. "Every child should fit a certain mold." It would be funny if it didn't destroy lives. I feel like cursing because it is monstrous. How can these people sleep in peace? Thinking about the money they did.justana--Justana (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So basically, ODD become a way to blame the kid, and not the parent? I feel it was invented by psychiatrists to explain why their kids don't listen to them. It's not that they have an imaginary disease, it's that they don't have any respect for contemptible people.Brody014 (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Opposing Views

It is exceedingly clear that those above who are expressing their opposition to the diagnosis of ODD have not experienced a child with true ODD. I have a child with ODD and another without it, and the difference is very clear. While I had no idea there was such a thing as ODD, I knew my child was much more extreme than most children starting very early and becoming very clear when she was 2 years old. Children with ODD don't just defy their parents or rules. They do so in an extreme manner to the point in which they will actively work against their own wants and desires simply because they cannot and will not follow the rules. It is about authority and the rules in and of itself. For example, said child gets a failing grade due to refusing to turn homework in (even when the homework is completed). Said child then gets grounded with the stipulation that the child can become ungrounded as soon as they bring their grade back up to passing (which could be at any time with a teacher's note; it does not require waiting for a report card). It is clear the child does not like being grounded and wants off of it; however, the child's ODD is so strong, the child will intentionally refuse to pass the class and take their own selves off of grounding simply because doing so would mean allowing someone in authority tell them what to do. The authority created the framework in which the child can work within to be grounded or be ungrounded, and the child will refuse to work within that framework specifically because the child is oppositional to all authority. So the child remains grounded. At the same time, the child refuses to take responsibility for their choices and, instead, blames the authority for "doing this to them".

The refusal to follow any authority starts very young and continues way beyond any normal teenage rebellion. It is highly destructive to the child's well-being. The normal motivational reward system does not work with these children because the ODD is stronger than their desire for whatever they want.

Here's another example of a child with ODD. At 3 years of age, my daughter saw a water fountain and wanted a drink of water. I told her that was fine, but I needed to sign in first (for a doctor's appointment). The signing in was just feet away from the fountain and only took a few seconds. However, my daughter was furious at being told she had to wait until I've signed in. So when the few seconds it took to sign in had passed and I then started to help my daughter to get a drink from the fountain, she adamantly refused. She threw a huge temper-tantrum that continued to the point I had to leave without seeing the doctor. My daughter continued her temper-tantrum to the car, all through the 45 minute car ride home, and after we got home. When I gave her a time out of just staying in her room, she then marched two steps across the threshold of her room, stomped her feet, crossed her arms and screamed, "No!". At this point, this temper tantrum had continued for approximately 3 hours! All because I told her I would help her get a drink from the fountain after signing in! Now you want to tell me this is normal? This is the hallmark of a child with ODD. She behaved this way specifically because she wanted the drink when she wanted it and was extremely defiant at being told she had to wait until after I've signed in even though signing in only took a few seconds.

This same child consistently expresses her wants and desires, but if getting them requires that she in any way follows any rules, she will refuse even though that means not getting what she wants. This behavior has carried on throughout her entire life. She will be 18 in a month. She cannot drive, is a year behind in school (and that's only because we went to great lengths to give her help to continue school even though testing indicates she is in the 97% of IQ range), has no real friends (all of her friends have left as she behaved the same with them), has never worked a day in her life and thinks she can live at home and have total freedom as an adult simply because she's 18. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way as even adults have rules to follow (banks tell us when to make payments, laws tell us what behaviors we can and cannot do, even apartments have rules or you're evicted).

The people above who expressed views that ODD is merely a scapegoat to be used when a child exhibits normal childhood rebellion or opposition have absolutely NO idea what they are talking about. ODD is very real and very harmful to the child, and it must be addressed if the child is to have any chance at succeeding in life. And by succeeding, I simply mean being able to do what is necessary to bring them the freedom they desire and to obtain a general sense of happiness. It is not about making money, being at the best college, or any other material goal. It is just merely finding peace within their own selves. If ODD is not addressed, the child will have extreme difficulties in life, and if it turns into Conduct Disorder, the problems only get worse. Worse case scenario is that it will eventually lead to Antisocial Personality Disorder. These children absolutely MUST receive help which isn't easy.

ODD is very real and very serious, and it is something I wouldn't wish on any child, adult or family. It is highly destructive to the person who has it. The earlier it is caught, the better. Unfortunately, I did not believe in all the psychiatric claims that abound today (very similar to those whom I'm opposing right now) so my daughter's problems were caught only after they had really caused her considerable damage. If I had known about ODD earlier, I might have been able to get her help at a younger age which may have reduced the problems she's facing now. Rather than blindly refusing to accept that ODD exists, spend time to learn about it. Because if you ever begin to truly discuss the issue with parents who have a child with ODD, you will find that the behaviors are far, far beyond any normal childhood expression of growing autonomy, independence, rebellion or even teenage angst. It IS a definite psychiatric disorder that absolutely requires treatment. Unfortunately, there is no magic pill for ODD. It is an extremely pervasive and destructive disorder that must be recognized and treated. 76.30.134.229 14:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the statement above is done by the pharmaceutical company. They go everywhere. For the person who claimed that no drugs are involved I suggest that you make a research: 

