Is using Adderall without perscription cheating?

[cyclin M]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Wow...after reading this thread I have seen EVERYTHING.

People taking drugs to get into med school....wow certainly not enough to make me ROF but I did LOL.

SDN sure is full of ... interesting people.

 

[TehGaminGurl]

I don't see how this thread went for as long as it did.

Well, I just decided to post because I did a general search of this topic and basically put this response to every post I could because this topic got me upset enough. This particular post may be from 2007 but the topic is very live and still going on today.

 

[Insulinshock]

I did it freshman year; the stuff works, no doubt, but I've just been using coffee the past couple semesters and that gets the trick done, no need to take adderall. I can finish off at least a pot of coffee in any given night.. and then ill be up till 5 haha.

i have mixed feelings about it. i know tons and tons of people that use it, but guess what? I still get higher scores than they do on every single test, so take it for what its worth. I don't really care if other people do it though it's none of my business and it doesn't affect me.

 

[rabidpanda13]

I took a lot of adderral for a long time and I can tell you that in the end it made my grades worse because I became more concerned with getting more pills than focusing on my work. Bad news.

 

[apgar]

Adderall seems like a very unsafe way of trying to improve your academic performance.. Maybe not exactly cheating, but surely not the most ethical thing to do.

 

[NoMoreAMCAS]

I dont know about how the administration views it, but its stupid if it is considered cheating. Adderall cant give you the test answers.

 

[TehGaminGurl]

I dont know about how the administration views it, but its stupid if it is considered cheating. Adderall cant give you the test answers.

I have started a blog and this is just the first topic I plan to cover, if you want anymore information than the longwinded stuff I put here 🙂

http://worthmuchmore.blogspot.com/

You are right, the drug itself can't give you answers, but it falls under cheating just as looking on someone elses paperwork. Why? You can't be sure that person got the right answers. As a matter of fact, when I was younger, I caught someone cheating off my test and what I did was filled in all incorrect answers on purpose. When he turned in his form, I secretly told the teacher what had happened and she gave me a new form to fill out and he failed that test. So no, Adderall can't give you the answers just as looking onto someone elses paper can't guarantee you the right answers but it provides an added advantage by either allowing one to stay up and study longer (while still having the fun of partying thereby facilitating irresponsible behavior since the person doesn't learn how to manage their time properly) or by enhancing memory or cognitive functioning (but in fairness to full disclosure I think the jury is still out on if the drug can actually enhance memory or cognitive function directly, or if it's the result of allowing one to be awake and not tired or worn out that assists with those brain functions). But if indeed it does assist in the form of helping people be more awake and alert, the bottom line is, it still is an unfair advantage. Until Adderall is sold in stores over the counter like caffeine is, for those students that either a) can't afford the drug or b) wouldn't ever know where to get the drug at because they were raised without drug/alcohol use in their family, they are competing unfairly against other students that has that added advantage of affording the drug and knowing where to get it.

What ever happened to being proud of the success you have based on your own merrits and moral values? If anyone thinks using drugs illegally (whatever they are, either illicit drugs or over the counter drugs that aren't yours) is an OK behavior to engage in, then they need to seriously reassess their moral compass and hopefully do it before they ever have children.

Hard work DOES pay off. I may have a C grade GPA because I was unmedicated when I was in school for my BS in Psychology and yes it is irritating to know that I would score in the 99th percentile on SATs and I used to be in gifted programs for intelligent students when I was younger and therefore I SHOULD have a higher GPA, but at least I know my grade was acheived without cheating or lying and is actually a success to just pan out to be 'average' (which is what C means) instead of failing with a D or an F or not finishing at all because it was SO HARD!

Today, I do take Adderall. I kept my ADD untreated until June of this year. I only decided to treat it because it actually has other manifestations as you get older (at least in my case, but for some maybe these symptoms are always there). It's PAINFUL. I wake up achy and so dead inside I don't function well. I live in a messy house because I have no drive to do more than just what I need to survive.

Now, I feel like I used to when I was younger. I have energy (not excessive, tweaking type energy, but more like normal energy that I haven't felt once the ADD got worse) and I can do things again. How is school? I am now in my Masters program and let me tell you, Adderall or not, if I don't study and do flash cards or take notes or practice, I won't pass the tests, or I won't write the articulate and intelligent papers that I do. Now my GPA is in the B range. NOT because Adderall gives me any unfair advantage but because it simply raises me back to the normal level range that others (who don't abuse drugs) function at and therefore levels the playing field so that I am producing work that is back to what I used to do when the ADD wasn't so bad.

It was so bad during the last year of my BS program that I used to tell my instructors on the first day of class, "I have ADD but I don't treat it. Instead, if you see me playing solitare on my computer, or other numb games such as that while you are lecturing, it isn't that I'm ignoring you, it's that I just can't concentrate without doing something else." What would happen? Oh I took notes, assimilated as much information as my ADD brain could from the lectures and then I would study and study and study. And I would still only retain about 20% of what I read or heard.

But now, during a pharmacology class refresher course I had to take for 3 days (I took this course last year), I had my arsenal of things to keep me busy during the lecture because I was so used to being unable to just sit, take notes and assimilate what was being taught. However, to my amazement and shock, I didn't once float off mentally, I was able to sit and listen and assimilate quite readily the information given and this time I have retained it so much better than I ever did before. This time, I have nearly 90% retention.

So, sorry for this being so long but I just wanted to be clear that for those of us that really neeeeed this help, it is a Godsend and I just find it morally detestful that someone doesn't see an issue with abusing any drug.

To get an example of what it's like being ADD, try being in a room and turn on your TV full blast to something very exciting and full of noise and action, then turn on the radio to full blast to something exciting and active. Then turn on a CD to some really hard music. Next, have your girlfriend/boyfriend talk very loudly to you. Now, try to read your text book with all its boring terminology and dry sentences. After that, try and see just how much you were really able to retain from the reading. That is just a SAMPLE of what we ADD people go through daily. And just as a side note, the sad thing is, I really love Psychology so much that I do enjoy reading my text books 🙂 so it wasn't that they were too boring, heh.

 

[cyclin M]

uh oh. I think I have ADD.

Or maybe I'm just lazy.

 

[Deanis]

A couple thoughts.

1) Legal=ethical/moral, illegal=unethical/immoral: Seems like we haven't all really thought about or explored ethics or morality much. Just because something is legal certainly doesn't mean it is morally upright, and neither does something being illegal make it immoral. Ethics and morality, from the ground up, has nothing to do with law. Laws are made to protect society and are often attempts at reflecting what our society currently holds as ethical. In China, the laws are different than in the US, so is something unethical/immoral in China but not in the US because of the laws? If so, there isn't much reason to hold onto ethics or morality as any guide to life.

2) ADD doesn't exist: Normal. What the hell is that? Lying within some relatively arbitrary range of the normal curve? Some people are hyper-focusers and the other extreme has hypo-focusers. There is no gene or any biological evidence of ADD. It is just people who were born with less of a ability to focus or whatever. Diagnosis heavily depends on your doctor's opinion of what the patient has told her. There is no clear test, just a list of questions that the patient rates, and then a chat with a doctor. Given the arbitrariness of it, it seems if someone feels they are below normal, no matter how small the difference, they should be just as entitled to a perfromance enhancing drug like Ritalin (or caffeine) than some one who has "ADD" (meaning is further away from the norm than some others).

3) It's not unhealthy: At least not anymore unhealthy than someone who "has ADD". There's nothing physiologically different, aside from variances from the "norm" in whatever affects concentration in the brain. The only issue is that a doctor is likely better able to judge how the side effects (like speeding up your heart) will affect you. But as high as we hold doctors, it isn't rocket science. If you are taking other medications, maybe don't take it. If you have a heart condition, maybe don't take it. And if you must snort it, know you're taking your chances.

I think there are better arguments against Ritalin/Adderall/etc. (e.g. much like education, they are not equally accessible to everybody because of the cost and inequalities in healthcare), but they don't seem to be posted here.

 

[NoMoreAMCAS]

uh oh. I think I have ADD.

Or maybe I'm just lazy.

Exactly.

I'm definitely in the "ADD doesn't exist crowd". If you have it it's just you being a lazy azz. I've had friends who "had" it. They would forget to do things at work, fail to focus when completing tasks, but bam, when it came time for them to do what they wanted they never failed to remember or focus. And this wasn't people who claimed they had it, this was people (two) diagnosed and drugged for it.

