Hey monstro, sorry it’s so late, but did still really want to respond. I (like, I believe even sven) really meant no offense with this at all. It doesn’t mean I think everyone should go around popping pills (if you recall my post that’s exactly what I think we shouldn’t do). I just think that our rules for altering the chemistry in our brains are still in the making, on all levels (eg happiness).
I think the confusion might lie exactly where you are pointing: what if someone does badly academically and does much better on a certain drug, without having ADHD?
What if “laziness” turns out to be a condition that we can locate in the brain, we decide that that person can’t help that their brains are like that & we also find that the same drugs as those for ADHD help for people with “laziness”? Then likely it would become OK for people with otherwise incurable “laziness” to take those meds. (This is purely an imaginary example, I am not saying people with ADHD are lazy!)
I just see: “certain input will likely lead to certain output”. We’re still working on which inputs/which outputs/which people/when is what ok.
A fair number of people here have strongly asserted that ADHD is overdiagnosed.
Those of you who have, please tell me two things:
How often is ADHD diagnosed?
How often should it be diagnosed?
If you cannot tell me those two things, you cannot aver that ADHD is overdiagnosed. What you are sharing is a poorly formed opinion, largely based on popular conception rather than any sort of reliable evidence.
Further, although much of the discussion here has focused on academic functioning, it is important to remember that people with ADHD suffer impairments pervasively throughout a number of domains of functioning. They struggle in social interactions and experience much greater peer rejection than others. They suffer more accidents than others. They are at greater risk for substance abuse than others.
It’s well-demonstrated that ADHD is a marker for poor outcomes across these and other domains. So, when you have a marker of functioning that distinguishes groups of people, and when you follow those groups up later and find that the ADHD positive group was at significantly higher risk than the other group, what do you call that?
ADHD is a description of a set of behaviors. Right now, that is all it is. Having “ADHD” simply means that you have exhibited a set of behaviors listed in the DSM-IV as “ADHD.” The DSM-IV was written by people, and descriptive diagnosis like “ADHD” is written by having a bunch of these people come together and say "Hey guys, what do you think we should put under the heading of “ADHD?” It’s a useful process, in that it helps people get the help that they need to reach their full potential. But it is an essentially arbitrary one.
So of course people who have been described as having a particular set of behaviors then exhibit these sets of behaviors. If I diagnose you with “runny nose,” you almost certainly do have a runny nose. And of course it makes sense to use that description to describe people who fit that description. Everyone with a “runny nose” should probably be diagnosed with “runny nose.”
The bigger question is…what does it all mean? Now that we’ve got this description that seems to hold a fair amount of weight, what do we do with it?
The diagnostic criteria are based on behavior, but we actually do understand a fair amount regarding the genetics and etiology of ADHD (see my link in post #39 for details). I don’t know exactly how far we’ve come in incorporating that knowledge into better diagnostics and treatment, but the diagnosis is nowhere near as arbitrary as you make it out to be.
If you intended this to refer to my post, then you have no idea what you are talking about.
The diagnostic criteria for ADHD have nothing to do with being rejected by peers or using substances. Having accidents is not a diagnostic criterion either.
Calling the diagnostic criteria arbitrary is also misleading. Please check into the amount of research that has gone into validating the diagnosis. I’m not saying that “six” is a magic number, but it’s been shown to work very well in terms of distinguishing risk for persistence over time and other poor outcomes. It isn’t that it was chosen based on nothing, and then never evaluated.
I don’t think I’m that confused about the point you’re making. If someone is doing bad academically and an ADHD drug helps them do better but they do not have ADHD, I can’t really get myself worked up about it. Perhaps they don’t have ADHD but they have something that is ADHD-like. That just means the diagnostic criteria doesn’t cover everyone with problems.
The truth is that ADHD drugs are prescribed to tons of people who do not have ADHD. As I said before, I have been prescribed ADHD drugs. As well as drugs meant for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and epilepsy. I have not been diagnosed with any these disorders, and yet I have received benefits from them (well, except the ADHD pills). The reality is that ADHD has commonalities with Tourette’s, which has commonalities with OCD, which has commonalities with schizophrenia, which has commonalities with bipolar disorder. So maybe a person is not hyperactive and has great focus, but only when they aren’t experiencing racing thoughts. A doctor may treat the crazy thoughts with ADHD medication, just to see what happens. This is not irresponsible medicine. Nor is a person trying to make excuses for lazy behavior.
“Laziness”–IMHO–connotes a willful lack of effort. If someone’s productivity improves dramatically with a chemical substance, that doesn’t make me think of a willful failure. It makes me think the drug fixed something beyond that person’s control. That “something” could be a whole host of things.
What does it all mean? If a person is experiencing significant difficulty in their academic, social, and/or professional life because of self-reported or observed attentional deficits, the solution seems to be that we try to address this problem. And we only call the people who are having serious problems “disordered”.
Hey, this is cool! I agree Though I think that what you describe actually points out that it is a complicated question that we haven’t really figured out yet. But other than that, I agree!
As it’s been explained to me by an MD, a low dose of a stimulant can have this effect on an ADHD patient. As it helps you filter out all the potential distractions, it may make you feel more calm and relaxed, which may lead to sleep.
FWIW, I have also been diagnosed as ADHD-PI. For years, I had been on medication for anxiety and depression (basically handed over by my GP after a bout of sobbing and confessing that I had been suffering from those things for years). In 2007, I finally went to see a therapist. SHE was the one who said “I think you might have ADHD, which might be causing the anxiety and depression.” BINGO! Once I knew what I was really dealing with and was able to get medication for it (Adderall, 5mg BID or as needed), life got a million times better. I don’t have time to write a novel detailing my personal experiences, but that’s my two cents.
Though I think that what you describe actually points out that it is a complicated question that we haven’t really figured out yet. But other than that, I agree!