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

The Drugging Of The American Boy

esquire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 106 posts

Re: The Drugging Of The American Boy

#21

Post by foolinaround »

chimeracoder wrote: post #10

Instead of just talking about the dangers of a false positive, let's talk about the dangers of false negatives - of ignoring ADHD in children who do actually have it. ADHD is very treatable, but untreated, it can easily lead to other comorbidities that are much more difficult to treat (such as depression) The most dangerous part of this is that it seems to imply ADHD is over-diagnosed in men (boys), when it's just as…

> ADHD is very treatable, but untreated, it can easily lead to other comorbidities that are much more difficult to treat (such as depression)

This claim needs citation.

The overall point is that the cost of the false positive overweighs the cost of the false negative

Re: The Drugging Of The American Boy

#22

Post by gress »

gizmo686 wrote: post #16
jonah wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't we try to get to the root causes of these "behavioral issues" instead of treating the symptoms.

Isn't that what ADHD medication tries to do. If the root cause is a chemical imbalance, then treating is as a behavioural problem is only treating the symptoms.

There is no valid support for the chemical imbalance theory of mental illness. The reasoning is circular - "if chemicals reduce the symptoms, a chemical imbalance must have been the cause"

Edit: seriously downvotes? This isn't news:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_imbalance

Re: The Drugging Of The American Boy

#23

Post by rtpg »

gress wrote: post #7
DerpDerpDerp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your response doesn't actually address the article, which acknowledges that ADHD is a real condition, but suggests that fewer than 1 in 5 boys have it, and that a large number of misdiagnosed cases is bad, considering that they're given serious drugs because of it. In fact, the only number it suggests as being inaccurate (based on an old study) is 25% of cases - that 1 in 4 cases is misdiagnosed. However, given the n…

Also it's worth pointing out that if 1 in 5 boys have it, it's not a disorder. It's part of the normal range.

three-quarters of Americans need vision correction, does that make it 'normal'?

Re: The Drugging Of The American Boy

#24

Post by gress »

rtpg wrote: post #23
gress wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also it's worth pointing out that if 1 in 5 boys have it, it's not a disorder. It's part of the normal range.

three-quarters of Americans need vision correction, does that make it 'normal'?

Yes, and well understood. Do you understand ADHD?

Re: The Drugging Of The American Boy

#25

Post by harshreality »

chimeracoder wrote: post #14
gress wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also it's worth pointing out that if 1 in 5 boys have it, it's not a disorder. It's part of the normal range.

Would you say the same if 1 in 5 boys were born deaf?

Can deafness be treated in any other way?

What effort is being made to determine whether the etiology of ADHD is primarily biochemical (chemical/genetic), or primarily psychological (environmental/human-interaction)? Drugging to counteract ADHD symptoms makes sense only if it's the former.

Re: The Drugging Of The American Boy

#26

Post by dalke »

com2kid wrote: post #15
legutierr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh then there is the fact that there are large structural brain differences. Are these structural differences used in diagnosis?

> Are these structural differences used in diagnosis? Unfortunately testing costs money, I've rarely to never heard of it being used, but my sole experience is in helping people on ADHD support forums.

When you say it is a "fact that there are large structural brain differences", which differences did you mean? I may be focusing on the wrong thing. What I've found (brain size) doesn't have a clear enough difference to be used as part of diagnosis.

For example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2859218/ notes that head circumference and cross-sectional MRI measurements of brain size show that children diagnosed with autism have (on average) a larger brain size.

However, looking at the charts (for a head circumference chart, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3869044/ ), while the data may be statistically significant, there's no clear separation between those diagnosed with autism and those with no indication of autism. Many of those with autism have a size smaller than the average of those without, and many of those without autism have a size larger than those with.

This means that head size or simple cross-sectional MRIs can't be used as a reliable diagnostic test.

Which structural differences where you meaning?

Re: The Drugging Of The American Boy

#27

Post by torkins »

foolinaround wrote: post #21
chimeracoder wrote: post #10

Instead of just talking about the dangers of a false positive, let's talk about the dangers of false negatives - of ignoring ADHD in children who do actually have it. ADHD is very treatable, but untreated, it can easily lead to other comorbidities that are much more difficult to treat (such as depression) The most dangerous part of this is that it seems to imply ADHD is over-diagnosed in men (boys), when it's just as…

> ADHD is very treatable, but untreated, it can easily lead to other comorbidities that are much more difficult to treat (such as depression) This claim needs citation. The overall point is that the cost of the false positive overweighs the cost of the false negative

Which article did you read? Not only was there no discussion of the cost of false negatives, there was very little treatment of the actual cost of false positives, just a nebulous assertion that its bad for kids to be on pills.

I would say the point of the article is here is a list of reasons why it might be over-diagnosed, some people on both sides of that, 50% puffed up with human interest pap about the Boy Whisperer

Re: The Drugging Of The American Boy

#28

Post by pantalaimon »

joeyo wrote: post #13
gress wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also it's worth pointing out that if 1 in 5 boys have it, it's not a disorder. It's part of the normal range.

I'm not sure if it's that black and white. Roughly 25% of deaths in the US are due to heart disease. Should we not intervene because heart disease is part of the normal range?

What is a normal death?

Re: The Drugging Of The American Boy

#29

Post by khuey »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #20

Next can we talk about SSRI's? My little brother was prescribed Paxil as an adolescent. Now he's in prison for murder. Now Paxil is not allowed to be prescribed for adolescents and children but my brother will die in prison. He behaved exactly how kids prescribed this medicine behave, in a murderous rage.

Wow, that's so tragic.

Re: The Drugging Of The American Boy

#30

Post by torkins »

harshreality wrote: post #25
chimeracoder wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you say the same if 1 in 5 boys were born deaf?

Can deafness be treated in any other way? What effort is being made to determine whether the etiology of ADHD is primarily biochemical (chemical/genetic), or primarily psychological (environmental/human-interaction)? Drugging to counteract ADHD symptoms makes sense only if it's the former.

So given that ADHD is, in actual fact, a neurobiological diagnosis, not a psychological diagnosis, then I guess you're stating your support for treating it with drugs?
Post reply on HN