 

[TehGaminGurl]

1) Legal=ethical/moral, illegal=unethical/immoral:

Where do rules/laws come from? They come from the social constructs that dictate what is acceptable in a society and what isn't. If using illicit drugs/drugs that you weren't prescribed was 'acceptable' then there wouldn't be a law against it. However in the end, legal/ethical/moral/illegal are intertwined due to this simple fact; Wether or not you agree with a law is not the point. The moral/ethical part comes when you abide by a law because it is the right thing to do, because you hold value to your country, decisions voters may have made and ultimately to the reality that laws are created to try and instill some semblance of order to what would otherwise be a chaotic social structure. Don't get me wrong, I am not all about laws and regulations. Heck, I don't even like religion because I believe it is just an organized way to try and control the masses. But again, we want to instill morals and values to our children and how do we do that? What is one of the things we parents say? "Follow the rules".

2) ADD doesn't exist:

That statement is as ignorant as trying to say depression does not exist. Why? Because you can't see it? Because you've never experienced either depression or ADD/ADHD? Please realize that when you (or anyone reading these posts and wishes to engage the topic) decide to argue against the concept (which is just fine, it's how debates work) that you can't just come in with your two cents and strong words as your support and expect to turn the tide or change the view or enhance the debate. I know for a fact that in college we are taught to support your statements with facts and therefore evidence such as peer reviewed journal articles, one of the most recognized methods of supporting random statements, is a way to do it.

Moving on, the reality is, there are brain scans of ADD/ADHD patients that actually verifies and reinforces what the reported 'arbitrary' (as you call them) symptomology reflects. Here is a great link I pulled up just at random and it's from the Psychiatric News Journal. It shows the MRI results and explains it in pretty 'normal' terms that should be easily understood: Brain Scans Reveal Physiology of ADHD

Further, you argue what is 'normal'. The fact is, if there is no light how would you know dark, if there was no wet, how would you know dry? There HAS to be a range to gauge abnormal against and that range is dictated by the social constructs that help to create laws and society. And normal is indeed dictated by which culture/society creates the range. For example, here in America if a parent allowed their child to sleep with them in bed all through their years until 13 or 14 years old, we may think there is some sort of attachment disorder or other issue underlying the behavior. However, in China, the communal bed is common and would never be linked to abnormal behavior. As a matter of fact, if a Chinese person were to rebuke the communal bed and act more like an American by being independent in nature, they would be considered abnormal.

3) It's not unhealthy:

First, see response to your #2 statement. That should put to rest the idea that "There's nothing physiologically different, aside from variances from the "norm" in whatever affects concentration in the brain" as you state. Second, you are correct that taking these medications CAN be as unhealthy for someone with ADD/ADHD just as much as someone without. The first part of that is I believe the research hasn't been completed yet to verifiy if indeed someone with ADD/ADHD is actually harmed since after all, there is evidence of reduced activity in the brain without the medication so if by inducing activity back up to a 'normal' level range, does that really harm someone? And the second part to that issue is, let's just assume for the sake of argument that indeed there is some harm eventually either over long term use or in short term issues such as sudden heart problems, that only reinforces the point that ONLY people who NEED this drug should take it. After all, cancer treatment drugs are poisons to our bodies and yet without those, the cancer would eat at us.

Then to finish up with this line of reasoning you provided, if someone then WITHOUT ADD/ADHD takes this medication and indeed they do have the normal brain functioning, then what type of damage is occuring due to overstimulating the neurotransmitters since after all they were already running at full capacity?

The question comes down to quality of life. No, ADD/ADHD doesn't kill you (at least I don't think it does) but if your quality of life is so reduced and by taking this (legal) drug can improve your quality of life to be back to a normal range, then there is no reason to not allow it.

Coming to this message board I really presumed I would have more educated, intellectual and reasoned out responses. It scares me to think that the responders that have had such blatantly ignorant/biased responses are possibly going to be future doctors. I mean, I know there are still years of education to be gained but you would think by the time someone is a pre-med student, there would be more rational, logical and intellecutal thinking going on...(this is NOT necessarily directed to Deanis, the poster I am responding to here. It is just a general observation I am making and rather than making a new post, I just stated it here).

 

[cyclin M]

Why are the posts about ADD by people with ADD in this thread soooooo long?

 

[Aidan]

A couple thoughts.

1) Legal=ethical/moral, illegal=unethical/immoral: Seems like we haven't all really thought about or explored ethics or morality much. Just because something is legal certainly doesn't mean it is morally upright, and neither does something being illegal make it immoral. Ethics and morality, from the ground up, has nothing to do with law. Laws are made to protect society and are often attempts at reflecting what our society currently holds as ethical. In China, the laws are different than in the US, so is something unethical/immoral in China but not in the US because of the laws? If so, there isn't much reason to hold onto ethics or morality as any guide to life.

2) ADD doesn't exist: Normal. What the hell is that? Lying within some relatively arbitrary range of the normal curve? Some people are hyper-focusers and the other extreme has hypo-focusers. There is no gene or any biological evidence of ADD. It is just people who were born with less of a ability to focus or whatever. Diagnosis heavily depends on your doctor's opinion of what the patient has told her. There is no clear test, just a list of questions that the patient rates, and then a chat with a doctor. Given the arbitrariness of it, it seems if someone feels they are below normal, no matter how small the difference, they should be just as entitled to a perfromance enhancing drug like Ritalin (or caffeine) than some one who has "ADD" (meaning is further away from the norm than some others).

3) It's not unhealthy: At least not anymore unhealthy than someone who "has ADD". There's nothing physiologically different, aside from variances from the "norm" in whatever affects concentration in the brain. The only issue is that a doctor is likely better able to judge how the side effects (like speeding up your heart) will affect you. But as high as we hold doctors, it isn't rocket science. If you are taking other medications, maybe don't take it. If you have a heart condition, maybe don't take it. And if you must snort it, know you're taking your chances.

I think there are better arguments against Ritalin/Adderall/etc. (e.g. much like education, they are not equally accessible to everybody because of the cost and inequalities in healthcare), but they don't seem to be posted here.

1. Ethics and morality are regional. I don't know how you can compare the ethics, morals, and laws of the US with that of China. You're comparing night and day. They're not even ruled under the same government structure. If anyone can seriously convince themselves that taking a non-rescribed schedule II controlled substance to falsely build theirselves an advantage over their classmates and NOT consider themselves immoral or unethical.. well, I wish them much luck in dealing with ethics or their conscience later on. And yes, laws have a moral and ethical aspect to them. Not your own personal morals or ethics, but rather a more generalized opinion.

2. You have absolutely no understanding of the territory that you're so hastily acting against. Check out the amen clinics and their research on ADHD, and the biological differences (in the brain) that they've found. Second of all, while there may be a "spectrum" of attentiveness, ranging from some arbitrary hypo to hyper focus, ADHD has nothing to do with this spectrum. If you ever experienced ADHD, or you had actually done your homework on it, you'd realize how ridiculous you're sounding.

You said: "It is just people who were born with less of a ability to focus or whatever."

"Or whatever." Very scientific, perhaps research paper material.

It's not less of an ability to focus, it's practically an inability to focus. Someone up above gave a good example, about having a TV, radio, and CD player turned on while someone is talking to you WHILE you're trying to do your homework. This is how it is in someone with ADHD's head. It's constant clutter, a constant never-ending encephalo conversation that negatively effects almost all aspects of one's life. On top of that, a good doctor would take the time to properly diagnose ADHD. You're right, it's not that difficult, and somewhat arbitrary. They can't draw blood and determine a diagnosis. However, the testimonials of the patient, the parents, and previous school test scores, as well as a quick reading comprehension test, as well as all the regular surveys that are performed, and making sure that each criterion in the DSM IV is met, add up to ADHD. It's not something that is borderline non-existant, or flat out non-existant, sorry, but try again.

You said that "if anyone feels they are below normal" blah blah blah they should be given Ritalin, just because they're not "as far away from the normal" as the others. All right, well, if that's your mindset... I'd suggest spending a bit more $$ on malpractice insurance than the average physician after medical school. Based on this statement, you'd be giving morphine to patients with a mild headache as well as patients with severe back pain. It's easy for someone without ADHD to sit and objectify ADHD in order to validate their illegal use of Adderall, but know that it's these same people that are 1. making it harder for people that need treatment, to get treatment (because doctors are becoming more weary of drug seekers in this class of medications), and 2. degrading persons with ADHD by telling them their diagnoses don't exist and that the drugs they're taking are just giving them a competitive edge against others. In essence, it's like blaming others for something they're not doing, but you are.

3. "There's nothing physiologically different, aside from variances from the "norm" in whatever affects concentration in the brain." I honestly just... sigh. Did you really write this? Please tell me you copied it from somewhere, and just did it to piss us off?

