Before We Medicate Another Child, Ask What the System Is Doing to Them
Across classrooms, clinics and homes, more children are being labeled with disorders of attention, mood and behavior. Medication rates have climbed. Therapy waitlists have grown. Words like “dysregulated,” “oppositional,” and “impulsive” are now common in everyday conversation.
But from a child protection perspective, a harder question must be asked.
Are children increasingly disordered
or are they increasingly overwhelmed by adult-designed systems that do not match human development?
When adaptation is treated as pathology
Children today are expected to sit for prolonged periods, produce standardized output, manage constant digital stimulation and tolerate high levels of social comparison and performance pressure. Movement has been reduced. Free play has narrowed. Sleep has declined. Family stress has intensified.
When a child struggles to concentrate in an overstimulating classroom, reacts emotionally under chronic pressure, or resists rigid routines, those responses are often framed as individual disorders.
Yet decades of developmental science show that children regulate through connection, movement and relational safety. A nervous system under strain will signal distress. What is labeled inattention may be stress scanning. What is labeled defiance may be a fight response. What is labeled withdrawal may be a freeze response.
In safeguarding terms, these are not random malfunctions. They are predictable adaptations.
The appeal of quick fixes
Medicalization offers speed. It provides a name, a protocol and a sense of certainty. For some children, diagnosis and treatment are essential and life-changing.
But when large numbers of children struggle in similar ways, protection requires looking beyond the individual child.
It is easier to adjust a child’s chemistry than to reduce classroom sizes.
It is faster to prescribe than to redesign school days around movement.
It is simpler to treat symptoms than to address chronic sleep deprivation and digital overload.
Examining adult systems demands slower and more uncomfortable change. It requires questioning how success is measured, how time is structured and what environments are normalized for children.
Schooling built for compliance
Modern schooling was designed for efficiency and standardization. Extended sitting, strict schedules and measurable output are prioritized. Compliance is often rewarded more than curiosity.
But development does not unfold on a factory model. Children learn best through embodied activity, social connection and emotional safety. When those elements are limited, stress responses increase.
From a child protection standpoint, it is not enough to ask whether children are meeting institutional expectations. It must also be asked whether institutions are meeting children’s developmental needs.
Quantity over quality
A deeper cultural pattern runs through this crisis.
Childhood has become saturated with measurable quantities: hours of instruction, number of extracurricular activities, test scores, screen time totals, productivity metrics. Even support services are often evaluated by frequency and duration rather than relational impact.
Yet children do not thrive on quantity alone. They thrive on quality.
-
Not the number of hours in school, but the quality of engagement.
-
Not the amount of content consumed, but the quality of connection.
-
Not the volume of activities, but the depth of belonging.
-
Not the number of interventions, but the felt sense of safety.
A child may spend many hours in structured environments and still experience relational deprivation. A schedule may be full while emotional needs remain unmet.
When objective measures replace subjective well-being as the standard of success, distress is easily misread as dysfunction.
From a safeguarding perspective, the best interest of the child requires attention to lived experience, not only measurable output.
The burden placed on children
When systems are misaligned, responsibility often shifts downward. The child who cannot adapt is labeled. The nervous system that signals overload is medicated. The distress is individualized.
Meanwhile, adult institutions remain largely intact.
Yet protection frameworks are built on a different principle: responsibility flows upward. Those with power must ensure environments are safe, developmentally appropriate and humane.
If widespread distress is observed, structural factors must be examined.
-
Are school environments relationally safe?
-
Are children given sufficient movement and play?
-
Are families supported with time and community?
-
Are digital systems designed with children’s well-being at the center?
-
Are sleep and nervous system regulation treated as priorities?
Redesign in the child’s best interest
This is not a rejection of medicine. Some children have neurodevelopmental differences that require specialized care. Many benefit from therapy and, in some cases, medication.
But the best interest of the child demands discernment.
When a child struggles, the first question should not be, “What disorder does this child have?” It should be, “What conditions is this child adapting to?”
Safeguarding requires courage to shift focus from fixing children to reforming environments.
If children across communities are exhibiting stress responses at rising rates, it signals that systems require redesign. Quality of experience must matter as much as measurable output. Subjective well-being must carry weight alongside objective performance.
Children are not productivity units. They are developing human beings whose nervous systems are shaped by the environments adults create.
If those environments are producing chronic strain, protection requires change at the level of structure, not just at the level of the child.
The smallest nervous systems in the room should not carry the heaviest burdens.
In the end, honoring the best interest of the child means asking not how efficiently children can adapt to modern systems, but how responsibly modern systems can adapt to children.
