• ickplant@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m a therapist. In grad school, one of my professors said that the most reliable way to diagnose someone with ADHD is to give them a stimulant and see how they react. Understandably, that’s not how people are diagnosed for safety and ethical reasons… but it is effective.

    • noughtnaut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 months ago

      A more ethical approach then: put the person in a room together with an adhd’er and see how quickly they bond. Seriously, it’s like there’s a hidden kinship, shit just works.

    • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      That doesn’t sound all that dangerous to me. I don’t really understand what the ethical issues here are.

      • flicker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        For people who do not have ADHD, the medication used to treat ADHD can be extremely addictive.

        • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          If you can get addicted to something from trying it just once, there is something already wrong with you at that point. This sounds like a misunderstanding of how addiction works.

          • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            … There are lots of people like that and it’s mostly genetic so I’m unsure if you’re agreeing or not with this standpoint… Because that’s a big fucking ethical issue lol.

            • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              This is also the most DARE shit I have ever seen. People are very unlikely to become addicted to amphetamines from one low dose given by a doctor, not matter what their genetics might be. Genetics are only one small piece of the addiction puzzle, and alcohol is probably more addictive anyway.

            • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I think both of y’all have a rough understanding of addiction. There is no such thing as people who get addicted to substances after a single use. There are instances of people trying a drug and then continuing to use it, usually due to availability.

              Its a lot like any other opportunity that enters your life. Sometimes its really hard to turn down the idea of using to fix whatever problems you have in the short term. Noone plans to use forever you know.

              Is it so shocking that average people are just as capable of addiction as the people they see at their local methadone clinic?

              • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                You are right that taking something once at a low dose is unlikely to make you addicted. It doesn’t make sense though to ignore psychological, situational, and genetic risk factors for addiction.

                • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I never said that those factors should be ignored.

                  The point I’m making is that when people frame this as “some people just aren’t built to handle it” they put people into two groups: the easily addicted, and normal people.

                  People want to be part of and prove they are in the normal group. Something is wrong with you if you are in the addict group. Those in the normal group feel protected by being part of it. They think they aren’t capable of addiction that they must have gotten lucky.

                  I think that’s an incredibly dangerous framing of addiction. Everyone is capable of becoming an addict. Just because some never do, doesn’t mean they had some special mutation that protected them. Addiction is an incredibly social disease, and with how little we know about it we should be more cautious rather than callous when discussing it.

                  • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    The point I’m making is that when people frame this as “some people just aren’t built to handle it” they put people into two groups: the easily addicted, and normal people.

                    What makes you think I am doing that? All I was trying to say is that something serious must be happening for someone to get addicted from trying low dose amphetamine once. Suggesting that’s a common outcome is the most DARE shit I have ever fucking seen.

                    I think that’s an incredibly dangerous framing of addiction. Everyone is capable of becoming an addict. Just because some never do, doesn’t mean they had some special mutation that protected them. Addiction is an incredibly social disease, and with how little we know about it we should be more cautious rather than callous when discussing it.

                    You’re aiming this at the wrong person. I am not the one suggesting here that addiction is purely down to genetics. Addiction comes down to a lot of different situational and psychological risk factors. Poverty being a big one, as well as stress, depression, anxiety, and so on. You don’t need any genetic predisposition to become an addict, I agree with you there.

            • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              You’re going to need some serious evidence for that one. Most people become addicts because they have something to run from like mental health issues or bad life circumstances. You can have a genetic susceptibility to addiction, but that would probably require you take it more than once unless another issue is in play.

              Edit: in fact even then getting addicted to amphetamines on one try, from the relatively low doses doctors give for ADHD is very unlikely.

    • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      And how would you say “most reliable” is figured? Is it like a 15% success rate and the next best test is 13%?

      Is this more of a gut feeling thing or is there some sort of data to back up the claim?