You can't make an absolute statement, and then add an argument or exception to it! Physiology, in terms of human beings, refers to functionality. Your exception to your absolute statement, "aside from variances from the 'norm' in whatever affects concentration in the brain", is an understatement. There are differences in the concentration realm of the brain (the frontal cortex, not the "whatever"..). Do you think they just magically appeared, and the person is "abnormal" for no reason? We don't know the exact etiology of ADHD, but the stimulant medication's basic mechanism of action is to inhibit the reuptake of 'certain neurotransmitters' in the brain. This is the same action as SSRI and MAOI antidepressants, and those types of drugs also drastically help persons with ADHD, just not as much as stimulants do.

Through various treatments in attempts to restore the balance of neurotransmitters in brains of ADHD persons, it's safe to say that there is some kind of imbalance, and the ADHD person's level of monoamines is deficient. You said there's no danger in taking Adderall, well.. unfortunately that's not true. Adderall and Ritalin have been fatal in many persons with heart defects that were unknown to them. On top of that, the psychological dependency one undergoes while being treated with a stimulant is notable. Unless taken at high doses, there aren't noticible physical withdrawls, but after a while, students feel like they can't do their normal studying routines without Adderall.

As far as other dangers of non-prescribed Adderall, there exists syndromes in which too much of certain chemicals in the brain (as opposed to to little) can create negative effects, even hypertensive crises resulting in death. Look up serotonin syndrome, for example.

Most likely, a normal person won't die, get sick, or get caught while taking adderall as a study aid. When they do take it, though, and DO get caught, it makes it that much more annoying for people who genuinely need it, to get it. As of right now, the drug is placed in a schedule in which a new prescription is required each month, no refills. The prescription has to be walked in (no electronic Rx) etc.

When anything illegal happens on a college campus, it gains media attention. When it's constantly on the news, constantly brought up in schools, etc. it reinforces the inequality that persons with ADHD feel. On a societal level, they feel as if they're doing something wrong and the medication that is helping them is immoral. On a collegial level, they feel burdened in that people want to buy their prescription, and/or are stigmatizing them saying they're getting a competitive edge. People with ADHD don't take Adderall to get a competitive edge, they take it to be on par with every other non-ADHD student on campus. Besides a couple of things, none of what you posted above is remotely true or realistic.

 

[Aidan]

Where do rules/laws come from? They come from the social constructs that dictate what is acceptable in a society and what isn't. If using illicit drugs/drugs that you weren't prescribed was 'acceptable' then there wouldn't be a law against it. However in the end, legal/ethical/moral/illegal are intertwined due to this simple fact; Wether or not you agree with a law is not the point. The moral/ethical part comes when you abide by a law because it is the right thing to do, because you hold value to your country, decisions voters may have made and ultimately to the reality that laws are created to try and instill some semblance of order to what would otherwise be a chaotic social structure. Don't get me wrong, I am not all about laws and regulations. Heck, I don't even like religion because I believe it is just an organized way to try and control the masses. But again, we want to instill morals and values to our children and how do we do that? What is one of the things we parents say? "Follow the rules".



That statement is as ignorant as trying to say depression does not exist. Why? Because you can't see it? Because you've never experienced either depression or ADD/ADHD? Please realize that when you (or anyone reading these posts and wishes to engage the topic) decide to argue against the concept (which is just fine, it's how debates work) that you can't just come in with your two cents and strong words as your support and expect to turn the tide or change the view or enhance the debate. I know for a fact that in college we are taught to support your statements with facts and therefore evidence such as peer reviewed journal articles, one of the most recognized methods of supporting random statements, is a way to do it.

Moving on, the reality is, there are brain scans of ADD/ADHD patients that actually verifies and reinforces what the reported 'arbitrary' (as you call them) symptomology reflects. Here is a great link I pulled up just at random and it's from the Psychiatric News Journal. It shows the MRI results and explains it in pretty 'normal' terms that should be easily understood: Brain Scans Reveal Physiology of ADHD

Further, you argue what is 'normal'. The fact is, if there is no light how would you know dark, if there was no wet, how would you know dry? There HAS to be a range to gauge abnormal against and that range is dictated by the social constructs that help to create laws and society. And normal is indeed dictated by which culture/society creates the range. For example, here in America if a parent allowed their child to sleep with them in bed all through their years until 13 or 14 years old, we may think there is some sort of attachment disorder or other issue underlying the behavior. However, in China, the communal bed is common and would never be linked to abnormal behavior. As a matter of fact, if a Chinese person were to rebuke the communal bed and act more like an American by being independent in nature, they would be considered abnormal.



First, see response to your #2 statement. That should put to rest the idea that "There's nothing physiologically different, aside from variances from the "norm" in whatever affects concentration in the brain" as you state. Second, you are correct that taking these medications CAN be as unhealthy for someone with ADD/ADHD just as much as someone without. The first part of that is I believe the research hasn't been completed yet to verifiy if indeed someone with ADD/ADHD is actually harmed since after all, there is evidence of reduced activity in the brain without the medication so if by inducing activity back up to a 'normal' level range, does that really harm someone? And the second part to that issue is, let's just assume for the sake of argument that indeed there is some harm eventually either over long term use or in short term issues such as sudden heart problems, that only reinforces the point that ONLY people who NEED this drug should take it. After all, cancer treatment drugs are poisons to our bodies and yet without those, the cancer would eat at us.

Then to finish up with this line of reasoning you provided, if someone then WITHOUT ADD/ADHD takes this medication and indeed they do have the normal brain functioning, then what type of damage is occuring due to overstimulating the neurotransmitters since after all they were already running at full capacity?

The question comes down to quality of life. No, ADD/ADHD doesn't kill you (at least I don't think it does) but if your quality of life is so reduced and by taking this (legal) drug can improve your quality of life to be back to a normal range, then there is no reason to not allow it.

Coming to this message board I really presumed I would have more educated, intellectual and reasoned out responses. It scares me to think that the responders that have had such blatantly ignorant/biased responses are possibly going to be future doctors. I mean, I know there are still years of education to be gained but you would think by the time someone is a pre-med student, there would be more rational, logical and intellecutal thinking going on...(this is NOT necessarily directed to Deanis, the poster I am responding to here. It is just a general observation I am making and rather than making a new post, I just stated it here).

Wow, I had no anticipation of your post, and we posted a lot of the same things haha. I'm glad there's another person just as..disgusted.

 

[Aidan]

To add on your "No ADHD doesn't kill you (at least I don't think it does)":

Well, it can't (or at least, I haven't seen any data/indication of it) ACTUALLY kill you itself. That is, if you were to sit still, the manifestations of ADHD wouldn't cause you to drop dead.

However, persons with ADHD are much, much more likely to have accidents that hospitalize them, as well as car accidents, and other important things like leaving an oven on and so on that I'm sure you've experienced just as well as I have. Basically the zoning out caused by ADHD can be lethal when a car is added. Without the ADHD, the person may not have died, therefore the ADHD could be the direct cause of the person who got into a car accident's death. So while it is not only hard to live with, it can be life threatening as well, depending on the context.

 

[Aidan]

Exactly.

I'm definitely in the "ADD doesn't exist crowd". If you have it it's just you being a lazy azz. I've had friends who "had" it. They would forget to do things at work, fail to focus when completing tasks, but bam, when it came time for them to do what they wanted they never failed to remember or focus. And this wasn't people who claimed they had it, this was people (two) diagnosed and drugged for it.

Yes, when they were performing a task that they actually WANTED to do, or that was entertaining to them, it was easier for them to focus on it. That's how it is in persons with ADHD. Your analysis was dead on, but your interpretation was off.

Getting excited about something is one way to stimulate our minds. When something grabs an ADHD person's attention, it's relatively easy to flow with as long as the stimulant effects are still occuring. Usually meaning the task has to have some kind of interesting cognitive requirements. At least from what I've seen.

I've always been extremely curious about certain topics, and when something interested me I'd be able to go with it by watching a video about it and so on. It's different for every person with ADHD, but generally when something interests us, we can focus because of the stimulant effects we are naturally able to get from it.

For me, even if the topic interests me, I'm not able to read about it unless the article is extremely short. For example, psychology is my favorite subject, but if I don't take meds, there's no way I can get through one page of the textbook on it. There's just too many things brought up and it's not "to the point" enough.