"In one study, Ritalin was used to treat children with both ADHD and ODD. Researchers found that when treated with Ritalin, 90% of the children no longer had the ODD. However, this was a poorly executed study. The researchers dropped a number of children from the study because they were too defiant to take their medication as scheduled. Still, even if these children are included as treatment failures, the study still showed a 75% success rate with Ritalin." You have no shame. Of course the DSM-5 will have more and more diseases than the first edition. Greedy is the reason and total lack of concern with health. You are ruining children's lives to make money. This is inhuman and I'm sure that all you are doing will be considered, it's already being labelled as crime against humanity in the history of medicine.--Justana (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)justana--Justana (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

User from IP 76.30.134.229, I don't know if you are still following this article, but if you are: I am writing a thesis on learning and behavioral disorders. Could I have your permission to quote select parts from your rebuttal above? And if so, could you inform me of your first name so I can attribute the quote to you? Thank you, I will be monitoring this talk page for replies. Stijn Arnauts84.197.110.133 (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"They do so in an extreme manner to the point in which they will actively work against their own wants and desires simply because they cannot and will not follow the rules." I was told this crap when I was younger, they tried to drug me. I was defiant because of very simple, logical reasons: I will hold to my beliefs and not be bullied into being passive and obedient. I will not be forced to conform to someone elses ideal of what I should be like. YOU take the pills and become complacent. We won't. I fought like hell to not be controlled and my behavior was termed the same way. And it all started because I questioned authority and was wrongly punished. Which simply made me more and more resistant. To back down would be against my own moral compass. I'm a grown man of 29 years now. My childhood was very unpleasant because of people like defending what is essentially a step in the direction of mind control. Disagree with rules that aren't even rules, just an authority figures dictations, get drugged for it.

It was more than 15 years after the fact when they found out the principal of my junior high was abusive like those of transfered to "behavioral modification" classes had been telling our parents all along. GFY 22:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a son who they(the Doctors)say has ODD, I have a problem with that. I myself do not have any problem with any of the symtoms they have listed, but his mother says she does. I personally think it's how you treat your child or children in different ways. I have never had to punish him or ground him for anything (yet) and he is 14 years old. I have found it better to sit down with him and talk about what he had done wrong, then forgive and forget. His mother (and I should use that term loosely) is very verbal abusive and can even get phisical when thing don't go her way, so in a way I must have had ODD also because of her. I feel so much better the last 13 years i've been away from her. RB JUNE 9th 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.110.183 (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Treatment Options

I would like to see some treatment options provided on this site.

(The person above did not sign their comment; I am a different commenter). I agree with the person above in that I would like to see treatment options added to this page. Parents of children with ODD need help in how to address the disorder. I would also like to see a more thorough description of the disorder beyond the simple DSM-IV criteria. Each section needs to be illustrated in order to offer a much clearer understanding of what the DSM-IV requirements mean, especially what is meant by "interfering with the child’s ability to function" as this is the most important part of the criteria. 76.30.134.229 15:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added some information about treatment options. --Sjb0926 (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have 4 children. all of them have completely different personalities. the only difference is my youngest is very defiant, very easily angered over just little things. i don't care what anyone says, there is such thing as ODD, because she definitely has it and it's a very difficult thing to deal with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.28.79 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why WikiProject Alternative medicine

This article has been identified to fall within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine. The rationale for this is the topic's centrality in objections to the allopathic-pharmaceutical paradigm's approach to health and understanding of the human being. Just in case anyone wondered. __meco 07:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

There appears to be some bias in the 'controversy' side towards the authors of this particular study. Use of emotive language "they were amazed to find..." adds to the apparent questionability of the neutrality of this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish100 (talk • contribs)

It's ok, those words only appear in a quote from source. --Zeraeph 06:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Related articles

Regarding the link on Drapetomania: without an explanation of the alleged racist component in diagnoses of ODD, this article seems almost entirely unrelated, and even if that component is included in the article, it seems a bit of a stretch. Should it be deleted?

Controversy section

This section is based on one book and expresses the author's opinions, not empirical evidence. Furthermore the material is old...What weight should all this be given? I'd opt to make this a very short section or one or two lines or delete it. RalphLender^talk 19:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How are you defining "empirical evidence" in such a way that a known fact is not empirical evidence? 68.116.206.248 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The book is no older than the DSM it challenges. The sources is published and peer reviewed and the conclusions are the result of statistical analysis. --Zeraeph 05:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Controversy section because all the references were from one source. If there are controversies, more than one source should easily be found to be cited. Mattisse (Talk) 23:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added some sourced information to the Controversy section in order to reflect controversies within the medical community, as opposed to amateur public opinion. The section could definitely still use some more sources, if any exist, to support the concept of widespread controversy. Until such a time, do people think the word "controversial" should remain in the lead paragraph of the article? I think it's a little misleading. Sjb0926 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, I get the idea that few people care any more, maybe because everything about DSM is controversial from someone's point of view. DSM seems to have receded as a target in the public's view. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraph from the Controversy Section pending location of reliable sources to attest to significant criticism of ODD:

"Outside the field of clinical research, Oppositional Defiant Disorder has been criticized as an attempt to pathologize what some see as a normal, healthy resistance to authority. In an opinion piece for AlterNet, Bruce Levine compared ODD to drapetomania, a 19th century pseudo-disease which supposedly caused slaves to flee their masters' lands."

