It is malpractice for a doctor to prescribe amphetamines to treat ADHD to someone who does not have a diagnosis of ADHD.
we are going round and round because you insist on a black and white view of how diagnosis and treatment occur
for example, as a PCP one could see a patient who appears according to patient interview and physical exam, to have Parkinson's
however, there are multiple diagnoses that can have a similar presentation, not to mention that the PCP is not as experienced with differentiating between all the possibilities as a neurologist, AND *part of the diagnostic criteria itself* includes response to medications that treat Parkinson's
therefore, once the PCP has determined that there are not serious contraindications to prescribing carbidopa/levidopa, may prescribe a low dose along with a referral to a neurologist
the reason for this is 2 fold: it will take a long time to see the neurologist and meanwhile the patient is suffering and may find relief with appropriate treatment aimed at a preliminary diagnosis, AND this approach is typically what the neurologist themselves would do to help diagnose, by doing this as the PCP in anticipation of the consultant's visit, you are helping to provide the consultant with useful information used in the *process* that it is to diagnose such a condition, thereby helping to speed things along in a way that is safe, good for the patient, and a good use of limited resources (neurologist hours), because the neurologist will know on visit #1 what the response was, rather than having to prescribe and then wait until visit #2. Diagnosis of Parkinson's is what we call a "clinical" diagnosis, in that there are no fancy blood or imaging tests to confirm the diagnosis, it is done by patient presentation and response to treatment.
now, what can happen, is that 6 weeks go by, the patient sees the neurologist, and is able to report that the meds helped/did not help. This, plus other information, may help support the diagnosis and perhaps, steer treatment. Or, a non-response to treatment in addition to other clues, may point to something else.
It will partly depend on how fitting the initial presentation was, as well as the individual experience and comfort with treating Parkinson's whether or not a PCP will make a preliminary diagnosis and initiate a trial of treatment.
You will see PCPs initiating therapy in addition to making a referral to a specialist quite often. That is part of their very job and for a whole host of conditions it is standard of care for them to take this approach.
I use this example, to try to break your black and white thinking of how diagnosis and treatment occurs.
There are "firm" diagnoses, "presumptive" diagnoses, "preliminary" diagnoses, and "full" diagnoses. Patients may be prescribed a "trial" of medication vs a "course" of medication. Doctors "practice" medicine.
I hate to break the news to you, that part of the diagnostic criteria for ADHD is response to therapy, which can include other modalities but can also include amphetamines.
The PCP may well have felt confident giving a preliminary diagnosis to the OP based on whatever data was available, and as *part of the very process of diagnosing the condition* gave the OP a short trial to gauge response to therapy, all of which is useful data for the *diagnosis AND treatment* of ADHD, and would help a specialist at a later date who would in turn gather even more data points by doing more testing.
You simply are both unfamilar to medical thinking and not open to learning, that you keep saying the same thing over and over.
You are either stupid, or a stupid troll, or just have an irrational aversion to the use of amphetamines that you look for any reason to scream malpractice here.
I didn't mind writing this so others could learn a little bit about medical thinking.