While reading a psych book, I'll be thinking "I wonder why the sun glows.. oh, right. because it's hot, duh. But what is hot, really? What if there was no hot, how would we define the sun then? And what about cold, how would we define cold? I know that if I cook food and then forget about it, it gets cold. Oh, I wonder if I turned off the oven, that would suck... hey, maybe I should get a puppy, they're so fun to play with. I remember seeing this black blender at Costco. Koolaid is magical..."

Etc. Just a ridiculously abstract train of thought that has no structure or anything. By the time I realize I'm not paying attention to the book, I'm three pages ahead of where I was and I have no recollection of what my eyes just tried to process.

It's like, our eyes try to read, but our brain says "Server too busy". Adderall simply shuts off the clutter, bout it really.

 

[cyclin M]

Yes, when they were performing a task that they actually WANTED to do, or that was entertaining to them, it was easier for them to focus on it. That's how it is in persons with ADHD.

I'm pretty sure that's how it is with normal people too. Do you even read what you write? Let me guess, you're gonna blame it on your ADD.

 

[Aidan]

I'm pretty sure that's how it is with normal people too. Do you even read what you write? Let me guess, you're gonna blame it on your ADD.

Uh? Of course that's how it is with normal people, you're reading what I said out of context. The previous poster said that his friends aren't able to stay on task and constantly forget things unless the the tasks were something they wanted to do. Obviously people without ADHD are more focused on things they want to do. What I'm saying is: people with ADHD are usually able to focus PERIOD on things that they want to do.

I.e. it's possible for someone to read a book that doesn't interest them because they have to read it for a class. It's not as possible in an ADHD student, and we have to learn different ways of learning the material enough to be able to regurgitate it.

 

[cyclin M]

Uh? Of course that's how it is with normal people, you're reading what I said out of context. The previous poster said that his friends aren't able to stay on task and constantly forget things unless the the tasks were something they wanted to do. Obviously people without ADHD are more focused on things they want to do. What I'm saying is: people with ADHD are usually able to focus PERIOD on things that they want to do.

I.e. it's possible for someone to read a book that doesn't interest them because they have to read it for a class. It's not as possible in an ADHD student, and we have to learn different ways of learning the material enough to be able to regurgitate it.

First of all nothing was taken out of context. I took your first paragraph which you divided yourself.

Second, your logic makes no sense. So ADD people can only do things that interest them? That is being lazy. Try harder.

I do not like reading all the books I have to for class, but guess what? I push myself to do it. It's not pleasant. I zone out every few minutes and realize that last 10 minutes I spent "reading" was just my eye balls moving across the page. I don't get drugs, I don't blame it on ADD. I slap myself and go back and try again.

TRY HARDER.

But hey if drugs work for you, I'm not here to judge, that's your life.👍

 

[Aidan]

First of all nothing was taken out of context. I took your first paragraph which you divided yourself.

Second, your logic makes no sense. So ADD people can only do things that interest them? That is being lazy. Try harder.

I do not like reading all the books I have to for class, but guess what? I push myself to do it. It's not pleasant. I zone out every few minutes and realize that last 10 minutes I spent "reading" was just my eye balls moving across the page. I don't get drugs, I don't blame it on ADD. I slap myself and go back and try again.

TRY HARDER.

But hey if drugs work for you, I'm not here to judge, that's your life.👍

I suppose I thought such ignorance had to of been a misunderstanding. Thanks for the correction.

No, you're applying new meanings to what I'm saying, and missing the point... people with ADHD can perform any task they want, but their efficiency is much less (or non-existant) if they can't interest themselves in it. It's not a once in a while day dream that we can slap out of or switch on and off.

It's not that we don't finish tasks or start tasks because of laziness, it's because of past experience and frustration that we endured while trying a similar task and being unsuccessful at it, due to the inability to get our heads out of the clouds.

Laziness is when someone is not taking it upon themselves to try to work or study because they simply don't want to. There's an obvious fallacy in your analogy of ADHD and laziness. Laziness is something controlled by personal will; the lack of productivity caused by ADHD something we can't control, let alone function very well with.

I understand your views on ADHD and Adderall, and your point has been made, and hopefully mine has too. I understand where you're coming from -- it's only natural to be skeptical of or attack something one has no experience or knowledge in.

To throw another example: at work, for instance, instead of at school, my initiative is there... I can see it, my boss can see it, etc. I'm never sitting down or moping around, I'm constantly running about trying to complete everything that needs to be done. With ADHD, all my tasks end up getting cut off half way once something distracts me (such as a patient coming in), and I end up starting a new one. Eventually I end up with a bunch of half completed tasks. It's not because of laziness--I did the work, just half way on a bunch of things instead of all the way on one or two--it's because of a strange "going through the motions" phenomenon that I get after I've done something enough times that I don't even have to think about it. I can pretty much do my job related tasks while zoned out, but I'm not very efficient or productive at it unless I'm taking meds.

 

[cyclin M]

Responses in bold.

I suppose I thought such ignorance had to of been a misunderstanding. Thanks for the correction.

No, you're applying new meanings to what I'm saying, and missing the point... people with ADHD can perform any task they want, but their efficiency is much less (or non-existant) if they can't interest themselves in it. Again, I'm pretty sure this is true for all people. It's not a once in a while day dream that we can slap out of or switch on and off.

It's not that we don't finish tasks or start tasks because of laziness, it's because of past experience and frustration that we endured while trying a similar task and being unsuccessful at it, due to the inability to get our heads out of the clouds.

Laziness is when someone is not taking it upon themselves to try to work or study because they simply don't want to. There's an obvious fallacy in your analogy of ADHD and laziness. Laziness is something controlled by personal will; the lack of productivity caused by ADHD is controlled by something we can't control, let alone work very efficiently with.

Everything you describe about being ADD symptoms have no clear distinction with being lazy or just not wanting to do something. Do you think personal will is easy to control? Try it sometime. Habits are hard to break.

 

[ILikeFood]

I think taking Adderall without prescription is fine. I do it all the time. On a dime. While I rhyme.

 

[MedMan25]

If you cant get thru undergrad without drugs you will probably /suicide in med school.

Lots of people in medical school do this (abuse adderall). Stupid, yes. But it probably happens a lot more often than most people think.

 

[NoMoreAMCAS]

1. Ethics and morality are regional. I don't know how you can compare the ethics, morals, and laws of the US with that of China. You're comparing night and day. They're not even ruled under the same government structure. If anyone can seriously convince themselves that taking a non-rescribed schedule II controlled substance to falsely build theirselves an advantage over their classmates and NOT consider themselves immoral or unethical.. well, I wish them much luck in dealing with ethics or their conscience later on. And yes, laws have a moral and ethical aspect to them. Not your own personal morals or ethics, but rather a more generalized opinion.

<<<<This guy

I've never done it but i have no problem with my entire class being hopped up on it. Seriously, dumb people are dumb and smart people are smart. Popping some adderall is not going to make a dumb kid suddenly ace a test, and the smart kid would have received an A either way, he just had some help staying up.

 

[Insulinshock]

I think ADHD is the most overdiagnosed medical condition out there. Everyone that has ADHD that I know are guys (or gals) who don't like to push themselves and want things to come for them. I'm not saying they feel that way consciously, that's just what I see.

I do, however, believe ADHD is a medical condition; I just think that 95% of the time it is really just laziness. I find myself wandering all the time too in class and when reading textbooks, but I realize that I'm just being lazy and snap back with it.

It's normal to get bored and not be able to concentrate.

 

[chessknt]

I think ADHD is the most overdiagnosed medical condition out there. Everyone that has ADHD that I know are guys (or gals) who don't like to push themselves and want things to come for them. I'm not saying they feel that way consciously, that's just what I see.

I do, however, believe ADHD is a medical condition; I just think that 95% of the time it is really just laziness. I find myself wandering all the time too in class and when reading textbooks, but I realize that I'm just being lazy and snap back with it.

It's normal to get bored and not be able to concentrate.

How dare you not accept ADHD as the most prevalent plague to all mankind! It is a clearly 100% proven evolutionary condition that afflicts everyone who doesnt have a photographic memory.

 

[rocketbooster]

I think it's a terrible idea. however, getting caught using them "illegally" isn't that big of an issue. I've never taken adderall but know plenty of ppl that do. most of them are not taking it illegally, either, because of the way they acquire it. supposedly, you can go to your school's health center, tell them that you are having trouble concentrating, and then they'll usually prescribe it for you. some people do that and then sell it on the street. 😡

that's why I like the clinic I work at. we have fliers posted all over saying we neither prescribe narcotics nor fill narcotic prescriptions. 👍

I've been told by doctors that adderall only helps ppl concentrate who ACTUALLY have ADHD, though. for those who do not truly have ADHD and take it, it actually has the opposite effect. a similar effect on those who drink a lot of caffeine and are not used to taking it. that's what I was told medically, anyway, but those who take adderall without ADHD all tell me it definitely makes them focus better.

