One of the more controversial consequences of our modern psychiatric medication arsenal is the rampant treatment of children for developmental disorders, in particular ADHD.

ADHD is a complex beast. No one believes that it is 100% biologically mediated, as a flu or cold virus might be. Rather, our current understanding suggests that there are both biological and environmental influences that lead each particular patient to either develop symptoms or live an ADHD-free life.

Advocates of medicating all cases of ADHD argue that the biological predispositions — in particular the Temporal Myopia that Russell Barkley speaks of — are still present, even if the patient is able to compensate with learned skills. If this is so, then the medication exists to compensate for the patient’s biological handicap, easing the burden of daily decision-making.

But what if this isn’t entirely true? Recent studies of neuroplasticity suggest that this phenomenon is not limited to youth, and indeed is responsible for our ability to learn throughout life. Rather than having brains with fixed interconnections, we have brains that are malleable and constantly growing, changing, and refining.

If this is true, then one might ask whether it is possible to sufficiently change the underlying neurological structure of the brain enough to actually counteract any biological predisposition for temporal myopia (or any other disordered pattern), resulting in a brain that is wired to perceive emotional context normally and fully. If so, what effect would medicating the patient have on this process? Would it aid in the restructuring, or would it hinder it? Would the brain become reliant on the outside substance, thus reducing any attempts to rewire appropriately? Or, would a lack of medication prevent the patient from having the necessary experiences needed for this process to occur?