One last post to wrap it all up.

This isn't a formal post. I found this video after the blog was due and thought that it summed up the idea perfectly.

What is my Opinion?

Over-diagnosis is a serious issue. There is a plethora of evidence that most diagnoses are results of drug companies trying to make big profits. It's no lie that pharmaceutical companies benefit more with more patients. The easiest way to obtain more patients is to make the masses believe they have a disorder. It is quite clear that as time goes on, the diagnostic criteria for mental disorders and other diseases is constantly broadening. Though this does help people who really do need the medicine be noticed, it puts those who don't need medication at risk for harmful side effects of pills that weren't made for them. There are people who need to be subdued by medication, and then there are those who don't, and the line between those two is growing fuzzier every day, and drug companies are benefitting. Even if it isn't a scam, who is to say that everyone who can't concentrate needs a prescription filled out because they have ADD, or is autistic just because they are a little awkward? Maybe the truly harmful effect of hasty over-diagnosis is the fact that no one is seeing these disorders as gifts and letting the child choose whether they want to be "fixed" or not.

The world's most famous ADHD patient...

Scammed If You Do, Scammed If You Don't

In “Attention Deficit Disorder Is Over-diagnosed and Over-treated,” Allen Frances asserts that the increased diagnosis of mental disorders such as ADD is a fad caused by drug companies. First, the rates of ADD diagnoses increased exponentially in the 1990’s after more expensive medications came out that were not, for the most part, any different from the previous medications, prompting more aggressive marketing with the promise of profit. Second, these drug companies “educated” specialists to see ADD in children who before had been considered perfectly healthy, a step that helped people who truly needed medication but had been looked over, yet also labeled many “false positives”. Also, mental disorder medication is prescribed rather carelessly and quickly as a first solution to children showing signs of ADD, dyslexia, and others, where one might have seen results through simpler methods. This has often caused harmful side effects for those who are taking medication unnecessarily and even illegally due to the easy nature of procuring these mentally stimulating pills.

Frances, Allen. "Attention Deficit Disorder Is Over-Diagnosed and Over-Treated." The 

            Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 03 May 2012. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. 

            <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/attention-deficit-

            disorder_b_1206381.html>.

I thought that this article was very well written. It made the same assertion that the first article I read made, except this one gave concrete facts and statistics, as well as some history on the ADD "epidemic". It drew connections between the years of new medication releases and increases in diagnoses. I found it disturbing how easily a person could be diagnosed and medicated, without even clear proof that the patient has the disorder. This article opened my eyes to just how broad the definition of ADD is and how easy it was to be put into that category. Perfectly fine people are consequently put on medications they do not need, and more and more college students are obtaining these drugs for studying, putting them in danger of legitimate health problems.

Don't Clip Their Wings

In the news article “The Art of Distraction,” writer Hanif Kureishi asserts that medicating many conditions such as ADD and Dyslexia and treating them as diseases may stifle a child’s creativity. First, he asks what qualifies as a condition, as his inability to neither speak Russian nor dance the tango are not medicated or treated as a failure of development. Second, sometimes distractions are a good thing, because it is good to pause and let good, creative ideas come to the mind. Third, Kureishi suggests that perhaps the child’s creativity is being suppressed by such drugs as Ritalin only to benefit the parents, because they see that there is a problem where a child may see an opportunity to break free from their regular routine and try something else that stimulates them and will most likely benefit them in the future.

Kureishi, Hanif. "The Art of Distraction." New York Times. 18 Feb. 2012. Web. 24 

           Feb. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/opinion/sunday/the-art-of-

           distraction.html>.

I loved that this article was written by a writer who struggles with learning disorders. No facts or numbers, but pure, raw emotion. This shows that there are many people who don't want to be medicated, and feel stifled by it. Kureishi found the beauty-- the gift-- in his curse. He poses the question: Are these really conditions? Or are they wings that allow children to fly? He found that, although he had a rough childhood coping with such "disorders," he feels as though they have helped him in the long run. This testimony shows that medication is not necessarily necessary, and in fact may even be harmful. 

