OK - Boy, 9, Stabbed to Death by Girl, 12, in Custody, Tulsa, Jan 2023

[AngTxGal]

Intuniv is a non-stimulant ADHD medication. I think is one of the newer generation adhd medications.
That is curious to me, but I haven't really looked into it.
On a side note: I did once have to make an official side effect 'report' for medication and it was a finicky process.
and seemingly to those involved, revolved around some yellow card. (2005 UK)

Intuniv is guanfacine, approved for use in the US in 1986 first for hypertension then later for mental health issues.
hallucinations, self harm are listed as adverse side effects
This FDA link summarizes uses, side effects, types of trials/ clinical studies over the years and changes in approvals for uses.
Federal Drug Admin

Daily Mail articles describe this 12 yr old having been diagnosed with ADHD at age seven, and her mother had said she was on meds for five years. So she must have begun to take meds at the time of diagnosis- 1st grade.
Side effects including cutting her arms, hallucinations were described as taking place, and also that she had told some peers that she wanted to stab her brother.

As kids age meds have to be adjusted, diet, substances, puberty, changes in body weight all have huge impacts how meds work- tough to maintain therapeutic dose without side effects.

What a tragic situation for all involved, her history, long term med use, cutting/ hallucinations, family situation, this murder, and now the facility she is in and peers there.
Was life ever anything resembling normal?

JMO

 

[MissMalowe]

Hmmm.... I don't know, I'm a little torn on this one. On one hand I'm trying to understand how mom says her ADHD wasn't really bad, but was on medication for a long period of time, had what I would describe as horrible side effects previously, yet the Dr resumed that same med again later? At the same dose? Lowered? Didn't try other medications? Were those negative side effects mentioned in the daily mail article mentioned to the Doctor or did the daughter not mention them to anyone until after she was incarcerated?

The fact that she doesn't think this young girl's home life is at least a possible contributing factor to the big picture isn't surprising, but is something she should perhaps reconsider. I realize that placing all blame on a Doctor & a pharmaceutical Company best serves her interests when a lawsuit is the goal, but she seems so focused on convincing either herself, everyone else, (or perhaps both) that nothing going on at home could have contributed at ALL to any of her daughters problems.

One small example: in the The Daily Mail when she says

With only her third kid left at home, a three-year-old boy named Cooper, Mitchell admits things were never easy for her and the three children – 'from three baby daddies,' she said, 'but all planned' – she's been raising practically alone on little money she earned as a house cleaner.

In her mind it seems, accidentally having 3 children from 3 different men isn't a good look, but all of them being planned makes it a responsible choice. Whereas someone else (such as myself) could look at that situation and think why in the world would you surround even just yourself with those types of men/felons in any capacity in the first place, let alone date & PLAN to create a family with them?

She seems to have a type, and imo, having that type of men consistently around your children (during the times they aren't incarcerated anyway) is more likely to have a negative impact than a positive one. And on the flipside of that, having an incarcerated or absent father also impacts children. A failure to maintain healthy relationships/marriages is also impactful to children. She seems to be a loving mother, but that doesn't mean everything at home was fine or that all of the 12 year old daughters issues were ADHD med-related. (My opinion only)