ohshea
Bluelighter
That's true but it's not really a fair comparison. I'm a hypochondriac and I'm pretty sure I can talk myself into believing I have a glioblastoma. Now, if I were able to get a sympathetic doctor to believe me and start me on temozolomide right away, before having the appropriate diagnostics, chances are I would experience lots of nasty side effects and probably no benefits since I probably don't actually have a brain tumor.
However, say I really don't have ADD. As long as I am reasonably healthy, not especially prone to addictive behavior (or have someone reliable to help me manage my meds) and am aware of the benefits/risks of stimulant medication, the medication is still likely to benefit me. As long as it's taken as prescribed, in therapeutic doses and not abused. If I'm truly ADD, great, I get medicated. If I'm not, still great, I get medicated and still probably get to enjoy the benefits of low therapeutic doses of a stimulant medication.
Same goes for pain meds and any kind of controlled substance. if the patient believes they have a problem, they should be allowed access to medications that will help them. But they need to be told up front the dangers/risks and that if they try to doctor shop or otherwise obtain more medication than agreed upon, they will be cut off. The patient should also be able to tell their prescriber that a medication isn't working effectively anymore and receive an increase or change in type of medicine where appropriate.
Sometimes I honestly just need 10 hydrocodone for a migraine I get occasionally. But the amount of effort required just isn't worth it so I just suffer through. That doesn't seem fair.
This is the craziest idea Ive ever heard. Give people medication because they believe they have a problem?