Overdiagnosis is a MYTH

In “The Overmedicated Myth,” journalist Hannah Seligson asserts that people with mental disorders are appropriately diagnosed and medicated, maybe even too little. First, the overdiagnosis issue is exacerbated by media concentration and, surprisingly, the fact that nowadays it is more common for people to marry and reproduce with others who are more similar to them, maximizing mental disorders in the gene pool. Second, the amount of children with mental disorders are not as high as expected with only about 5 percent being medicated, 5 to 20 percent having a disorder, and 3 to 5 percent of children have ADD. Next, a large reason for increased diagnosis lies not in the capriciousness of today’s doctors, but its better diagnostics and treatments that did not exist thirty years ago. Finally, it is not overdiagnosis, but underdiagnosis that is an issue, as the people who most need the medication cannot afford the tests to attain the proper diagnosis.

Seligson, Hannah. "The Overmedicated Myth." Editorial. The Daily Beast. GaleNet. 

       Greenhaven Press. Web. 08 Feb. 2012. <http://find.galegroup.com/>.

 

This is the first opinion I have ever heard which argued that overdiagnosis was not a problem. Seligson did very well in quoting experts and showing the facts with little bias. The statistics and evidence she gave were very convincing and she did a good job of swaying me, where before I was adamant that overdiagnosis was an issue. This article was persuasive and concrete. Though there was no real creativity or hook that would have drawn me in if I had not been required to read an opposing viewpoint, Seligson somehow managed to keep my attention once she had it. I thought the supported opinion presented in this article was very interesting and made me want to read more about the positive side to increased diagnosis.

Does it exist and is it a problem?

In the BU Today’s journal article, “Overdiagnosis: Bad for You, Good for Business,” Lisa Chedekel asserts in an informative and medically focused interview with Professor H. Gilbert Welch that overdiagnosis is indeed a problem that is partially caused by the medical businesses who benefit from it. First and foremost, Welch says that overdiagnosis exists because all humans harbor abnormalities that can increasingly be detected by tests and screenings, and doctors tend to treat for all if they cannot tell which is harmful and which is benevolent. Second, one million people have been diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer in the twenty years since the introduction of a blood test screening for prostate cancer, even if the cancer was only detected in microscopic amounts that would most likely never cause them harm. Third, diagnosis of diabetics has noticeably increased as they continue to lower the average fasting blood sugar for non-diabetics. Finally, the people who benefit the most from overdiagnosis are all medical businesses—hospitals, pharmacies, and others—who accumulate more money by increasing the number of patients they have, not by the betterment of their services. 

Chedekel, Lisa. "Overdiagnosis: Bad for You, Good for Business." BU Today (2011).

               BU Today. Boston University, 26 Oct. 2011. Web. 26 Jan. 2012. 

               <http://www.bu.edu>.

Overdiagnosis is apparent and, most of the time, harmful. It is the result of a broadening list of needless symptoms that classify many people for a disease or disorder. Many people before this would not have qualified for these issues but do now, and thus receive treatment they do not need. This could be indicative of medical businesses trying to gain more money and business from the growing number of patients- in effect they are creating patients, not curing them as they should be. Though there is little proof to show that overdiagnosis is, in fact, a scam, Chedekel and Welch draw attention to the fact that it is a possibility, as much of the time the only people who benefit from it are the ones who rely on it.

An Introduction to the Issue of Over-Diagnosis

It seems like every other person and their mother has a disorder or disease nowadays. Almost everybody we know has depression, ADD, or some other medical condition which keeps them busy with a myriad of pills for every day of the week. We all have that friend who believes his headache is a symptom of brain tumor, his breathlessness after climbing the stairs is undeniably asthma, or his fatigue after the end of each day is depression. So, is America being over-diagnosed? Is there any reason at all that half the people we know taking medication for ADD or depression should be on anything at all? Are doctors perhaps ignoring their Hippocratic oath- First, do no harm- taking advantage of our ability to always sweat the small stuff to make more money? Are we being scammed, or is the increase in diagnoses a result of our expanding knowledge of disorders and diseases that were practically unheard of thirty years ago? This question will be explored over the next couple of months, and hopefully some conclusions can be drawn with more information.