Research Summaries

Jonathan Leo and Jeffrey Lacasse. “Students are getting mixed messages on the use of stimulants.”

This article 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 author states, “the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies are prescribing the medications for academic performance, [so] it 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. It also 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 provide their opinion[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.”

Rich Lowry. “The manufactured ADHD epidemic.”

Lowry 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.” He is hoping this will enlighten those who take stimulants to treat their ADHD and help them weigh the pros and cons of treating this disorder with drugs.

Lowry thinks that the over prescription of stimulants to treat ADHD is a huge problem that could have lasting health implications. 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.”

Charleston Gazette. “Pill pushers; ADHD industry.”

This editorial emphasizes the issues that have arisen due 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.”

It 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.’” This is included because the author strongly believes that “medical diagnoses should be based on credible scientific research, not on corporate advertising and profits.” Shocking statistics are also added, 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. He or she 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.

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.