What makes AD/HD more deserving of stimulant treatment than SA?
I suspect the standard excuse would be that we have a s***load of non-controlled SA treatments, like every SSRI/SNRI under the sun (ignoring the fact that many of them don't work for many SA patients).
When it comes to ADD drug treatments there really isn't anything other than stimulants, with Wellbutrin be the only non-controlled one and being too weak to really work.
Clearly, those of us who can't function socially need treatment at least as much as little Timmy who drives teachers insane because he acts like a kid and won't sit down and shut up in class. We all know that magically rich white kids "suffer" from ADD at vastly higher rates than do poor kids. This means that doctors & lawyers want their Timmy to bring home straight "A"s and they're going to drug him if that's what it takes to get an "A+" out of him. At 36 I have a harder time getting drugs than Timmy at age 8 -- ironic given that I'm college educated and as an adult for over half my life can give informed consent that little Timmy can't.
Stimulants are commonly accepted as the best treatment for AD/HD, and psychiatrists usually don't have a problem writing monthly prescriptions for C-II stimulants if a patient has officially been diagnosed with AD/HD. But if you mention using stimulants for anything else, they go crazy.
Agree. Just do a Google search for amphetamine use in the treatment of depression. You'll get so few hits that it seems like you just typed in the most exotic & esoteric thing possible.
Doctors are allowed to use their own discretion and prescribe off-label if necessary.
Off-label prescribing is very common. In fact, I'm confident most folks on antipsychotics don't have any psychotic symptoms at all. But when docs play with C-IIs they're putting their career in the balance if they can't 100% fully justify its use to all who look over their shoulder and can yank their license to practice medicine. They get to enjoy the government second guessing their medical decisions.
I seriously don't understand how a doctor can choose to decrease treatment options and tell a patient that they're s.hit out of luck when other traditional treatments fail.
If you earned $300,000 a year would you risk your job as an MD? Saying you're "s*** out of luck" is a whole lot cheaper than losing a career worth many millions over a lifetime. It's a disgrace the way we treat legitimate patients in desperate need. We regularly deny amphetamines to most depression patients even if the other option could well be suicide in some cases. This is part of the DEA's "Better Dead Than Addicted" program that show such great compassion for human life and suffering.
Their idiocy is supposed to keep them safe from the DEA's scrutiny/bullying so they can continue practicing medicine.
Yup. Don't forget state regulators as well who issue their license to practice medicine.
But what's the point in treating patients if you're not willing to go the distance and make sure they are getting relief of their symptoms?
The point has six figures and puts them in the highest tax bracket.
It's so frustrating to think about because there's literally nothing we can do.
Yes, I feel very frustrated about this issue as well as you've surely noticed. You can relentlessly phone, e-mail, and snail mail your elected officials about how their asinine War On Drugs leaves many legitimate patients as collateral damage.