Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Overselling A.D.H.D.

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 235 posts

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#31

Post by ap22213 »

chris_va wrote: post #14

I get really skeptical whenever someone uses the term "Big Pharma". 99% of the time the person using it is selling something (hey, look, a $28 book). How dare a pharmaceutical company sell a product? How dare doctors decide to prescribe medicine? While that was slightly melodramatic, here is a quote from the article: Schwarz has no doubt that A.D.H.D. is a valid clinical entity that causes real suffering and deserves…

It upsets at how anti-science and anti-technology some of my friends have become. Some of them believe that vaccines shouldn't be used. Some of them reject medicine and medications. Some of them avoid GMO foods. They use essential oils and 'natural' products that may potentially cause more harm than good.

But, it makes sense. I guess they fear what they don't understand, and others take advantage of that fear.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't be extremely careful with new technology and inventions. But, we also shouldn't be scared.

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#32

Post by daeken »

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #19
rayiner wrote: post #9

The point about changing the kid instead of the environment is an important one. If attention deficit is defined as a kid having trouble coping with the standard 7-hour school day (more like 9-10 including homework) where he is expected to sit still and work on boring and non-essential worksheets, then the condition isn't over diagnosed at all. And if we're not willing to change that environment--and I don't think we…

> And if we're not willing to change that environment--and I don't think we are--then we should medicate the kids so at least the experience is tolerable and they can have some success with it And as a result traditional response has been amphetamine-salts for children as you say. But I completely disagree that this is something we should do . For one I think we don't have good enough science to know how potentially…

> traditional response has been amphetamine-salts

Not exclusively. Methylphenidate (Ritalin and friends) is generally the first-line drug in the US at least, due to milder side effects and a lower potential for abuse.

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#34

Post by dragonwriter »

leereeves wrote: post #12
hellofunk wrote: post #3

I've always been skeptical of ADHD diagnoses, thinking that it was widely over-diagnosed and a problem in American culture more than anything, and not as commonplace in reality. My googling took me to this article which suggests I am wrong: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525089/

I'm far from an expert on this, but I've always thought that the symptoms (inattention and/or impulsivity and hyperactivity) are only maladaptive in modern culture, where young people are expected to spend long hours sitting quietly at attention in school. Is that a disease, or a flaw in modern culture?

> I've always thought that the symptoms (inattention and/or impulsivity and hyperactivity) are only maladaptive in modern culture

If you read through any edition of the DSM, you'll find that most disorders in it are defined by symptoms being maladaptive in the subject's current actual environment, not by objective, context-independent criteria.

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#35

Post by krinchan »

reactJS wrote: post #15

I challenge someone to provide evidence enough to scare me into stopping. Go ahead, save my life

Meh. So long as you don't graduate to a full blown cocaine or meth addiction, you should be fine for a long while. You'll have cardiovascular issues further down the line if you don't work out and/or smoke.

I mean, all stimulants to some degree or another are bad for your heart and blood pressure.

Perhaps look into that other brain pill all the kids are taking now, Modafinil. I've been meaning to try some at some point. Apparently it gives you all the bonuses of Normal Person on Ritalin but none of the jitters.

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#36

Post by phkahler »

reactJS wrote: post #15

I challenge someone to provide evidence enough to scare me into stopping. Go ahead, save my life

>> I challenge someone to provide evidence enough to scare me into stopping. Go ahead, save my life

From TFA: Schwarz traces the Icarus-like trajectory of Richard Fee, an aspiring medical student who fakes the symptoms of A.D.H.D. to get access to drugs that will help him cope with academic pressure. When he eventually descends into amphetamine psychosis, his father tells his doctor that if he doesn’t stop furnishing his son with Adderall, he’ll die. Two weeks after burning through his supply, Fee hanged himself in a closet.

Are you sure your supply will never be disrupted?

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#37

Post by [deleted] »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #10

Note that the author directly acknowledges the existence of ADHD in the book. His concerns are directed toward the pharmaceutical industry's push to increase sales of stimulant medications. From the article: Schwarz has no doubt that A.D.H.D. is a valid clinical entity that causes real suffering and deserves real treatment, as he makes clear in the first two sentences of the book: “Attention deficit hyperactivity is…

[deleted]

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#38

Post by pyre »

chris_va wrote: post #14

I get really skeptical whenever someone uses the term "Big Pharma". 99% of the time the person using it is selling something (hey, look, a $28 book). How dare a pharmaceutical company sell a product? How dare doctors decide to prescribe medicine? While that was slightly melodramatic, here is a quote from the article: Schwarz has no doubt that A.D.H.D. is a valid clinical entity that causes real suffering and deserves…

The quote says:

> a wider range of treatment options than an endless litany of stimulants

Notice the "than an endless litany of stimulants" part. Saying something like:

> so it all boils down to the pharma companies not creating enough drugs for ADHD?

afterwards almost seems like you are intentionally misconstruing this.

Is it not possible that the author wants "Big Pharma" to spend time researching alternative treatments rather than just cranking out "yet another stimulant?" Is it not possible that the author wants more non-medicinal treatments to be explored?

---

That said, I think that "Big Pharma" has earned its negative moniker. Just look at the front-page story from yesterday about EpiPen prices being jacked up to the point where people may not be able to afford them. I don't think that being against price gouging a "captive audience" in a way that possibly threatens their health is the same thing as being against "a pharmaceutical company selling a product."

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#39

Post by goda90 »

beelzebubble wrote: post #29
dforrestwilson1 wrote: post #24

It's no coincidence that young males are more likely to exhibit ADHD symptoms. My school attempted to convince my parents several times that I needed medication because I disrupted the class. While I am not proud of my prior misbehavior, I'm thankful that my parents had enough medical knowledge to refuse to put me on pills.

There are many who genuinely suffer from ADHD and their parents did not allow them medication due to ignorance. And they have the exact opposite story to tell.

It's a tale of ignorance all around. Overzealous diagnosis leads to problems which leads to mistrust. People who get misdiagnosed suffer, and those who are properly diagnosed, but assumed to be misdiagnosed also suffer.

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#40

Post by pboutros »

chris_va wrote: post #14

I get really skeptical whenever someone uses the term "Big Pharma". 99% of the time the person using it is selling something (hey, look, a $28 book). How dare a pharmaceutical company sell a product? How dare doctors decide to prescribe medicine? While that was slightly melodramatic, here is a quote from the article: Schwarz has no doubt that A.D.H.D. is a valid clinical entity that causes real suffering and deserves…

No, the problem is that 'wide range of treatment options' != 'wide range of drugs'. Without reading the book, I'm certain that it has to do with the pharmaceutical industry's interest in having doctors prescribe medicine more frequently than might be in their patient's best interest, instead of adequately considering non-pharmacological treatment.
Post reply on HN