It's far from clear why having the symptoms of ADHD should be considered a disease, in any objective sense. If kids are suffering because school is boring or society is restrictive, that doesn't mean there's something wrong with them.
We have children facing social rejection, failing/dropping out of school, becoming dependent on drugs, suffering from depression/anxiety and other mental illnesses, committing suicide, etc.
In a perfect world we don't have to change our lives to fit into society at all! Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect. We have an obesity epidemic because people sit in an office working all day. One treatment I'm sure you'll approve of is going to the gym. Unfortunately gyms are pretty unnatural.
Why should obesity be considered a disease in any objective sense? People are suffering because modern life is sedentary. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with them.
—We change our behaviors to make up for the personal problems that come with society. We do unnatural things like go to gyms and take medication to help our bodies (which were made for a world where we live in caves and hunt wild animals) function properly in this society, because we agree its advantages vastly outweigh its disadvantages.
Obesity is a disease in an objective sense because it directly causes ill health. There's lots of studies to show that. The symptoms of what we call ADHD seem to simply be caused by unhappiness and boredom with the way we live today. We're demanding kids do something that makes them unhappy, and any reaction to it, is labeled a disease.
> take medication to help our bodies [...] function properly in this society, because we agree its advantages vastly outweigh its disadvantages.
This seems like a problematic kind of statement, because the implication is that people who don't fit into society should somehow be coercively medicated. What about their rights and bodily autonomy?
You're suggesting physical illness is more "real" than mental illness.
>We're demanding kids do something that makes them unhappy, and any reaction to it, is labeled a disease.
It's far more than kids not being able to pay attention in class. ADHD affects many aspects of a person's life—and adults too. Living independently with unmedicated ADHD can be incredibly difficult. Everything from social life, working, to driving, is harder/riskier.
The argument against treating ADHD is based on unfounded fears of psychiatry and medication. "What if this, what if that". Well this and that isn't happening, peoples lives are being improved, and people are suffering because of dangerous FUD like this.
One is a disease caused by conforming with our sedentary society. The other is what we label those who refuse to go along with our expectations for school, work and conformity. Really, they are more like opposites of one another.
> You're suggesting physical illness is more "real" than mental illness.
That's right. It's pretty hard to rigorously define a mental illness outside of the context of a given society. Mental illnesses are not real in the same sense that, say, a broken leg is real. They are socially determined. Other societies outside the West don't have the same kind of mental illnesses we do.
> ADHD affects many aspects of a person's life—and adults too. Living independently with unmedicated ADHD can be incredibly difficult. Everything from social life, working, to driving, is harder/riskier.
Being ugly makes life hard, too. Does that mean being ugly is a disease? Should all of us ugly people get plastic surgery to treat our disease, as a matter of course?
Ultimately, none of this shows ADHD is an objective disease. In the anthropological view of mental illness, it is a disease - because our society claims that it is, and for no other reason. Psychiatrists are not that much different from witch doctors. (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19710325&id=...)
If someone could give me a pill to "fix" this, that sounds awesome. Now, real medication means balancing the side-effects, etc, so even if I were to get a diagnosis I'd have to do a lot of research and consideration. But I think outright saying "No, people should suffer without consideration" is not an full answer.
(And I'm allowing that I may be having completely different issues - getting a proper diagnosis/understanding is an important things that's not part of the above debate)
If we're talking about "disease" in the sense of "a condition that interferes too much with normal life absent some intervention" and not "caused by bacteria or viruses", then we already have a bunch of subjective terms in there. And I don't think you can get a reasonable definition that DOESN'T have some subjective terms.
Given that we're talking subjective terms, you're stating something like "If you have a condition that makes you suffer more than most others in certain circumstances, and this condition can be treated with pharmaceuticals, I'm fine with that, but I don't want to call that condition a 'disease'." Others might say "drugs can make your life easier, but I don't believe that you actually suffer more than others in those circumstances, you just don't handle that suffering as well". With current technology we have no means to distinguish the two.
And I almost certainly agree with your statement regarding certain circumstances. There are people that have medical conditions that make them overweight - likely including some conditions we've not identified yet. There are also people (such as myself) that just value eating over losing weight. I know of no way to know which is which for most cases, but for situations such as mine I'd not call it a condition or a disease, I'd call it overeating. All of which is to say I think I know where you are coming from.
But I lack the basis to say when other people are suffering more than I do under the same stimuli. I have no way to know if something is a disease/condition unless I've experienced it. Any more than I know if Bill Cosby raped anyone, or if the convicted murderers sentenced this year actually killed anyone.
So I extend some trust in the collective people (while at the same time thinking some large collections of people are idiots, say, politically).
Honest, non-trolling question: On what basis do you have your confidence that this is not a disease/condition?
For example look at a disease like fibromyalgia: For a very long time there was no objective evidence that this disease really existed, so people suffering from it where often seen as hypochondriacs. Today we know it's really a disease because modern medicine found ways to make it "visible" so it's accepted as a real disease now. But with your way of thinking you would've denied those people analgesics because a few years ago there was no objective way to tell if they really suffered the pain they reported.
OTOH depression is still an "invisible" disease: You can only look at the symptoms to diagnose it, there is no "objective" evidence for it. But still there are lots of people suffering and dying from it. And we know from lots of studies that it's possible to cure or at least manage this disease for a certain percentage of sufferers. So I would consider it unethical to let people suffer or even kill them self only because we can't see objective biological evidence that they have depression.
Now with ADHD it's not as clear as with depression because the symptoms aren't that severe. So you argue that it's just the society which wants "conforming" individuals and declares non-conforming ones as "ill". But if people are really disabled by something which prevents them doing certain things they want to do which the majority (> 90%) of people can do, while medication exists which let them do it, is it really ethical to not give them the medication? Those people are objectively suffering and there exists lots of evidence that their suffering can be reduced be giving them a certain medication. So it's unethically to let them suffer even if there exits a way to stop their suffering.
And yes, if there would be a medication which could lift the IQ of person with low IQ into the average range, I would also consider it unethically to not give this medication to people with low IQ. But such a medication don't exists today.