American kids are overmedicated
America is a lot of things: a global leader in innovation, an arms dealer, a centuries-old democracy, an abuser of human rights (sometimes). We are also a pharmacy, and if you are a toddler showing mild signs of hyperactivity, boy do we have the product for you.
Meet the “focus pill.”
Focus pills are stimulants intended to address attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder. Prescriptions for these pills have been on the rise. Since the year 2000, [according to the NIH] stimulant prescriptions rose 800%, alongside growing rates of non-medical use among America’s youth. It is about time we tackle the enormous issue of ADHD medication overprescription in our schools.
In order to scrutinize ADHD medication, we must first understand the underlying disorder. American children are six times more likely to get diagnosed with ADHD compared to their peer countries. In a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor, Dr. Daniel Zeidner explains much of this has to do with the subjective nature of the diagnosis, whereby doctors provide students, parents and teachers with a form to describe problematic behavior.
“The criteria for diagnosing ADHD are a checklist of observed behaviors that can be subjective, with no medical or lab-verifiable abnormalities, nor any consideration of causes of the observed behaviors on the list,” wrote Zeidner.
As a result, children as young as 2 years old are diagnosed. Reasons have included frequent library chatter and an inability to sit still while listening to music. These are the symptoms of being young and curious, not a major concern meriting medical intervention.
Moreover, an ADHD diagnosis is not a benign designation: 69% of kids diagnosed with the disorder receive medication, the side effects of which are serious. On a limited basis, there are certainly instances when the drug’s positive effects outweigh the negatives, but to do this at-scale, especially when we have no conclusive understanding of its long-term impacts, is totally irresponsible.
Furthermore, it is important to consider that students of low socioeconomic status are more likely to be prescribed ADHD medication. It is not that poor kids are born misbehaving. Instead, impoverished environments manifest misconduct. Misbehavior often stems from childhood trauma and other mental health conditions that are common among children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. While these children may show symptoms of ADHD, it is prudent to first consider the extenuating circumstances that cause kids to behave a certain way. A holistic approach like emphasizing behavioral therapy can get to the root cause.
On a systemic level, disproportionately prescribing ADHD medication to children of low socioeconomic status demonstrates a flaw in the system. The scientific consensus is that ADHD is a disorder one is born with, and while the direct cause is unknown, data [from the NIH] suggests it is genetically inherited. Unless you contend that ADHD is correlated with poverty, then there is no basis to suggest that poor children ought to be prescribed medication at higher rates. It is far more likely that poor children go to underfunded schools that do not have the resources to holistically tackle behavioral problems. Consequently, ADHD diagnoses ensue because the qualitative requirements are met, regardless of true causes. It follows that ADHD medication is not being prescribed to deal with a biological condition; it is instead being used as a supplement to poor education.
This is especially worrisome since the overprescription of ADHD medications does not exist in a vacuum: High schools with the highest rates of prescription are 36% more likely to have students who abuse the pills. In other words, non-medical use of stimulants rises alongside prescription rates. We as a society should be far more careful about introducing drugs into schools, and yet prescription rates are skyrocketing.
Of course, there is the argument that ADHD medications are an uninhibited good because they improve learning outcomes. It is true that stimulants benefit behavior in the short term. Likewise, many teachers develop comprehensive strategies for combining medication with classroom management tactics. But there remains a critical difference between classroom behavior and academic results — stimulants benefit behavior in the short term, but they do not boost performance alone. They offer a pharmaceutical solution to behavioral problems that used to be the responsibility of parents and teachers.
We find ourselves at a crossroads. The mass experiment of medicating children at rates never seen before has led to worse classroom behavior and abysmal academic results. Teen anxiety and depression have increased. Whether we like it or not, ADHD medications are a major part of our public education, and it is not pseudo-scientific to suggest that they have failed. I am not advocating for something revolutionary — all we need is a return to normal.
This does not mean categorically ruling out ADHD medication for children, but we must ask what purpose the prescription serves. If it is intended to eliminate minor behavioral problems, then the medication is not helping the recipient as much as it is helping the parent or teacher.
A return to normalcy simply requires insisting that we grant kids the liberty of childhood development. Sure, there might be more library chatter. Who knows, they might not be able to sit still while listening to music. Personally, I am willing to take the risk.
Jack Verrill is a student at the University of Michigan. This essay was originally published in The Michigan Daily and is posted here with permission from Jack Verrill. Click on the hyperlink to the original article to access the many sources cited as evidence.
Like most of the pictures on TeensParentsTeachers, the picture posted with this article is courtesy of a free download from Pixabay.com.