medications reach too far

In contemporary high-technology society, when people face physical and psychological issues, they tend to ask various medications for help to pursue “normality”.  With the passage of legislations that loosen restrictions on medical marijuana in many states, controversies regarding to widespread practice of prescribing medicine have raised many people’s concern.  Have we gone too far in “normalization” technologies?

Take for example the development of medicine to treat short stature.  Statistically, taller men are more socially popular than shorter men; they are more likely to be hired or to be elected as leaders.  Because of our culture’s preference of average-height people, it seems beneficial for short kids to grow higher with the help of medication.  As a result, some pharmaceutical companies and doctors advocate more research on human growth hormone injections to very short children.  According to those experts, besides physical and psychological advantages, the treatment of short stature can also prevent disorders like back problems.  However, does the growth hormone treatments really bring a healthy life to short kids?  A study in “very short girls” revealed that the hormone trials did result in the average height of treated girls three inches more than control group, but failed to show any psychosocial benefits for those girls.  In fact, the treatments backfire.  According to the psychological follow-up, many girls who received growth hormone reported feelings of “abnormal”, different from other children around them.  One girl of them even subjected to significant personality change.  Many parents began to wonder if a normal physical appearance outweighs potential sacrifice of psychological well-being.

Perhaps the most controversial medication for teenagers will be those prescribed to treat ADHD.  Last summer, when I worked as a medical assistant in a pediatric neurology office, I found an average of four to five children visiting the doctor with their parents to discuss about their symptoms of ADHD every day.  Those kids were often labeled as “behavioral problems” by their teachers.  Teachers in elementary school usually have a checklist.  Based on my observation, children with symptoms of distractibility; poor academic performance; incapability to pay attention, follow instructions, or sit still would be seen as potential ADHD patients.  Their parents, who were urgently informed by teachers, usually believed their children really suffered from ADHD and brought them to neurology doctors.  After doctor prescribed common ADHD medication, many parents felt a sense of relief because they were convinced by themselves that their children would finally be able to share the same social and academic life as other children. Moreover, some parents even encouraged the doctor to give their children some medication although the doctor didn’t think their children had ADHD because if parents didn’t make their children to achieve some “improvements” in school, teachers would constantly talk to them.

I don’t want to question, doubt or attack the roles that medication, teachers, or parents played in the treatment of ADHD.  I believe with years of scientific research in understanding of human’s behaviors, doctors and teachers both know better than I do regarding to ADHD symptoms, but I really doubt the necessity of widespread use of medications.  In fact, there are other ways to treat ADHD besides medications, though there is far less research on these alternatives because stimulants are the fastest therapy with best results.  “Pills don’t teach skills,” said Dr. Timothy Bilkey, a Canadian adult psychiatrist in private practice.  Medications can treat ADHD, but cannot really solve behavioral problems.  Other approaches, such as psychological therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy, maybe more crucial than simply taking medications.  For example, a type of talk therapy that redirects people and helps them get out of their way can be reformed to target ADHD.  Some neutraceuticals (versions of natural food) such as fish oil supplement can also have some effects in modifying people’s behavior.

There is a story often retold by Sir Ken Robinson.  Gillian Lynne was believed to have learning disorder when she was eight years old.  Her mother took her to see a doctor.  The doctor asked Gillian to wait in the room for a few minutes while he spoke to her mother outside, turning on the desk radio as they left. As soon as they closed the door behind them, Gillian was on her feet, dancing and moving around to the music. The doctor told her mother, “Mrs. Lynne, Gillian isn’t sick, she’s a dancer. Take her to dance school.”  Gillian Lynne later becomes the choreographer of Cats and one of England’s best ballerinas.  I’m not suggesting the limitations of our educational system; I just believe that there are many better approaches to educate our children or solve adults’ behavioral problems other than treatments of medications.

 

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to medications reach too far

  1. Gina says:

    Ying, I thought your essay was really informative. There was a lot of different information regarding many different types of commonly prescribed medicines. However, I think that the word constraints of the essay do prevent you from fully exploring all of those medications. Perhaps focusing on one or two treatments would allow you to provide more clarity for each one and really dive deeper into the issues and connect them back to your introduction.

  2. Ben says:

    You did a great job of analyzing and elaborating on the evidence you presented. Your argument was very logical and easy to follow. However, I do think this paper could be more focused. In a longer paper you could talk about how medicine (medical marijuana, ADHD, HGH) is overused but in a short paper like this you should probably just stick to one idea.

  3. Preston says:

    Yinn, this essay was both informative and cohesive. I liked that you brought up the point about the sacrificing psychological health for physical appearance, but it didn’t really seem like the growth hormone part really fit in with the rest of the paper, which seemed to be more centered around ADHD. Perhaps you could narrow your focus to just talking about ADHD as the primary example of medicine overreaching its boundaries. Also, your conclusion makes a nice point but may want to be fleshed out more (the word count can sometimes make this difficult). Great job.

  4. Michael says:

    This essay could be improved by creating a clear thesis which was lacking. I also think it would have been better if you chose either the ADHD or the growth hormones to talk about because then you could go deeper into the analysis. Also at the beginning I felt the medical marijuana part was going to be the focus of the essay but then it was never brought up again.

  5. Erin says:

    This essay was very interesting and informative. I really liked your use of both personal and academic evidence. You did a really good job incorporating this evidence into your paper in a way that didn’t make it seem forced. The only advice I would give about this paper is to clarify certain sentences that seem a little muddled. For example: “For example, a type of talk therapy that redirects people and helps them get out of their way can be reformed to target ADHD.” For those of us who don’t know about this talk therapy, this sentence seems vague. But other than that, good job!

Comments are closed.