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

131–140 of 235 posts

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#131

Post by forgotpwtomain »

scottmf wrote: post #117
forgotpwtomain wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have nearly a century of usage which suggests these drugs are incredibly safe. Non-industry funded long term study (30+ years) citation needed . > We medicate a lot of problems which are caused/worsened by society. We need a solution: Either we fundamentally restructure society, or we medicate. I think this is a false dichotomy, not backed by any credible research and is a clever way for the pharmacy industry to…

We have real data which heavily backs the case for medicating. You have emotion and conjecture. >Non-industry funded long term study (30+ years) citation needed. What do you want? You're suggesting all these studies are funded by pharma cos and the scientists are falsifying data? If you're not going to believe any of the data and stick to your own emotions on the subject there's no point discussing this. Until you ha…

> We have real data which heavily backs the case for medicating.

> You have emotion and conjecture.

No, I asked for you to provide a reference to a credible study, you have failed to do so. There is no need or place for ad-hominem attacks here. Who is 'we' btw?

> You're suggesting all these studies are funded by pharma cos and the scientists are falsifying data?

What I wrote explicitly was:

>>> if the research doesn't support their product they can shelve it and fund some other studies until they have research which does.

Are you claiming this is not true? Or that this does not happen?

On a side-note: standards in psychology research are much lower than in hard sciences, so the conflict of interest is exacerbated.

> Until you have anything besides personal feelings and unfounded beliefs we should obviously stick to what we're doing. Anything else is dangerous and unscientific.

Per chance, despite the immature nature of your tone - you are actually a researcher who has worked on many studies supporting what you claimed above and your research has been funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Has really not a single study with a source of funding which is not pharmaceutical company been able to replicate your results? I would consider that deeply suspicious in any field; and on the contrary to argue that it's not, is dangerous and unscientific.

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#132

Post by [deleted] »

sevenless wrote: post #114
smelterdemon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make that argument for most if not all mental disorders (cf. Erving Goffman). The fact is that persons with ADHD face significant difficulties functioning in modern society and suffer as a result, which is our best criteria for treating a mental issue as a disease.

Like I said elsewhere - does that mean that being ugly/unattractive is a disease? Or having an awkward personality, or having a low IQ? Or for that matter, being a member of any discriminated-against minority? It seems unjust and coercive to tell people they have a disease and should be medicated simply because society demands it.

[deleted]

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#133

Post by yfhsjjskc »

sevenless wrote: post #114
smelterdemon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make that argument for most if not all mental disorders (cf. Erving Goffman). The fact is that persons with ADHD face significant difficulties functioning in modern society and suffer as a result, which is our best criteria for treating a mental issue as a disease.

Like I said elsewhere - does that mean that being ugly/unattractive is a disease? Or having an awkward personality, or having a low IQ? Or for that matter, being a member of any discriminated-against minority? It seems unjust and coercive to tell people they have a disease and should be medicated simply because society demands it.

Before we talk about forcing people to go on drugs they don't want, let's get to a place where society lets everyone who could benefit from treatment at least have the option of receiving it.

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#134

Post by sevenless »

smelterdemon wrote: post #123
sevenless wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said elsewhere - does that mean that being ugly/unattractive is a disease? Or having an awkward personality, or having a low IQ? Or for that matter, being a member of any discriminated-against minority? It seems unjust and coercive to tell people they have a disease and should be medicated simply because society demands it.

Those certainly could result in some mental disorder. An awkward personality and to some degree low IQ could be symptomatic of a mental disorder as well. It's definatly possible to make a convincing case that all mental illness is a manufactured construct [1]. But I don't think you can reasonably say ADHD is not a disease and still believe, say, depression or anxiety disorders are diseases. [1] https://en.wikipedia.o…

Interesting link, thank you.

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#135

Post by AStellersSeaCow »

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.

Exactly. My parents shied away from looking into ADD/ADHD treatment for me because of the blowback about overdiagnosing, instead ascribing to the more regressive and I daresay petulant "kids will be kids" outlook of my behavior and educational issues growing up. I didn't last one semester at college, and my life was a mess for close to my first ten years of adulthood, at which point I finally overcame the "this is just the way you are" mindset and sought treatment. Started on medication and my life turned around overnight.

So while it's certainly important to keep an eye on pharma, it's also wildly irresponsible, unfair, and unscientific to claim "it's mostly made-up because I don't like the implication that a lot of people have a mental problem". Particularly disgusting is including the anecdote about the person who faked ADHD symptoms to get stimulants, then killed himself when his supply was cut off: prescription drug abuse/addiction is a serious issue, but one that is completely separate from the proper diagnosis of a medical condition.