 

[Deanis]

TehGaminGurl:

On your response to 1): I just can't agree. It's naive to think that laws and rules are perfect reflections of either the general accepted view or what is moral/ethical. There isn't really a perfect democracy out there.

For Aidan: Consider this -if executing children is legal (as it is in Iran), does that make it right? If I live there am I morally justified to do nothing about it because it is legal? I guess if a genocide is sanctioned within a government by law, then it's okay?

A ridiculous example: If you come to my country where murder is legal, is it morally acceptable for me to do so? Why is this example ridiculous? Because the morality of murder (without cause) is not really accepted anywhere (it is not regional).

Response to 2): Brain scans don't constitute evidence. There is a huge debate on the validity of ADD/ADHD - reflected in part by the common view that drugs to stem it have been over prescribed. Stating "facts" doesn't really prove anything by itself. So called facts are easy to state, and have the illusion of being proof, but it is rarely so simple. It seems like a crutch to defending an opinion with reason. I suppose since I don't have a link, my reaoning certainly can't be valid...

The point was that some people "with ADD" will have less active or more active areas in the brain than others. As will two different "normal" people. At what point does someone "need" the medication? Will they die? Will they be in any physical harm? So you won't perform as well without the medication. Neither will someone with a lower IQ. So why should a person with one "deficiency" get access to a NON-necessary medication and someone else with another deficiency not get access? Ritalin/adderall/etc. would likely improve the performance for both. Both WANT (instead of need) to do better. Fair enough. But that doesnt necessarily give anyone the right to something.

Right to food? Sure. Right to live your life without being harmed unjustifiably by others? Definitely. Right to do marginally better in school or work? Maybe a bit of a stretch.

Response to 3): Your and Aidan's point's are good ones. My only point, worded poorly I admit, is that Ritalin is just as likely to harm one person as another. Why? Because the only difference in an "ADD" person and someone else is that they vary in some way, maybe the brain activity. But so do almost any random two people you grab. And the side effects that we know of don't have anything to do with that difference.

Aidan: "People with ADHD don't take Adderall to get a competitive edge, they take it to be on par with every other non-ADHD student on campus."

What about someone who has an ability to concentrate lower than average but higher than a person with ADD? When the ADDer takes Ritalin her performance goes above that of the "normal" person. Is that fair to him? Should now he not be entitled to an increase as well? If someone is able to pass their classes without using Ritalin, then taking it certainly is motivated by competition since they don't need it to pass, they want it to be competitive with their peers.

Seriously guys, there is no need for insults. I wasn't intentionally meaning to offend anyone. One of my brothers was diagnosed with ADD, another does research in that area, and yet another used to take Ritalin in college, so I'm not completely ignorant of the issue. There just seems like there is more to this issue than what seems to be discussed here.

 

[ClickityClack]

.

 

[SmarmyIguana]

Someone may have already posted this link--I haven't been following the thread, just caught my eye:

Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy


Society must respond to the growing demand for cognitive enhancement. That response must start by rejecting the idea that 'enhancement' is a dirty word, argue Henry Greely and colleagues.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/456702a.html

 

[kdburton]

I did it freshman year; the stuff works, no doubt, but I've just been using coffee the past couple semesters and that gets the trick done, no need to take adderall. I can finish off at least a pot of coffee in any given night.. and then ill be up till 5 haha.

i have mixed feelings about it. i know tons and tons of people that use it, but guess what? I still get higher scores than they do on every single test, so take it for what its worth. I don't really care if other people do it though it's none of my business and it doesn't affect me.

LOL what exactly do you do as a pre-med that warrants finishing off at least a pot of coffee in a night and getting up at 5am? I don't even do that in medical school!

 

[kdburton]

The OP obviously started this thread because she wanted to argue. Let me preface this by saying that I have never taken Adderall. The fundamental flaw to her argument (and everyone taking her side) is that the diagnosis of ADD/ADHD is such a "fluffy" decision that anyone can make a case for having it and get a script for Adderall if they really wanted. The only difference between her and I is that she made that doctors appointment and I didn't. Based on the DSM IV criteria (you know... the one they use to diagnose you with ADHD) I could be diagnosed with it and somehow I was still an A student through college, have gotten honors in all of my modules this semester in medical school so far, and have a healthy social life to top it off. Whats that you say? Its impossible for me to have ADHD and get good grades without Adderall? Having ADHD and not having ADHD is not like a light switch where its all (on) or nothing (off). Everyones' ability to concentrate, study, memorize, understand, etc is different and they lie on a continuum. It just so happens that those who fall on the lower end of that continuum can get an diagnosis of ADHD, get medicated and move up the curve a bit. The simple fact that there is no clear-cut diagnosis for the ADHD makes it just as easy for me to say that you're cheating simply because you took the time to go to the doctor and get your script (I could have done the same thing and I wouldn't be studying right now). Theres no way for you to argue with what I've said, so it was really pointless to start this thread

 

[Deanis]

I'm hoping to illustrate the insignificance of arguments against ADD disabilities (by giving a separate example), which I also refused to acknowledge before I became diagnosed with a similar disorder. However, I'm constantly reassured of how many people consider themselves to be the go-to source of diagnosis of psychological disorders, despite their lack of training in the matter.

I'm guessing you're trying to say that I think I know everything about diagnosis of ADD? I don't think I claimed that, or even implied it. Just stated that there is a lot of debate and the standard diagnosis of ADD (posted earlier) which I got from a doctor who specialises in ADD/ADHD diagnoses.

It sounds like you're implying that because maybe you were uninformed before you were diagnosed, that everyone else is the same? That a person needs to be diagnosed in order to understand relevant information? Interesting...

 

[M1medhr]

There is a substantial difference between physiology and pathology. Not being able to concentrate in class every once in a while, zoning out every now and then because you're bored, is within normal physiological expectations. Being unable to function in society because of an inability to concentrate for more than a few minutes is pathology. Just because there exists no exam that will give you a plus or negative sign to determine a diagnosis, does not mean that it doesn't exist. This is purely simplistic thinking that will, hopefully, go out the window when you begin your medical education. You will quickly learn that there are few disorders and diseases that you will be able to diagnose 100% with a simple exam. There is always a judgment call based on symptoms, whether it's strep throat or ADHD.

Furthermore, the current lack of a complete neurotransmitter pathway to fully explain the cause of ADHD does NOT imply that one does not exist. Every thought that you have ever had, every movement you have ever made, ever word that you have ever spoken has been directed by your brain and your neurons. To imply that concentration and memory is not intrinsically tied in to that, and to further imply that there can't possibly be a pathological condition that affects these functions is, at best, ignorance. Remember that the Central Dogma of molecular biology wasn't laid out until 1957. Perhaps you aren't old enough, or maybe you haven't been in school enough, or maybe you haven't really thought about it, but science is anything but complete. To say that anything happens "just 'cause" is the antithesis of your chosen career path.

I'm not judging any of you harshly. I'm just saying don't be so quick to judge, and don't be so quick to dismiss. Anyone that has ever been truly great in science or medicine wouldn't think so simplistically.

/end rant

 

[kdburton]

There is a substantial difference between physiology and pathology. Not being able to concentrate in class every once in a while, zoning out every now and then because you're bored, is within normal physiological expectations. Being unable to function in society because of an inability to concentrate for more than a few minutes is pathology. Just because there exists no exam that will give you a plus or negative sign to determine a diagnosis, does not mean that it doesn't exist. This is purely simplistic thinking that will, hopefully, go out the window when you begin your medical education. You will quickly learn that there are few disorders and diseases that you will be able to diagnose 100% with a simple exam. There is always a judgment call based on symptoms, whether it's strep throat or ADHD.

Furthermore, the current lack of a complete neurotransmitter pathway to fully explain the cause of ADHD does NOT imply that one does not exist. Every thought that you have ever had, every movement you have ever made, ever word that you have ever spoken has been directed by your brain and your neurons. To imply that concentration and memory is not intrinsically tied in to that, and to further imply that there can't possibly be a pathological condition that affects these functions is, at best, ignorance. Remember that the Central Dogma of molecular biology wasn't laid out until 1957. Perhaps you aren't old enough, or maybe you haven't been in school enough, or maybe you haven't really though about it, but science is anything but complete. To say that anything happens "just 'cause" is the antithesis of your chosen career path.

I'm not judging any of you harshly. I'm just saying don't be so quick to judge, and don't be so quick to dismiss. Anyone that has ever been truly great in science or medicine wouldn't think so simplistically.

