[argc]

> When I got my ADHD diagnosis after a quarter-century, I went in specifically asking about ADHD because I had seen some flags that made me think I might have ADHD. Contrast that with the people doctors screen out who are trying to get a stimulant prescription despite not needing it, and you have a situation where it's hard for doctors to tell who does or doesn't need meds, and where patients with actual conditions have to fight hard for those to be diagnosed.

I told my doctor I had already been diagnosed with ADHD because I had a strong suspicion I had it and wanted to see for myself if the medication helped (it helped massively). I think medicine should be accessible for patients who need it but I don't know how to avoid large amounts of patients then taking medications for the wrong thing, which would probably happen if it was a free-for-all. It kinda comes down to the question of having the personal freedom to hurt yourself doing something stupid, which is a balance (a little of that freedom is good, too much probably bad). All-in-all I lean toward the current system of using on experts to make the final decision. Still, I would be really pissed if a doctor prevented me from getting stimulants for something I believe I need, so I am not 100% satisfied with the current system either.

[suchire]

Another wrinkle to the problem with that gatekeeping structure is that it is so prone to bias against women and people of color, who are much more likely to be undiagnosed and ignored or dismissed.

[tomrod]

I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. This is a legitimate issue, divorced from politics completely (politics usually result in downvotes).

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638275/

[1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/gender-bias-in-hea...

[lostlogin]

Could someone explain what’s inaccurate here?

Edit: It originally appears to be getting heavily downvoted.

[clankyclanker]

Nothing is inaccurate. Here's a few primary and secondary sources.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/women-and-pain-dispariti...

> a 2000 study[0] published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that women are seven times more likely than men to be misdiagnosed and discharged in the middle of having a heart attack.

0: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200008243430809

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...

> women with chronic pain conditions are more likely to be wrongly diagnosed with mental health conditions than men and prescribed psychotropic drugs, as doctors dismiss their symptoms as hysterics [1].

1: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-98104-000

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843483/

> racial bias in pain perception is associated with racial bias in pain treatment recommendations... Black Americans are systematically undertreated for pain relative to white Americans.

[clankyclanker]

(To contextualize the votes: I think you were getting down voted for assuming that sexual and racial bias don’t exist. You assumed the statement mentioning that such biases existed was inaccurate and wanted explanation as to how. However, per my other comment, the biases exist and contribute to significant negative health outcomes for the disadvantaged groups.)

[lostlogin]

> I think you were getting down voted for assuming that sexual and racial bias don’t exist

I agree that they do exists and am aware of the research showing it. I work in healthcare.

I didn’t make the grandparent comment that got downvoted but was interested to know why it was happening.

[advael]

I view drug enforcement policy meant to prevent individuals from making decisions for themselves as always doing more harm than good. The place for regulation in this space is controlling what claims profit-motivated entities can make about drugs, enforcing quality and safety standards in manufacturing, and honestly tying the hands of insurance companies as much as possible, if not just gutting them altogether