I appreciate your attempt at providing a medical education to those of us on this forum. However, I caution that your understanding of this topic may not be as great as you think.
As expected, you disagree with the statement that ADD medications can provide an unfair advantage. And your own proper logic should inform you that whether you understand or agree with the logic of the position I take, doesn't make it any less valid than your own. Let me address this:
For starters, I know for a fact that students who show no clinical symptoms of ADD successfully use the drugs as a study aid. But besides this, I think you are missing my real point. The point is that every medical student wishes they could get more out of their intelligence by being able to focus more and study longer. In reality, the medical debate regarding ADD is the fact that medical normals regarding disabilities are set according to current social standards which are subject to change. Consider the current ambiguity regarding our current clinical dividing line between a person who has trouble focusing (no clinical Dx), Briquets syndrome, various forms of depression and one who has ADD (have you noticed that some ADHD Rx are primary Rx for these other disorders?). Further, take a look back at DSM I and you'll see homosexuality listed as a disorder. At the time it was (and is still many times) something that puts at a great disadvantage compared to non-homosexuals. Further, medical diagnostics such as EEG's have shown abnormalities in homosexuals. One such example is that many male homosexuals have brain pattern that resemble more closely that of a female. So, if deviation from normal defines disability then why is homosexuality no longer found in the DSM IV? Further, medical treatments for homosexuality do exist, but are highly controversial, little known, and rarely discussed (save for philosophical debates). Another example is caffiene. Caffeine is not an addictive substance under our current medical definition of the term. It is however, considered addictive according to the lay person's understanding of the term and caffeine addiction is rumored to be classified as a disease in the future DSM V.
Going on, the possibility of improvement with medication does not define disease. Often because improvement (once again) is a socially set standard. Consider our current situation with pro athletes. You can be stronger (a socially defined good quality) by taking steroids or by blood doping, but intervention induced improvement does not necessarily equate to cure (or successful treatment) of a diseased state. Steroids don't add muscle, they just make better use of the muscles you already have...So you might say, "It won't give them any more muscles, but it will prevent their natural strength from being sabotaged by their inability to train more efficiently" which equates to, "It won't make them any smarter, but it will prevent their natural intelligence from being sabotaged by their inability to concentrate."
Further, reluctance of a physician to utilize any specific available treatments for any given disorder does not equate to misunderstanding of the sciences regarding that disorder. Consider antibiotics: Many patients demand antibiotics from their physicians every time they get a cold. And sadly, many physicians will prescribe them every time. But, current medical knowledge tells us this is WRONG. So, a doctor has a choice to make, he can risk* losing the patient begging the drug, or risk* contributing to antibiotic resistance.
Finally, you need to realize that when/if you become a physician, you will treat patients that won't adhere to your prescribed medical plan (religious beliefs, stubbornness, mistrust, lack of finances, etc, etc). Simply assuming they are uninformed or calling them illogical simply because they disagree with you won't aid the matter.
