Attention Disorder or Not, Pills to Help in School

[scureto1]

I do have a child, and if both my wife and I and a physician we trust all think that he would benefit from it and that it would be safe for him, we would have no hesitation to offering it to him and seeing what he thought and how he did in the following weeks/months. There is plenty of evidence out there that indicates that it is safe. I would be glad to share it but I'm sure you wouldn't read it. If you have some (evidence, not feelings or stories) that you want to share, I'd be glad to read it.

Ritalin/amphetamines and ADD/ADHD diagnoses have been around for more than 20 years and there is no epidemic of brain damaged young adults who were medicated for it. I agree that it might be overprescribed and that some parents want to use it as a quick-fix, but some people's misuse of a tool doesn't negate the value of that tool entirely.

 

[LogicSoDeveloped]

I have ADD and was on it a few years ago. My grades were amazing that semester in high school but I suffered a lot of anxiety issues from it eventually and quit taking it, not to mention at the time dropping to 105 lbs. at 5 foot 7 inches tall. I felt like a zombie with my gray skin. The pediatrician told me to "take the weekends off to recover." I'm glad I was never on it until 17 but then again, I worry the Zoloft at 15 has permanently changed my brain for the worse. Probably so anyways.

However, I'm starting to realize I stand no chance in college without being medicated again. I hate the way it makes me feel but I'll never stop daydreaming to be able to get shit done otherwise. Even if I exercise, even if I eat right, even if I try to make schedules or stay organized, I can't focus properly.

I have a buddy that takes it 2-3 days a week to have what he calls "get shit done days." He is also in college and says it helps tremendously

 

[qwe]

i'd prefer we reduce the academic work load in response to rising ADHD, rising anxiety, etc.

 

[RobotRipping]

You make a very fine distinction: "education" vs "the public education system". I don't disagree with you about the shadiness inherent in the public education system. But regardless of the inefficiencies and corruption of the public education system, education itself really is about best preparing people for advancing civilization. How else besides education would people be prepared to be scientists, architects, engineers, etc. To claim that the entire institution of education is there to funnel people into shit jobs is a little bit tinfoil hat-ish.

haha yes education in itself should be about best preparing people for advancing civilization. Even if you look at private schools, universities i still think it is about reproducing current class structures and also turning education into a high profit business.

In university i didn't use any stimulants and i found it difficult to focus and get shit done but i think that's normal. It's not supposed to be easy and a ton of fun. It's hard work that requires dedication. I think amphetamines in particular offer an unfair advantage and are analogous to using steroids in the olympics. If the olympics allowed everyone to use steroids then it would cause all sorts of problems. Those who don't use such drugs have disadvantages, the athlete's bodies go through hell and pharm. companies will race to develop the greatest performance enhancing drugs. I see the same issues with everyone using amphetamines to study.

 

[Foreigner]

Just a symptom of the public sector continuing to be gutted and the money redirected to huge corporate conglomerates.

Children have always been hyperactive... they're children. The genuine diagnosis rate for ADD and ADHD is quite low. Most of the doctors diagnosing this now are not even qualified to be making it.

Public education is also hopelessly outdated. When kids aren't at school they're on the internet or interacting with different kinds of multi-media. Even among the poor, access to the internet has increased exponentially in the past 10 years. Then they go to school and are expected to sit at a desk inside four white walls, and focus on single subjects for hours at a time, all while sitting still.

Add to this that teachers have less classroom resources plus state-enforced standardized testing, and there is little flexibility left in the learning.

Among the reasons for why I'm never having children, public education is one of them. I can't afford private so I'm just not having kids.

 

[scureto1]

The difference between steroids in the Olympics and amphetamines in education is that one has the potential to benefit all of society while the other is just a game. That's why I said that education isn't a sport. If we can have better scientists and doctors, more technology, safer medicine, easier food production, more efficiently ran businesses, etc, through the use of performance-enhancing drugs, I think "fairness" is trivial in comparison. I feel that the only legitimate question is: are these drugs safe in the long run or is the eventual cost going to outweigh the eventual benefit?

To argue about fairness is to argue about the fairness of a student who chooses not to have (or is incapable of having) a social life and instead spends all of his time studying. If you want to have any level of social life and are equivalent students, you can't possibly compete with him. Sure, his decision could cost him his happiness and possibly even some mental health in the long run, but he can still make that choice and take that competitive edge over you if he chooses. Assuming that you and he are equivalent in intelligence and aptitude, the only way you can hope to out-compete him is to make the same sacrifice. Not many balk at the "unfairness" of that situation, but fundamentally, how is it different?

