We all know about ADD, right? How could we NOT know about it?
Attention Deficit Disorder has gotten more ink and airtime in
the last decade than the Clintons...

And of course, if you've been reading Daily Dose or my monthly newsletter
for any length of time at all, you probably remember me venting about
this made-up malady - the darling of those pseudo-scientists, the
psychiatrists, and their handmaidens, the psychologists. But in case
you  really don't know where I stand on the issue (however remote that
possibility is), here's a brief refresher:

I think for the most part, ADD is bogus. It's a made-up
illness foisted on perfectly normal children unlucky enough
to have been born awash in the confluence of an age of
sensory overload from too many TV, computer, and video game
screens - and also an age of no-fault, guiltless parenting
spawned by the "I'm OK, you're OK" sensibilities of the boom-
boom, feel-good hippie age. Any questions?

But there's a new spin on the ADD soap opera. It seems that
the drug giants aren't making enough of a profit from the
millions of kids popping their Ritalin and other pills - or
selling them in the schoolyard...

Now they've set their sights on adults, too. According to
CNN.com, Eli Lilly and company - holders of the patent on
Strattera, the only drug approved by the FDA for the
treatment of adult ADD - has embarked on a national advertising
campaign to "raise awareness" of the prevalence of the
condition. That's all fine and dandy, but the list of
symptoms to be on the lookout for reads like everyday life!
In a thinly veiled attempt to "screen" (see also: recruit)
potential patients, the ads ask questions like:

"... Are you distracted by activity or noise around you? How
often do you feel restless... ?" And my personal favorite: "Do
you have difficulty waiting in line?"

Seriously, who doesn't at times feel distracted and restless?
And who LIKES waiting in lines? Do you go to the bank on a
crowded Friday afternoon and say to yourself: "YES - a huge
line! I can't WAIT - but I guess I'll just have to!" If you do
think this, ADD drugs aren't the ones you need, my friend...

The problem is two-fold. First, I think it's wrong to even
offer direct-to-consumer marketing of drugs of any type - it
just invites people with no medical knowledge or education to
self-diagnose. Second, the "symptoms" sound just like the
universal conditions of modern life - leading people to
mistakenly believe that if they feel perfectly normal
(scattered, impatient, irritable, and restless), they must be
SICK!

But what can we do about it? Marketing is the only
unstoppable force in the universe nowadays...

Bottom line: Don't be tricked by slick sales pitches into believing
the run-of-the-mill stress you're feeling signals a "disorder," or
that drugs will somehow make you immune to the trying experiences of
everyday life. The antidote for routine annoyances is a healthy perspective
on life -- not an open-ended prescription.  

<div class="subheader" align="left" valign="top">
Don't we already pay enough for our "unhealthy" lifestyles?
</div>

Don't we already pay enough for our "unhealthy" lifestyles?

I was thinking the other day about why I am so staunchly
opposed to most types of governmental intervention in our
lives, especially when it comes to our health. And I
concluded that mine isn't so much a philosophical objection
as a near-absolute certainty that they'll just botch up
whatever they get involved with. Honestly, if I thought our
elected officials would always act solely in the best
interests of the citizens they supposedly serve, I'd be all
for bigger, stronger government. But... 

Such a perfect world does not exist, and the bureaucrats
almost universally don't allow our best interests to govern
them while they're governing us. It's a sad truth, but an
immutable one, it seems. Which is why it's such a shame that
the latest brainstorm to come out of the Department of Health
and Human Services can't actually work - because a lot of
people are likely to think it's a pretty good idea. And it
is, in theory.

Basically, the plan is for the government to "incentivize"
health insurance carriers to give people with healthier
lifestyles cheaper rates on their health insurance coverage.
In other words, the healthier you live, the less you'll pay
for insurance. In principal, this sounds pretty fair, doesn't
it? Sure it does.

So why won't it work, you ask?

Because the government's idea of "healthy" living isn't
really healthy at all - and it's getting even less so with
every passing year. Need proof? Take blood pressure
guidelines, for example. Just five or ten years ago, 140/90
was considered perfectly acceptable - yet 120/80 is viewed as
HIGH nowadays! And don't get me started on the established
thinking about cholesterol...

The long and short of it is that if the government is allowed
to set the standards for healthy living that we're all going
to be bound by in the eyes of our insurers, we'll be paying
through the nose if we aren't soy-swilling, tofu-munching
marathoners who'd never dream of drinking a martini or
enjoying a fine cigar.

If this becomes public policy, the end result won't be
healthy people saving money on insurance - but "unhealthy" (see
also "normal") people being swindled for their so-
called "vices."    

Setting my own standards,
William Campbell Douglass II, MD