There's rightfully been a backlash against the "better living through chemistry" postwar mindset that every problem should be medicated. But I think in this case it's ultimately less about medicating and more about fear of and unwillingness to address mental issues.

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#136

Post by sneak »

engx wrote: post #120
anexprogrammer wrote: post #58

As someone in my 5th decade, with lifelong ADHD (though given my age it did not exist in my youth, and was only diagnosed relatively recently), I'm wary of backing away from treatments until we actually do have real viable alternatives. It took far too long to get ADHD widely recognised, and even now it's often more likely to be received with humour than real recognition. Much more research, especially on other possi…

Why do people on meth enjoy cleaning? There is little difference between meth and Adderall. Taking any type of stimulant even coffee helps people do menial tasks and be more optimistic while doing them. Maybe millions of people are effected by some problem of distraction and lack of focus. But to suggest there's some biochemical reason for this that's cured by amphetamines seems like pseudoscience to me. Drugs do wor…

> There is little difference between meth and Adderall.

I posit that you don't yet know enough about neuropharmacology to have beneficial opinions on this topic.

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#137

Post by PhasmaFelis »

engx wrote: post #120
anexprogrammer wrote: post #58

As someone in my 5th decade, with lifelong ADHD (though given my age it did not exist in my youth, and was only diagnosed relatively recently), I'm wary of backing away from treatments until we actually do have real viable alternatives. It took far too long to get ADHD widely recognised, and even now it's often more likely to be received with humour than real recognition. Much more research, especially on other possi…

Why do people on meth enjoy cleaning? There is little difference between meth and Adderall. Taking any type of stimulant even coffee helps people do menial tasks and be more optimistic while doing them. Maybe millions of people are effected by some problem of distraction and lack of focus. But to suggest there's some biochemical reason for this that's cured by amphetamines seems like pseudoscience to me. Drugs do wor…

Imagine this: you're an adult professional, sitting at your desk looking at a freelance work assignment that needs to be done by tomorrow, weeping with frustration because you've been staring at it for eight solid hours, trying and trying to begin, and you can't because focusing on anything important is like trying to grip a handful of water.

Because you ran out of your meds.

This is what my life is like. If that doesn't sound like a medical condition to you, then I don't know what you're thinking. If you think I haven't tried everything else imaginable to deal with it, you're mistaken. The only thing that works is amphetamines. There's definitely downsides, and if someone showed me a better solution I'd love to try it. But, so far, there isn't one.

Maybe some people take the meds who don't really need them. That's a shame. You don't get to sacrifice my career just to keep some people from getting high.

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#139

Post by yfhsjjskc »

sevenless wrote: post #124
falcolas wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So don't call it a disease. Call it a Snuffleupagus. Just don't stop treating patients affected by this particular Snuffleupagus because it doesn't meet your definition of a "disease".

We aren't morally obliged to treat people for things that aren't diseases.

You aren't morally obligated to do anything, you can go live in a hut in the plains of Montana if you want. But people with ADHD who seek treatment appreciate the efforts of the medical professionals who help them.

Re: Overselling A.D.H.D.

#140

Post by jrapdx3 »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #105
jrapdx3 wrote: post #86

Since I've had the responsibility of managing the treatment of at least a thousand adults and adolescents with ADHD, it's a subject I've studied quite a bit. And as the medical literature attests ADHD is probably among the most researched of all medical conditions and its reality is unquestioned based on the scientific literature. When people say "I don't believe in ADHD" I point out it's not like believing in Santa…

Part of the issue with adults getting treatment could be down to a combination of a belief that folks grow out of it and insurance - unless that has changed. My brother was diagnosed with ADHD as a child. The medication that worked for him wouldn't have been covered by insurance after he was 18, from what I understood. I don't know exactly why this was (I'm 11 years older, so missed some of the discussion), but if si…

In general longitudinal studies demonstrate that hyperactive symptoms typically attenuate by early adulthood, but inattention is much more likely to persist. Reports vary somewhat, but around 1/2 of childhood cases remain diagnosable as adults, and a greater proportion, ~2/3 have persistent characteristic manifestations that adversely affect functioning.

Getting treatment as an adult has become much easier in the last 10 to 20 years. Those of us in the "front lines" have pushed the cause and now it's seldom a problem, except to the extent health care coverage is a problem in general, but that's another issue.

As a generic guess, if your brother still needed treatment when he was 18 or 19 years old, there's a chance he would have persistent functional difficulties, and if so, treatment could be useful. As always adequate assessment is necessary to know what's needed.

Post reply on HN