Research Essay (#2)

Katie Munson

Professor Sessolo

Writing 100

13 October 2015

Drugs used to treat ADHD have existed since 1957, when the stimulant methylphenidate (Ritalin) became available. Specific events have increased the number of people taking these stimulant drugs. According to "History of Development," in 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics changed their guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, which now covers preschoolers and adolescents. In response to this, people have become more concerned with the over prescription of stimulants. Also, Medicaid, which has recently expanded the criteria for receiving aid for ADHD, has brought the issue of over prescription to light. Finally, the addition of the FDA Modernization Act, which allows more children to be eligible for receiving medications, led people to the topic as well.

Some argue that the updated guidelines provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics to identify ADHD in a patient are not strict enough. For example, Lowry, an editor of the National Review, believes that the criteria for diagnosing patients with ADHD are inaccurate and, therefore, have led to the over prescription of drugs to treat ADHD. He mentions “that ADHD is a legitimate neurological condition that makes kids (and those around them) miserable, that blights their potential and that can be alleviated by prescription stimulants like Adderall and Ritalin.” However, he believes that “diagnosis and treatment of the disorder has run wildly out of control on the promise of an easy pharmaceutical fix to the natural rambunctiousness of childhood.” He adds alarming statistics, such as, “19 percent of high-school-aged males have received a diagnosis [for ADHD]” to persuade his readers that ADHD is over treated. He wants his audience to know that “ADHD is a $9 billion-a-year business” because the drug companies “target mothers with alluring ads suggesting their children will become little angels through the wonders of risk-free stimulants.” Lowry thinks that the over prescription of stimulants to treat ADHD is a huge problem that could have lasting health implications. He is hoping his editorial will teach those who take stimulants to treat their ADHD to weigh the pros and cons of treating this disorder with drugs. He believes that “our increasing unwillingness to distinguish between run-of-the-mill childishness -- which, by definition, is heedless and frustrating at times -- and a condition requiring pharmaceutical treatment is at the root of the ADHD epidemic” (Lowry).

The editorial "Pill pushers; ADHD industry” also emphasizes the issue of misleading advertisements that have led to the over prescription of stimulant drugs. It does ensure that “ADHD is a real disability that can hurt a child's or adult's success in school, at work or in their personal lives.” But it also highlights “drug company marketing that has stretched the image of classic ADHD to include relatively normal behavior like carelessness and impatience, and has often overstated the pills' benefits.” The author is worried that people might resort to powerful drugs after seeing an advertisement which tells them that their normal behaviors are signs of ADHD. The editorial also includes severe side effects of drugs used to treat ADHD, “[some people become] unable to sleep for days, lose their appetites or hallucinate.” Drug companies provide inaccurate “advertising and marketing, …[and] routinely downplay ‘possible side effects like insomnia, irritability and psychotic episodes.’” People are unaware of the awful side effects from the medication and are only aware of the so-called “advantages.” The author strongly believes that “medical diagnoses should be based on credible scientific research, not on corporate advertising and profits.” In the editorial, shocking statistics emphasize the corporate gain from persuasive advertisments, for example, “sales proceeds of those prescription drugs [medications to treat ADHD] multiplied five times between 2002 and 2012, from $1.7 to nearly $9 billion.” The author believes that medications to treat ADHD are overprescribed. The Charleston Gazette thinks it is worrisome that “pharmaceutical companies pay physicians and research scientists to promote their products to patients and in published research studies,” which is a likely reason why the number of people taking stimulants to treat ADHD is increasing (“Pill pushers”).

Both Leo, a Professor of Neuroanatomy, and Lacasse, an Assistant Professor of Social Work, would agree that the number of people taking stimulants is increasing, but they don’t think that this is an issue. This article, “Students are getting mixed messages on the use of stimulants,” addresses the controversy of who should be prescribed stimulants. On the one hand, it mentions that many students abuse this medication and take it to get ahead in school. On the other hand, it enforces that many students need this medication and that it is hard to differentiate between those who need it and those who don’t. The editorial argues that many kids are prescribed stimulants at a young age so they can improve academically, so other students should be able to take the same medicine. The authors state, “the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies are prescribing the medications for academic performance, …[so] it [is] a double standard to say students who are doing the exact same thing are abusers.” This is emphasized because it is difficult to deny stimulants to normal kids to improve their academic success, when other students get these medicines to achieve the same goal. Also, it proposes that certain tests should be used that would allow health professionals to draw the line between people who need the medication and others who don’t. Leo and Lacasse think that normal students shouldn’t be denied stimulants because they can be used to enhance academic performance. They state that physicians can’t “declare that using stimulants to improve academic performance is abuse, when this is exactly why doctors have been prescribing stimulants in the first place” (Lacasse and Leo).

The controversy of whether stimulants are over prescribed or not has become a very popular debate. There are many conflicting viewpoints that people have on the subject and each of these people back up their argument with convincing evidence. Many people argue that the guidelines for diagnosing and treating a patient with ADHD are not strict enough, which has caused the over prescription of stimulant drugs. Others agree that these stimulants are over prescribed, but think it is due to false advertisements that fantasize unrealistic side effects. On the other hand, many people think stimulants are not overprescribed because they believe that they are necessary to treat people with ADHD, so that they can live normal lives. This problem has no right or wrong answer, it is up to us all to weigh the different opinions and take a stance.

Works Cited

“History of development and use of drugs for ADHD.” Feingold. n.p., 27 Sep. 2008. Web. 11

Oct. 2015.

Lacasse, Jeffrey, and Jonathan Leo. “Opinion: Students are getting mixed messages on the use

of stimulants.” The Sun 13 Jun. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2015.

Lowry, Rich. “The manufactured ADHD epidemic.” New York Post 16 Dec. 2013. Web.

11 Oct. 2015.

“Pill pushers; ADHD industry.” Charleston Gazette-Mail 17 Jan. 2014. Web. 11 Oct.

2015.