/end rant

I assume you're talking to me. I did not say that it is not pathology. Regardless of the underlying disease mechanism, it is the method of diagnosis that makes starting a thread like this ridiculous. If there were some sort of enzymatic test to detect ADHD, then there would be more merit to an argument of "I've been diagnosed with ADHD and thus I deserve to take Adderall, and anyone who hasn't been diagnosed is 'cheating' if they take Adderall." As of right now the diagnosis is based on someone's opinion of how your history fits into a set of vague criteria, so diagnoses for ADHD are absurdly variable - to the point where almost anyone can get diagnosed. If there is so much gray area then theres no way that you can say that anyone else is cheating by taking Adderall (maybe they just didn't want to take the time out of their day to go see the doctor and they're really worse off than you)

 

[alibai3ah]

I would assume using adderall is about as illegal as underage drinking...meaning yes it is illegal, but many people still do it...I have never done it, but I wouldn't classify adderall with other narcotics like coke and heroin like some other people here have. I don't think adderall is really "cheating", because it makes you more focused and attentive (like super dose of caffeine), but you are not necessarily acquiring knowledge from someone else like cheating usually entails. But this argument can go either way, and I know what you mean. It is an unfair advantage....

 

[M1medhr]

I assume you're talking to me. I did not say that it is not pathology. Regardless of the underlying disease mechanism, it is the method of diagnosis that makes starting a thread like this ridiculous. If there were some sort of enzymatic test to detect ADHD, then there would be more merit to an argument of "I've been diagnosed with ADHD and thus I deserve to take Adderall, and anyone who hasn't been diagnosed is 'cheating' if they take Adderall." As of right now the diagnosis is based on someone's opinion of how your history fits into a set of vague criteria, so diagnoses for ADHD are absurdly variable - to the point where almost anyone can get diagnosed. If there is so much gray area then theres no way that you can say that anyone else is cheating by taking Adderall (maybe they just didn't want to take the time out of their day to go see the doctor and they're really worse off than you)

That someone is a medical professional with 8 years of training, and that opinion is based on their years of experience analyzing patients who have these disorders, and this vague criteria is based on the tenants of something called evidence based medicine, and empirical evaluation of symptoms. I wasn't aiming my comments at you because I haven't read any of your posts, this was directed at another poster.

Again, you are taking medicine for granted. There haven't been enzymatic tests for very long, and there exist hundreds of disorders for which these tests don't exist. What are you going to tell your patients? You're lying? go deal with it yourself? I'm just someone with an opinion so I'm going to ignore these imaginary issues that you're having? the moment you start claiming to know more about how your patients disorder affects them than they do, you're headed down a shaky path. I have ADHD. Yes, its clearly frustrating that there isn't a direct method of examination as of yet. But do you know what's more frustrating? people telling me it's all in my head. Especially people that may someday provide my care.

 

[M1medhr]

I would assume using adderall is about as illegal as underage drinking...meaning yes it is illegal, but many people still do it...I have never done it, but I wouldn't classify adderall with other narcotics like coke and heroin like some other people here have. I don't think adderall is really "cheating", because it makes you more focused and attentive (like super dose of caffeine), but you are not necessarily acquiring knowledge from someone else like cheating usually entails. But this argument can go either way, and I know what you mean. It is an unfair advantage....

Adderall is a Schedule II drug, similar to cocaine and opium from the perspective of the DEA. And for someone with ADHD, I can tell you that it is an unfair advantage when used improperly. I've known people that abuse Adderall because they haven't studied for their exams and need to cram for 30 hours. I need to take it once every morning so that I can sit in class for more than 5 minutes. There is a very clear difference when it is being used properly and improperly.

 

[kdburton]

That someone is a medical professional with 8 years of training, and that opinion is based on their years of experience analyzing patients who have these disorders, and this vague criteria is based on the tenants of something called evidence based medicine, and empirical evaluation of symptoms. I wasn't aiming my comments at you because I haven't read any of your posts, this was directed at another poster.

Again, you are taking medicine for granted. There haven't been enzymatic tests for very long, and there exist hundreds of disorders for which these tests don't exist. What are you going to tell your patients? You're lying? go deal with it yourself? I'm just someone with an opinion so I'm going to ignore these imaginary issues that you're having? the moment you start claiming to know more about how your patients disorder affects them than they do, you're headed down a shaky path. I have ADHD. Yes, its clearly frustrating that there isn't a direct method of examination as of yet. But do you know what's more frustrating? people telling me it's all in my head. Especially people that may someday provide my care.

I think you are giving medicine too much credit. Go talk to a psychiatrist and ask them why there is so much variability in the diagnosis of ADHD and their response will sound a lot like what I just said in my previous post. FYI- I used "enzymatic test" was a metaphor for any sort of test that can give you a yes/no answer. Fill in the blank with whatever you want.

What am I going to tell my patients? Probably nothing because I'm not going to be a psychiatrist (or PCP or whoever else may diagnose this). I'm not saying that I know more about ADHD than people who have it. And in some cases I won't say that I know more about my patients' diseases in the future when I'm one of those someones with 8 years of training under my belt. I've seen some patients who are very well informed about their health - everyone should be like them. I'm just saying strictly based on the how the diagnosis of ADHD is made that the OP's argument is ridiculous and theres no way that you can really make a rational argument against what I've said. All you can do is justify your arguments by incorrectly inferring how poorly I'll treat my future patients and that will not get you anywhere

 

[chessknt]

That someone is a medical professional with 8 years of training, and that opinion is based on their years of experience analyzing patients who have these disorders, and this vague criteria is based on the tenants of something called evidence based medicine, and empirical evaluation of symptoms. I wasn't aiming my comments at you because I haven't read any of your posts, this was directed at another poster.

Again, you are taking medicine for granted. There haven't been enzymatic tests for very long, and there exist hundreds of disorders for which these tests don't exist. What are you going to tell your patients? You're lying? go deal with it yourself? I'm just someone with an opinion so I'm going to ignore these imaginary issues that you're having? the moment you start claiming to know more about how your patients disorder affects them than they do, you're headed down a shaky path. I have ADHD. Yes, its clearly frustrating that there isn't a direct method of examination as of yet. But do you know what's more frustrating? people telling me it's all in my head. Especially people that may someday provide my care.

I would hope that a doctor who does not believe a patient needs a drug will not prescribe that drug. If someone were to come to me claiming to have ADD yet not CLEARLY showing signs of it, I would recommend more sleep, less caffeine/distractions for a month before I would allow him/her to come back and ask again. Doctors that hand out drugs like candy just because its an easy fix suck at being doctors.

 

[M1medhr]

I think you are giving medicine too much credit. Go talk to a psychiatrist and ask them why there is so much variability in the diagnosis of ADHD and their response will sound a lot like what I just said in my previous post. FYI- I used "enzymatic test" was a metaphor for any sort of test that can give you a yes/no answer. Fill in the blank with whatever you want.

What am I going to tell my patients? Probably nothing because I'm not going to be a psychiatrist (or PCP or whoever else may diagnose this). I'm not saying that I know more about ADHD than people who have it. And in some cases I won't say that I know more about my patients' diseases in the future when I'm one of those someones with 8 years of training under my belt. I've seen some patients who are very well informed about their health - everyone should be like them. I'm just saying strictly based on the how the diagnosis of ADHD is made that the OP's argument is ridiculous and theres no way that you can really make a rational argument against what I've said. All you can do is justify your arguments by incorrectly inferring how poorly I'll treat my future patients and that will not get you anywhere

My discussion of the treatment of patients was in reference to a proverbial "you" and was not directed at any specific person. Your choice of specialty is irrelevant, and a fixation on that is clearly missing the point. There will be patients whose pain and suffering you can't pinpoint with a test, whether you are a neurologist, a psychiatrist, a cardiologist, and so on. And no, I'm clearly not giving medicine too much credit, as the main premise of my entire posting was to point out that much of medicine is inconclusive.

Furthermore, I made no reference to how informed patients are about their disorder in a scientific sense. That was in regard to how the disorder affects them personally and professionally, not as to its course or method of action. I don't know what the OP said. I don't even know what you said originally, and I'm not sure why you're chasing some phantom argument with me. I read one post by a user claiming that ADHD doesn't exist, and I responded. Perhaps I should have used the reply button, I don't know.

 

[MedMan25]

I've been told by doctors that adderall only helps ppl concentrate who ACTUALLY have ADHD, though. for those who do not truly have ADHD and take it, it actually has the opposite effect. a similar effect on those who drink a lot of caffeine and are not used to taking it. that's what I was told medically, anyway, but those who take adderall without ADHD all tell me it definitely makes them focus better.