It's not supposed to be easy and a ton of fun. It's hard work that requires dedication.

I understand the value of hard work, discipline, dedication, etc, I've done plenty of it myself. I'm also not claiming that amphetamine is a magic bullet that will do this, but as a thought experiment, imagine a wonder drug that could: a drug that could make university-level learning easy and a ton of fun. Imagine if you thought physics (or chemistry or theoretical mathematics or some other difficult, traditionally unpopular subject) was really interesting but you struggled and struggled and found it extremely frustrating. But with a daily dose of this drug, you found yourself able to easily focus on and absorb all of the material and retain your enjoyment and interest in it. You didn't even have to work hard at it, you got to do the work, become great at something, AND enjoy yourself while doing it.

Why is that a bad thing? Why is it "supposed" to be hard? If we had a way to make it easier, why wouldn't we use it?

Last, you are operating under the assumption that any performance-enhancing drug MUST have severe negative side effects. Why do you believe this is true? Do you believe it is true in EVERY case? Do you believe there is a threshold amount under which the drugs might be safe and still provide some benefit, or that there might be future performance-enhancing drugs that could be safer? What would convince you that one was safe?

 

[RobotRipping]

^ you're right, in the future there may be performance or cognitive enhancing drugs with no side effects or negative consequences.

So let's assume there is a drug with no side effects that increases productivity, focus and energy and every person could use it. Those who wouldn't use this drug would face extreme disadvantages in life. The pharmaceutical company who made this drug would have massive profits and would have tremendous influence on politics and laws. The owners of the means of production (capitalists) would also have a general population that was geared towards increasing productivity, efficiency and technology which would also increase the capitalists profits.

Right here this leads to corruption in many ways. I think this whole scenario is analogous to what happened with modernization with factories. People became alienated but production and profits increased. Then the ford assembly line streamlined things again alienating people (Marxist alienation i'm thinking here). I'd like to go more in depth with this scenario lol but i don't have time, hopefully you can see what i'm getting at.


What if one day every single human being is just taking one pill that provides euphoria, energy, focus, relief from mental and physical pain and has no side effects? What would happen to our sense of humanity? Would this be a better way to live or a worse way to live?

 

[scureto1]

I can see what you're getting at, but it seems more like a critique of society than on the feasibility of performance/cognitive-enhancing drugs. The problem in that theoretical world is the corrupt system (same as the problem out our real world), not the drugs. I can definitely see your point about the drugs making our current corruption worse, though.

Bad society + enhancing drugs = enhanced people in worse society
Ideal society + enhancing drugs = enhanced people in ideal society

 

[trees_please]

I think that it just seems a little young for children to be administered drugs. I mean, its really sending an ends justify means kind of message, isnt it? What is the distinction between medicine and recreation? I also meant that more hypothetically and not directed towards an individual, as I don't have children of my own. So I guess my credibility ends there.

 

[THC2LSD]

Let them chew coca instead.

Hey it's got antioxidants, vitamins and minerals. It'd probably work for ADD too.

Also we could use some pills that turn terrible parents into exceptional ones. Sekio you're good with pscyhopharmacological theory and whatnot, any suggestions?

I have some. Valium and Dexedrine.

I don't understand why people will have one kid, let alone multiple, especially when reality hits and the kid requires half of your attention for 20+ years.

Evolution, social expectation, not wanting to be old without children and contraceptives failing.

If you don't want to put in the work, don't have kids. Expecting them to grow up on their own with the help of doctors fast prescription hands, shitty education system, and who knows what possible environmental factors, and nothing else is retarded and unfortunately has a victim after all is said and done.

So you think the poor shouldn't have kids? Maybe we should sterilize them. I wonder if it's ever been tried before8)?ROMNEY 2012!

everyone got along just fine for 2000 years ago until the pseudo science of psychiatry started promoting drugs for everything from inattention to fear of being in pubic.

The year our Lord got crucified was such a wonderful place8), with all that slavery, killing and shit.

gee, little timmy doesnt sit still in class? tie him to his friggin chair then. its no less ethical than pill pushing in an elementary school.

I'd take Desoxyn over child abuse.

do they worry about ADD in Guatemala? no, they worry about having enough rice to eat and not getting kidnapped on the way home.

They probably worry about all of it.

