|
I'm a psychiatrist, so I obviously have a bias, but I have been pretty alarmed by the caviler attitude to the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD and Autism-spectrum disorders. This is not specifically directed at this product launch, rather a general observation, but we have evidence based instruments to aid in diagnosis (that still requires a contextual clinical interpretation!) and evidence about what works and what doesn't. Most of the stuff I see is pretty squarely an evidence-free affair. Wether it's a cash grab or a well-intentioned effort, both can be harmful. Marketing interventions to a specific diagnosis with known treatments should not be taken lightly. Non-medical interventions can be effective, and therefore they can be harmful. |
My sister was properly diagnosed with ADHD several years ago, and she encouraged me to get tested. My tester, a PhD psychologist who specialized in neuropsych testing, said the evidence was borderline, but ultimately refused to give a diagnosis because I did well in high school and that's unheard of in "true" ADHD. I promise I'm not exaggerating--I have the report to prove it. He completely ignored that I never had to pay attention in school because it was so easy for me, and I only started to run into problems in college when the material got more difficult.
Thankfully my psychiatrist disagreed with that and started me on medication anyway, and since then I've actually been able to understand why I am the way I am and work through my issues. (I found out a year later that my parents actually had me tested in first grade and I was diagnosed then, but they intentionally kept it from me my whole life.)
I know this is just one anecdote, but it's a common discussion point online that mental healthcare like this isn't always the most accessible. I think well-intentioned research and self-diagnosis can certainly have their place, depending on one's circumstances, and as long as care is taken to avoid unscientific information.