TOW #13: The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder

The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder

How far is too far with aggressive marketing?

http://davidmallenmd.blogspot.com/2011/01/adhd-now-you-see-it-now-you-dont.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/health/the-selling-of-attention-deficit-disorder.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

     How many children in the United States really have ADHD, not just mis-identified chronic laziness? It wouldn't actually matter (after all, it's their life) except that the drugs that treat ADHD are actually dangerous to those who don't have ADHD. In his essay, "The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder," Alan Schwarz asserts that normal impatience in children now leads many parents to justify giving potentially harmful drugs to their non-ADHD children following a suspiciously successful ADHD drug campaign. Alan Schwarz is a New York Times writer known for his focus on injuries (specifically concussions) in sports (particularly football) and his nomination for a Pulitzer prize. The advertisements in the campaigns Schwarz addresses claim that poor grades are a sign of an attention deficit disorder and therefore justify taking powerful stimulants such as Adderall or Focalin– which is, of course, false. And it's not like these pharmaceutical companies that market drugs such as Adderall or Focalin aim to hurt children; in fact, their goal is arguably more sinister: they're in it entirely for the money, meaning they could care less if a non-ADHD child uses an ADHD drug. 

     The primary reason that these companies can "get away" with over-marketing their product is because it's generally agreed upon that there is no definitive way to test for ADHD, meaning there's a lot left to interpretation, or misinterpretation in this case. Schwarz's purpose in writing this essay was to inform the audience, which includes all parents and ADHD/ADD people in the United States, that advertisements for drugs are just like advertisements for anything else; the advertiser just wants you to buy and use their product and they could generally care less whether or not it hurts you. Although Schwarz's message is cynical, it does hold some truth to it. Besides the obvious example, Schwartz means to show the reader how to be a consumer, and an educated one at that. 

     Schwarz uses statistics, anecdotes, and dramatic diction to inform his readers of the dark world of false marketing, particularly in such a serious context of potential drug harm and abuse. His use of statistics is apparent throughout his essay, as is his use of anecdotes. His dramatic diction is especially effective when he dissects, so to speak, how Adderall came to be called Adderall. He writes, "All. For A.D.D. A.D.D. for All. Adderall." I believe, without the slightest hint of a doubt, that Schwarz accomplished his purpose. The primary reason I believe this because, besides his use of rhetorical devices, he addresses the counterargument (that ADHD is an underrated and underdiagnosed disorder) in such a way that makes his argument seem even more legitimate, truly using the opposition's own forces as fuel for his argument. Overall, and interesting, well-written, effective essay.