Those affected by ADHD (Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), are easily distracted from the task at hand. This disorder has been questioned for legitimacy for several years due to Leon Eisenberg’s claimed that “ADHD is a prime example of a fabricated disease” (qtd in Blech). Although many medical specialist agree that ADHD is indeed a widespread disorder, one would question the necessity of prescribed medication for such a mild abnormality. The International Consensus Statement on ADHD encourages patients to seek treatment to control the symptoms (Barkley et al.) and Paul Wender believes that “stimulant drugs [are] the most effective treatment for ADHD” (Wender 34). In contrast, several critics would oppose medication due to the various health risks as demonstrated through studies from Columbia University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the negative side-effects of prescribed medication (Carrizales 4). The previously proposed arguments for and against offering prescribed medication to patients center around negative health effects; they have neglected to consider the result of possession of drugs. Prescribed medication should be limited or discredited entirely when dealing with children as the negative consequences to their future outweigh the positive. In order to properly assess the credibility of drug distribution, we must consider emotional and moral drawbacks as well as the effects on cognitive ability.
Considering the effects of increasing amounts of drugs being available to the public is essential in determining the viability of loosely prescribing medication. The medicine provided to ADHD patients are generally stimulants that raise dopamine levels to allow the patient to focus (Robinson et al.). Although these stimulants can be used to benefit ADHD victims, the medication is also infamous for it’s promise of temporary euphoria when abused by users. Young children with possession have the opportunity to abuse or even distribute such substances illicitly. “Many health professionals believe that ADHD is being over-diagnosed” (Carrizales 1) due to the vague criteria for diagnosis based upon “a person’s pattern of behavior” (1). The International Consensus Statement on ADHD does acknowledge that environmental factors play a part in ADHD, but also claim that it does not arise “solely or primarily the result of these environmental factors”(Barkley et al.). In an attempt to argue for the legitimacy for medication, the statement informs us of the studies on the benefits of such anaesthetic drugs, but also makes reference to the necessity of “educational, family, and other social accommodations” (Barkley et al. ). Although there are obvious benefits of the medication, the statement neglects to access the negative health effects. Studies have shown that “some of the more troublesome symptoms gradually diminish and finally disappear at the time of puberty” (Wender 57). One would question the importance and necessity of medication when there are alternatives that are more beneficial health wise, especially when it comes down to a child’s well being. Because children can be feeble and naive, they do not understand the full consequences of their actions; surely children that are introduced to drugs at a young are more likely to be the ones that abuse them later on in the future as they have the opportunity to.
In addition to the emotional effects of stimulants on children, we must also consider the morality of offering a child prescribed medication that can potentially harm them. Several health issues may arise from medication such as “heart-related problems” and “psychiatric problems” along with various side effects that may cause mood swings that involve “irritability, depression, agitation, or other emotional side effects” which lead to the question: is it right to evoke such distress to a child? A child taking medication is probably not doing it because he wants to, but rather because he is forced to by their parents or guardians, supposedly for his/her own well being. Examining this situation more closely, we can observe a child, unknowing of consequences, being forced to take medication that is potentially life threatening that would anesthetize them in an attempt to cure them of their abnormality. The child has no opinion over the decision of accepting medication as the judgement is almost entirely based on the views of the caretakers. Certainly this violates one of the fundamental freedoms on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states everyone should have the right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression” (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 2b). Being under the influence of prescribed medication, childrens’ thoughts are inadvertently limited, impeding their ability to be individuals. Children under the influence of medication are seen to be more “concentrat[ed] and focus[ed]”, demonstrating, “reducing hyperactive and impulsive behaviors” (Robinson et al.), but are they truly themselves? Children under the influence of stimulants are restrained in their ability to show genuine emotions. In an attempt to maximize their mental abilities, we are paradoxically limiting them. How can this be fundamentally just?
Besides considering the morality of prescribing medication to children, we must also consider the effects of medication on their cognitive ability. The ability of ADHD patients to develop general thought processes is not inhibited although some patients do face learning disadvantages. Prescribed medication benefit attentiveness and hyperactivity, but does not address the uneven learning development problem that affect some ADHD children. A recent study on the educational and behavioural effects of stimulants on children with ADHD has shown that Ritalin, a commonly prescribed stimulant for ADHD patients, cause “short-term deteriorations in academic outcomes among both boys and girls”, contradicting the fallacy of benefits to cognitive abilities (Currie et al. 25). Also, several intelligence tests have shown that ADHD does not affect intelligence (Wender 18), but taking prescribed medication causes cognitive deterioration as demonstrated by Currie’s study; certainly medication is not viable for the developing minds of children. The risks of influencing brain development is significant as brain damage to a child would greatly influence their future. We must emphasize the fact that those affected by ADHD are initially not lacking in mental ability and only some are affected by learning disorders, but the effects of medication can handicap them into a far worse situation.
Because the symptoms of ADHD are so vague, improper diagnosis is a possible outcome which is a major problem due to the powerful medication used to treat this disorder. Improper diagnosis could lead to improper prescription of medication that is potentially dangerous to a person’s health. Although many studies show the obvious benefits of ADHD medication, the drawbacks are clearly significant. Children affected by ADHD are still naive, living under the influence of their caretakers and unable to make their own decisions. Offering children medication is as rational as offering them cocaine in that they stimulate dopamine levels in the brain and have an overwhelming amount of negative effects on mental and physical health (Robinson et al.). Considering the results of several studies on the impacts on medication on health along with the moral, emotional, and mental effects caused by prescribed medication we can conclude that prescription medication to children is unviable and should be discontinued. The prescription of stimulants for ADHD children is still evident today. Through the insight provided by this paper, critics can reconsider the merits of medication and search for an alternative that is less detrimental to health. [1219 words]
No comments:
Post a Comment