How is this different than prescribing anabolic steroids to all the kids who can't do a mile in 3 minutes? Kids used to be able to produce a much higher level of physical exertion, now they can't. Obviously they could succeed if they weren't physically handicapped, with Physical Exertion Deficit Disorder. Put little Johnny on a course of test enthanate and wham, he's a better athlete. Hence this proves that PEED is a thing, and we should be medicating kids for it left and right. Now all I have to do is get a few juice-heads to peer review my work and I'm golden.

How about giving kids corticosteroids since they can't run? It's pretty common and they have a fuckload of side effects. Non-aromatazing anabolic steroids are prescribe for short stature in prepubescent children. A side effect is a big dick:D.

And that drug can have side effects like cardiac damage, high blood pressure, body odor. And it has to eb taken regularly for it to work. And it has a course of diminishing returns.

A doctor should discontinue it if these arise. The drugs work for a long time and sometimes "holidays" are recommended. At recommended doses the elevated heart rate and blood pressure is often modest but should be monitored by the doctor anyway. I've never smelled anyone who baths regularly get bad body odor from amphetamines, even tweakers.

mental illness is a theory (poorly supported, at that) and not a fact.

Germs were once a theory. Do you believe in evolution or climate change?

IMHO as someone with severe mental illness, Szasz, though he sometimes has good points, is a fucking idiot.

i think it is the case that amphetamines cause more harm than benefit, especially in the long term. If amphetamines had no side effects or long term issues/toxicity then i'd be all with you in prescribing them to everyone.

If your talking about abusing amphetamines I'd agree. But at controlled therapeutic doses I say it's good for you. Amphetamines have been around for like a hundred years. No mysteries. IMO the only reason everyone doesn't get them is they're too damn fun.

The pharmaceutical company who made this drug would have massive profits and would have tremendous influence on politics and laws. The owners of the means of production (capitalists) would also have a general population that was geared towards increasing productivity, efficiency and technology which would also increase the capitalists profits.

Let the workers seize the means of production. Problem solved:D.

I think that it just seems a little young for children to be administered drugs. I mean, its really sending an ends justify means kind of message, isnt it? What is the distinction between medicine and recreation?

Kids need drugs all the time. Tylenol, Benadryl, ect. How is it different besides being the evil demon amphetamines we're all taught to hate?

 

[trees_please]

I dont think you are as all-knowing on this subject as youd like to think. Especially by attempting to disprove everyone's claim in this thread you end up accomplishing very little. Your comment "severe mental illness" is unsubstantiated and fallacious. You rant about religion assuming because I used the year 2000 its what i believe. Your post is unfocused and overly dramatic.

 

[scureto1]

I'm pretty sure he meant that he (the poster), as someone with mental illness, has a very first-hand reason for thinking Szasz is an idiot. Not that Szasz himself had a mental illness. As someone with a schizophrenic mother, I have to agree, at least with respect to his views on the existence of mental illness.

 

[sekio]

The more I think about this, the more that I realize there areseveral deep seated issues here...

Either these drugs need to be offered ad lib to the populance as long as you pass a physical examination and at nominal cost, or you turn this whole thing into a class war where only those who can pay $200/mo and have the luck to convince a doctor get the drugs (i.e. middle/upper class). This basically means that the poor & those who do not tolerate amphetamine are instantly at a disadvantage.

The premise that these drugs do not produce permanent gains is really bugs me. If you go onto amphetamine and become accustomed to your new, much higher, level of performance, and then stop taking them, you've crippled yourself severely. (c.f. Paul Erdos).

Really it boils down to, does the benefit derived from amp really outstrip the cost of amphetamine to your finances, mind, and body? Some studies have suggested that all amph does is make you more confident in your work anyway (not actually increase performance, neccesarily) so maybe all you're doing is paying a feel good tax...

 

[slimvictor]

Either these drugs need to be offered ad lib to the populance as long as you pass a physical examination and at nominal cost, or you turn this whole thing into a class war where only those who can pay $200/mo and have the luck to convince a doctor get the drugs (i.e. middle/upper class). This basically means that the poor & those who do not tolerate amphetamine are instantly at a disadvantage.

I understand what you are saying, but this is an issue of the medical insurance system, not one directly about these drugs.

The premise that these drugs do not produce permanent gains is really bugs me.

But really, it depends on the person. One person might receive massive gains, while another might have an allergic reaction and die. Just as you say here:

Really it boils down to, does the benefit derived from amp really outstrip the cost of amphetamine to your finances, mind, and body?

Again, this is up to the individual to decide. There is no way to set a "standard level of benefit" on confidence. For some people, it will mean everything. Others already have confidence, and just get to "borrow" some energy to study for longer hours before that chem midterm the next day.