Adderall would still enhance your ability to focus if you did not have ADHD.

 

[M1medhr]

I would hope that a doctor who does not believe a patient needs a drug will not prescribe that drug. If someone were to come to me claiming to have ADD yet not CLEARLY showing signs of it, I would recommend more sleep, less caffeine/distractions for a month before I would allow him/her to come back and ask again. Doctors that hand out drugs like candy just because its an easy fix suck at being doctors.

I believe you have also missed my original point, perhaps I worded it poorly. If that is the case then I apologize. What I am referring to is not in a specific sense, but is more broad in nature... A psychiatrist has clear cut definitions of what ADHD is and isn't, and uses that and their experience to make judgment calls. Medicine is rarely simple, and tests that give clear cut answers rarely exist or function properly. If a physician ignores this basic principle and chooses to only treat patients with disorders he or she can see and manipulate physically, then they are doing their patient a disservice. Was that clear, or did that make things more jumbled?

 

[chessknt]

What are you going to tell your patients? You're lying? go deal with it yourself? I'm just someone with an opinion so I'm going to ignore these imaginary issues that you're having? the moment you start claiming to know more about how your patients disorder affects them than they do, you're headed down a shaky path.

I was referring to this part specifically because this seems to imply that a good physician needs to prescribe medications to people who think they have problems, even though these problems may not be treatable and are fabrications made by bored/worried/competitive individuals looking for attention/security/advantage.

 

[M1medhr]

I was referring to this part specifically because this seems to imply that a good physician needs to prescribe medications to people who think they have problems, even though these problems may not be treatable and are fabrications made by bored/worried/competitive individuals looking for attention/security/advantage.

That was not the implication. I explained what I mean in my previous response to you. It implies that a good physician won't say something like ADHD doesn't exist to a patient that truly has it. Do you know what I'm saying?

 

[SacTu]

I Googled my way after a discussion with a fellow pre-med classmate about the "ethics" of Adderall. She would complain about people who seem lazy and yet do well in school and say things such as: "Ugh, she probably takes Adderall!"

This is so depressing seeing people on a forum, created for students becoming MEDICAL DOCTORS, saying things such as "drugs are bad" or "drugs are cheating"

First, let's get this straight. Not everyone is born equal. We have been lodged in our head since the day we were born that "All men are created equal" or other soliloquy/guidelines, you name it. When you think of the individuality of each person, it consists of two general categories: Nature + Nurture. Nature is such that your genes give you a greater chance to be predisposed to diseases and disorders such as ADHD. Nurture can be anything from you being dropped, or the way society has treated you due to your image, or even stress causing your predisposed gene to be expressed. People often misconstrue when discriminating others that there is a third variable in which is the main source of our equal-individuality and that everybody has the equal opportunity at an equal effort to do something. That is wrong. Ask yourself if you have any of the following: Use correction lenses, drink coffee, wear make-up, eat food. The first three of the list is easier to understand what is "cheating" in life. Unless your ethical perspective of "cheating" is using tools to assist you with things you do in life, then it isn't really cheating. There isn't very much of a red border line defining what is cheating and what is not cheating, as the policy varies for many different situations.


Food is a drug. Coffee is a drug. Adderall is a drug. Anything you take from an external source to promote natural responses in your body is a drug. I'm not going to get into what is "natural" and what is "unnatural" as everything is relative to one another, but in this case, we have to understand Adderall (Amphetamine) stimulates your pre-frontal cortex by reversing the dopamine reuptake transporter at the synpase thus increasing the concentration of dopamine at the synaptic cleft. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter consistent with alertness and other goodies that you get from amphetamine. In a normal person, there is a hypo-dopamine concentration due to the lack of D4 receptor gene. ADHD helps fix this by allowing dopamine to exchange-diffuse through the synapse. Food, is broken down by enzymes and absorbed in the small intestine and depending on what the food is, has different effects on your body. Carbs give you energy, protein gives you muscle. I'm not going to explain that process, the point is, basically, drugs change your bodies one way or another.

Ethics
Here's my very general abbreviated definition of ethics:
If something doesn't harm anybody, then it isn't unethical.

Then why does Adderall must be legally prescribed?
There are many reasons why the FDA wants to regulate certain things. Everything can be abused, and everything must be taken in moderation. Eat too much? -> Obesity -> Die. (Then again you could also die from many other ways)
However, most of us have something called the Hypothalamus which regulates when you're full and need to stop eating. Plus, food is required for more important functions such as...well...being alive; thus it isn't regulated
Adderall is a psychostimulant drug, it's not necessarily needed to directly live, however, it has a great effect in the way some of us live. Remember, Adderall is an amphetamine - it has many therapeutic uses, not just for "ADHD". People can benefit from Adderall for different reasons. Some more than others. While others it can have detrimental effects. Not everybody is made the same, just as not every drug can solve the same problem or some drugs can solve many different problems. The main reason it is regulated, is that it can be abused much more easily causing harm to both the person in use and possibly others. Physicians, by law, are told to limit prescription Adderall to a maximum of 30 dosages of whatever dose per patient per month. The patient must see the physician once a month in order to continue usage. Many prescribed patients don't use the entire dosage and thus leads to a surplus. Everybody wants money. Thus it leads to illegal sales of Adderall. However, Adderall, at low dose, is generally not dangerous, thus regulation. Adderall is also generally not addictive compared to other higher sources of amphetamine due to the peak effect that they have. Adderall does not directly make you any happier (e.g. Serotonin increase) because Adderall is a low-dose form of amphetamine. Only at higher dosages are prone to abuse and addiction.

Those are the basics, now to get to the real question, is using Adderall without prescription considered cheating when using it for academic purposes? First of all, getting a prescription is not hard. It's not meant to be. The main goal was to regulate Adderall to prevent harm done by people... we only want the beneficial effects of drugs. Generally people who put the effort to find a physician, go to the physician, then explain why they want Adderall, rationally believe that they will have beneficial effects when using Adderall. This is perfectly fine because humans have evolved to use tools to aid them in tasks. Want to reach something higher and you're not 16'? Make a ladder and climb it. Want to increase your chances of procreating with the opposite sex? Wear make-up. (Yes, there are many valid answers to these questions, I'm just pointing out simple answers that people often deem as "unnatural")

So thus, you can understand how Adderall has become a tool now. Some people use Adderall because they can't focus even if they study daily without cramming, while others they can't study because they had other preferred desires and use Adderall to prevent sleep in order to cram for tests. Let me tell you one thing, there is no drug available that will protect you from the harm that lack of sleep does to you. So perhaps you have temporarily raised your GPA by doing well on that test you just crammed for with the assistance of Adderall to keep you awake the night before. Great job, however, these people are only cheating themselves. Believe it or not, but the amount of sleep you get correlates with how long you live. Sleep is not exactly a cumulative effect, but it can be seen that way, if you slept 1/2 as much as what you should sleep, you would probably live 1/2 as long as you would have lived. Sleep can only be compared to your own sleep requirements. And yes, longetivity has many, many other factors. But as we can see, using Adderall as that cram-drug you may win one way, but lose another. Thus it is advised to use Adderall at the early mornings to help you concentrate throughout the day, and allow you to sleep at night. When using Adderall as a cram-drug, it does serve a therapeutic purpose, but deprives you of another.

To conclude, you should not discriminate against people who use Adderall lightly, don't be so close minded to think of "cheating" by using a drug... save that for the athletes. We are physicians. We acknowledge our genetic predispositions and fight it with medicine. We use our tools. In sports as you can see, it is dominated by people with genetic predisposition that assists them in their field... or disorders such as the XYY syndrome which can also assist them. However, to them it's not considered a disorder as it promotes their career. The law forbids the usage of steroids mostly because it has detrimental effects on health with usage, but people regard the reason as "cheating" just as many of you in this forum.

Basically a cliche way of ending this is, don't harm yourself or others. Use Adderall for the therapeutic effects without the detrimental effects. If you don't need it, why bother? You save money and time which you could use to study even more than those "drugged up kids" you often label. If you believe it has beneficial uses and believe you can use it to minimize/prevent any of the detrimental effects even if you don't have ADHD, go for it! Do it legally. Medicine are our tools, and we use our tools to help people. Be a good Doctor of Medicine, not discrimination.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

I Googled my way after a discussion with a fellow pre-med classmate about the "ethics" of Adderall. She would complain about people who seem lazy and yet do well in school and say things such as: "Ugh, she probably takes Adderall!"