I would very much like to return the first sentence to the article. Please find sources to support it! Sjb0926 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay: There have been changes made to the Controversy section that have not been discussed on this page, and which amount to adding unsourced claims about "social critics" and tagging them with "citation needed" tags. This seems a little ridiculous to me. The "cite needed" tags should be used to mark unsourced material already in an article, right? You should not add unsourced claims without providing SOME backup other than your belief that the claims are true. If a claim is verifiably true, you should ipso facto be able to find a source to verify it. If it's not verifiable, it does not meet WP:VERIFY. Furthermore, the use here of the phrase "Social Critics" violates WP:WEASEL. Pending any disagreement, I will revert this section to a previous version soon. Sjb0926 (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your position. Putting in unsourced material is wrong. Placing a "citation needed" tag after it does not make it right. You could put in any cockeyed or POV position and simply add a tag, if that were standard procedure. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reverted this section to a previous version. I encourage any users to find reliable sources to support any controversy surrounding ODD! It would really enhance this article! Sjb0926 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Drapetomania

Someone believes that Drapetomania and this article are related. I have removed it from the See also. The other links in the See also are real psychiatric conditions or active controversies. Drapetomania is a historical oddity that does not, in my opinion, belong under psychiatric and psychological conditions. If you disagree with me, then return the Drapetomania link to this article. --Mattisse 00:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the references to Drapetomania should be deleted. I have clarified the pertinent paragraph a bit, but I am pretty sure that pending the inclusion of more reliable sources attesting to the prevalence of this criticism of ODD, this paragraph should be deleted per WP:FRINGE, as it does not reflect the mainstream view. If no one objects, I will probably do this soon. --Sjb0926 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is WP:FRINGE, although it is mentioned in the source given in the article in order to make a point. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He does mention it, and I understand his point. I guess what I'm asking is if the opinion of Bruce Levine is germane enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia article about ODD. I am strongly leaning towards no. From what I can tell, he is a doctor and author with a strong anti-authoritarian feelings, but his editorial does not represent a reliable source that proves the prevalence of his viewpoint on ODD.

And I'm not even talking about his drapetomania comparison, just his criticism of ODD. I tend to believe that his opinion is widely held (by the public, anyway) -- I just can't find and sources to support my belief. Consider the following from WP:UNDUE:

• "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."

And then consider this, also from WP:UNDUE:

• "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents."

I can't find any evidence of Bruce Levine's prominence. Therefore! Pending location of reliable sources , I still plan to delete this. Sjb0926 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. He is apparently (from his article) a member of MindFreedom International which sounds like one of those anti-psychiatry groups whose views are not very helpful in articles on psychiatry and psychology. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As promised, I have removed paragraph that mentions Drapetomania. See my comment above, under Controversy. Sjb0926 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mbhutten's edits

==> Hi ...this is Mark Hutten responding. Whoever reverted my edits obviously didn't even read the article in question. It was written by a psychiatrist. The report is the most comprehensive report on ODD that I've found anywhere.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you would not splash my contact information all over the place. What kind of people are editing Wikipedia anyway?

ODD patients, no doubt :) ThVa (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Parenting Strategies section

I have removed this section from the article as it appeared to exist only to promote an outside website, it cited no references or sources, did not appear to follow a neutral point of view, nor did it significantly contribute (in my opinion) to the scope of the article. CrazyChemGuy 01:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link to http://www.ourdefiantkids.com/

This appears not to be a genuine testimonial of a parent, but an attempt to market a product. I removed the link, and 12.145.153.88 then reverted my change, so I shall not remove it again. That said, others should look into it and remove it if appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.112 (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please Find Sources for Controversy Section

anyone....? E 79.70.171.169 (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added some sourced information to the Controversy section. It could definitely still use some more. Sjb0926 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ODD

why is never taled about of who first diagnosis ODD and when that is relateive to research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.158.228 (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with ICD-10

Many, if not most, DSM diagnoses differ from ICD-10. I don't see why that is a reason for controversy. They are different diagnostic systems based on different premises. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is a tremendous drag. Having those diagnostic criteria greatly increased understanding of this disorder. Can they be summarized? It seems very bad that the criteria for diagnosis of a disease could be copyrightable! Sjb0926 (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A question about ODD

Here's a question about this condition, which I know most likely won't be popular, but I'll ask it anyway.

Is it possible that ODD is actually a relatively normal human response to the pandemic of fascism that is currently present in Western society, or the degree of ponerogenic dysfunction that is literally hard wired into said society?

Just asking. Petrus4 (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Pharmacutical Financial Enlargement Disorder

....is this the one where they created the pills first, and then made up the "ailment" that they treat...?

I mean it's SO obviously bullshit, isn't it...? 82.5.68.95 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)