This is so depressing seeing people on a forum, created for students becoming MEDICAL DOCTORS, saying things such as "drugs are bad" or "drugs are cheating"

First, let's get this straight. Not everyone is born equal. We have been lodged in our head since the day we were born that "All men are created equal" or other soliloquy/guidelines, you name it. When you think of the individuality of each person, it consists of two general categories: Nature + Nurture. Nature is such that your genes give you a greater chance to be predisposed to diseases and disorders such as ADHD. Nurture can be anything from you being dropped, or the way society has treated you due to your image, or even stress causing your predisposed gene to be expressed. People often misconstrue when discriminating others that there is a third variable in which is the main source of our equal-individuality and that everybody has the equal opportunity at an equal effort to do something. That is wrong. Ask yourself if you have any of the following: Use correction lenses, drink coffee, wear make-up, eat food. The first three of the list is easier to understand what is "cheating" in life. Unless your ethical perspective of "cheating" is using tools to assist you with things you do in life, then it isn't really cheating. There isn't very much of a red border line defining what is cheating and what is not cheating, as the policy varies for many different situations.


Food is a drug. Coffee is a drug. Adderall is a drug. Anything you take from an external source to promote natural responses in your body is a drug. I'm not going to get into what is "natural" and what is "unnatural" as everything is relative to one another, but in this case, we have to understand Adderall (Amphetamine) stimulates your pre-frontal cortex by reversing the dopamine reuptake transporter at the synpase thus increasing the concentration of dopamine at the synaptic cleft. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter consistent with alertness and other goodies that you get from amphetamine. In a normal person, there is a hypo-dopamine concentration due to the lack of D4 receptor gene. ADHD helps fix this by allowing dopamine to exchange-diffuse through the synapse. Food, is broken down by enzymes and absorbed in the small intestine and depending on what the food is, has different effects on your body. Carbs give you energy, protein gives you muscle. I'm not going to explain that process, the point is, basically, drugs change your bodies one way or another.

Ethics
Here's my very general abbreviated definition of ethics:
If something doesn't harm anybody, then it isn't unethical.

Then why does Adderall must be legally prescribed?
There are many reasons why the FDA wants to regulate certain things. Everything can be abused, and everything must be taken in moderation. Eat too much? -> Obesity -> Die. (Then again you could also die from many other ways)
However, most of us have something called the Hypothalamus which regulates when you're full and need to stop eating. Plus, food is required for more important functions such as...well...being alive; thus it isn't regulated
Adderall is a psychostimulant drug, it's not necessarily needed to directly live, however, it has a great effect in the way some of us live. Remember, Adderall is an amphetamine - it has many therapeutic uses, not just for "ADHD". People can benefit from Adderall for different reasons. Some more than others. While others it can have detrimental effects. Not everybody is made the same, just as not every drug can solve the same problem or some drugs can solve many different problems. The main reason it is regulated, is that it can be abused much more easily causing harm to both the person in use and possibly others. Physicians, by law, are told to limit prescription Adderall to a maximum of 30 dosages of whatever dose per patient per month. The patient must see the physician once a month in order to continue usage. Many prescribed patients don't use the entire dosage and thus leads to a surplus. Everybody wants money. Thus it leads to illegal sales of Adderall. However, Adderall, at low dose, is generally not dangerous, thus regulation. Adderall is also generally not addictive compared to other higher sources of amphetamine due to the peak effect that they have. Adderall does not directly make you any happier (e.g. Serotonin increase) because Adderall is a low-dose form of amphetamine. Only at higher dosages are prone to abuse and addiction.

Those are the basics, now to get to the real question, is using Adderall without prescription considered cheating when using it for academic purposes? First of all, getting a prescription is not hard. It's not meant to be. The main goal was to regulate Adderall to prevent harm done by people... we only want the beneficial effects of drugs. Generally people who put the effort to find a physician, go to the physician, then explain why they want Adderall, rationally believe that they will have beneficial effects when using Adderall. This is perfectly fine because humans have evolved to use tools to aid them in tasks. Want to reach something higher and you're not 16'? Make a ladder and climb it. Want to increase your chances of procreating with the opposite sex? Wear make-up. (Yes, there are many valid answers to these questions, I'm just pointing out simple answers that people often deem as "unnatural")

So thus, you can understand how Adderall has become a tool now. Some people use Adderall because they can't focus even if they study daily without cramming, while others they can't study because they had other preferred desires and use Adderall to prevent sleep in order to cram for tests. Let me tell you one thing, there is no drug available that will protect you from the harm that lack of sleep does to you. So perhaps you have temporarily raised your GPA by doing well on that test you just crammed for with the assistance of Adderall to keep you awake the night before. Great job, however, these people are only cheating themselves. Believe it or not, but the amount of sleep you get correlates with how long you live. Sleep is not exactly a cumulative effect, but it can be seen that way, if you slept 1/2 as much as what you should sleep, you would probably live 1/2 as long as you would have lived. Sleep can only be compared to your own sleep requirements. And yes, longetivity has many, many other factors. But as we can see, using Adderall as that cram-drug you may win one way, but lose another. Thus it is advised to use Adderall at the early mornings to help you concentrate throughout the day, and allow you to sleep at night. When using Adderall as a cram-drug, it does serve a therapeutic purpose, but deprives you of another.

To conclude, you should not discriminate against people who use Adderall lightly, don't be so close minded to think of "cheating" by using a drug... save that for the athletes. We are physicians. We acknowledge our genetic predispositions and fight it with medicine. We use our tools. In sports as you can see, it is dominated by people with genetic predisposition that assists them in their field... or disorders such as the XYY syndrome which can also assist them. However, to them it's not considered a disorder as it promotes their career. The law forbids the usage of steroids mostly because it has detrimental effects on health with usage, but people regard the reason as "cheating" just as many of you in this forum.

Basically a cliche way of ending this is, don't harm yourself or others. Use Adderall for the therapeutic effects without the detrimental effects. If you don't need it, why bother? You save money and time which you could use to study even more than those "drugged up kids" you often label. If you believe it has beneficial uses and believe you can use it to minimize/prevent any of the detrimental effects even if you don't have ADHD, go for it! Do it legally. Medicine are our tools, and we use our tools to help people. Be a good Doctor of Medicine, not discrimination.

Two comments:

1. Your post is too long. Without the author having some SDN street cred, people are unlikely to read such a long post.

2. The last post in this thread is from 15 months ago. Grave digging ain't cool. I'm pretty sure we've discussed it in different threads several times since then.

 

[SacTu]

Two comments:

1. Your post is too long. Without the author having some SDN street cred, people are unlikely to read such a long post.

2. The last post in this thread is from 15 months ago. Grave digging ain't cool. I'm pretty sure we've discussed it in different threads several times since then.

1. I agree, it is quite long, but it's not easy to elaborate a point in a topic such as this for many to understand without being wordy. If I could type all of that without being bored, hopefully others who are passionate enough wouldn't mind reading it. How it'll work is if you find it boring/uninteresting/invalid information, you'll probably stop reading. Also, establishing SDN street cred has to start from somewhere... for me, it is here. Though I probably won't get as far as you...

2. Yeah, I have noticed the thread being in 2008. Some people dislike grave digging, while others dislike people making new threads of old topics... I'm in for recycling 🙂

 

[TooMuchResearch]

1. I agree, it is quite long, but it's not easy to elaborate a point in a topic such as this for many to understand without being wordy. If I could type all of that without being bored, hopefully others who are passionate enough wouldn't mind reading it. How it'll work is if you find it boring/uninteresting/invalid information, you'll probably stop reading. Also, establishing SDN street cred has to start from somewhere... for me, it is here. Though I probably won't get as far as you...

2. Yeah, I have noticed the thread being in 2008. Some people dislike grave digging, while others dislike people making new threads of old topics... I'm in for recycling 🙂

It would take surprisingly little to reach my level of credibility

 

[BBender716]

1. I agree, it is quite long, but it's not easy to elaborate a point in a topic such as this for many to understand without being wordy. If I could type all of that without being bored, hopefully others who are passionate enough wouldn't mind reading it. How it'll work is if you find it boring/uninteresting/invalid information, you'll probably stop reading. Also, establishing SDN street cred has to start from somewhere... for me, it is here. Though I probably won't get as far as you...

2. Yeah, I have noticed the thread being in 2008. Some people dislike grave digging, while others dislike people making new threads of old topics... I'm in for recycling 🙂

2. Is your recycling ethical? Some types of recycling actual are more harmful to the environment (which in turn, harms people) than beneficial. Uh oh.