The Medicalization of Adolescence
Adolescence is not a disease. Treating it as one, without first exploring the physiological context, does a disservice to patients and families alike.
Adolescence has always been one of the most biologically intense periods of human development. The brain is rapidly reorganizing, hormone systems are activating, and emotional processing pathways are maturing. Mood swings, heightened stress sensitivity, and difficulty regulating internal states are not signs of disorder; rather, they are features of a developing mind and body learning to adapt to their environment.
Yet increasingly, these normal developmental experiences are being pathologized. Antidepressant dispensing among adolescents and young adults ages 12–25 increased by 66.3% between 2016 and 2022, driven largely by rising prescriptions among female adolescents. ADHD diagnoses have surged to approximately 11.4% of U.S. children ages 3–17, more than 6 million children. Hormonal contraception is routinely prescribed to teenage girls not for pregnancy prevention but for acne, painful periods, or mood fluctuations. Research from the Guttmacher Institute found that about one-third report using it solely to manage these symptoms while 82% of birth control pill users report taking it for at least one non-contraceptive reason.
Medications can help. The question is whether they are being introduced before other physiological avenues have been explored and whether families are receiving the full picture before they consent.
The Developing Brain Needs Context
One reason adolescent symptoms are so easily mistaken for disorder is neurological timing. The limbic system — which processes emotions and reward — becomes highly active during puberty, while the prefrontal cortex — which governs impulse control and emotional regulation — does not fully mature until the mid-twenties. Adolescents are wired to experience strong emotional signals before the regulation systems to manage them are fully online. This is development, not disease, and it should be the starting point of every clinical conversation about adolescent behavioral and emotional symptoms.
Case One: When Treatment Shifts the Problem
A 12-year-old girl presented with severe anxiety and persistent insomnia. After several months, she was prescribed an SSRI. Her sleep improved; physiologically, this makes sense, as SSRIs increase serotonin availability, and serotonin is a biochemical precursor to melatonin, which regulates the sleep–wake cycle.
About a year later, however, her menstrual cycle stopped.
Serotonin signaling interacts closely with the hypothalamic pathways that regulate reproduction, and SSRIs have been associated with elevated prolactin levels, a hormone that can suppress ovulation. In adolescents, whose hormonal systems are still establishing their long-term rhythms, these interactions carry particular weight: disrupted ovulatory cycles can affect progesterone production and the development of peak bone mass, both critical processes during these years.
This case also opens a broader question about hormonal contraception, which is frequently prescribed to teenage girls presenting with these exact symptoms — irregular cycles, mood changes, acne — as a first-line response. Hormonal contraceptives work by suppressing ovulation and disrupting the brain-ovary signaling axis. Research has shown that women using oral contraceptives often exhibit altered cortisol regulation compared to non-users, reflecting changes in the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis that governs stress response, energy metabolism, and immune function. When ovulation is suppressed, the presenting symptom may improve while the underlying physiological imbalance continues unaddressed, and families are rarely told this is the trade-off.
For this patient, after addressing nutritional gaps — including B vitamins and magnesium, which play documented roles in neurotransmitter synthesis and hormonal regulation — her menstrual cycle eventually returned. But the original question was never fully answered: what physiological factors drove her anxiety and insomnia in the first place? Sleep quality, nutrient status, blood sugar regulation, and stress physiology all influence how the developing brain responds to its environment. These were not part of the initial clinical conversation.
Case Two: When Environment Is Diagnosed as Disorder
A 12-year-old boy was referred for ADHD evaluation after parents and school staff reported difficulty focusing, high physical energy, and an inability to sit still. Stimulant medication was recommended.
A review of his daily routine told a different story: most of his day was spent sitting in class, in front of a computer, or watching television. He had almost no opportunity for sustained physical movement.
Neurologically, this matters. Movement generates sensory input from muscles, joints, and the inner ear that helps regulate the brain’s attention and stress response systems. Physical activity stimulates dopamine production, increases brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), and improves blood flow to prefrontal regions involved in focus and learning. When children spend most of the day sedentary, the brain receives far less of this regulatory input.
Compounding this, the high-intensity digital stimulation this child experienced through video games, and social media, strongly activates dopamine pathways. Over time, the brain adapts by reducing receptor sensitivity through a process called downregulation. Everyday tasks like reading or sitting in a classroom then feel comparatively under-stimulating. This is not necessarily a disorder. It may be a mismatch between environment and neurology.
Stimulant medications address the symptom by increasing dopamine and norepinephrine signaling, but they also activate the sympathetic nervous system and increase cortisol output. For a developing brain that depends on adequate sleep, nutrition, and movement, the downstream effects of appetite suppression, sleep disruption, and altered reward pathway sensitivity can create new challenges even as they resolve the presenting one. Some patients require dosage escalation as the brain adapts, a pattern that warrants honest conversation with families upfront.
Instead of beginning medication, we increased physical activity, introduced regular movement breaks, improved sleep hygiene, reduced screen exposure, and adjusted nutrition. Within weeks, his focus improved significantly.
Informed Consent Means More Than a Doctor’s Signature
Clinicians have an obligation to give families the full picture before a prescription is written. Medicine calls this informed consent. But in adolescent psychiatry and primary care, the standard is too often applied narrowly, covering immediate benefits and common short-term side effects while leaving out the broader physiological context in which these medications operate.
Families deserve to know that SSRIs interact with reproductive hormone pathways. That stimulant medications alter developing reward systems and may require escalation over time. That hormonal contraception changes cortisol regulation and stress physiology in ways not fully reversible on a predictable timeline. These are not fringe concerns. They are documented in the peer-reviewed literature, and they are relevant to any family weighing a prescription for a child whose brain and endocrine systems are still under construction.
Equally important, families deserve to know what has not been evaluated before a prescription is written. Has this child’s sleep been assessed? Their nutrient status? Their physical activity levels? The degree of chronic stress in their environment? When these factors go unexamined, medication may relieve a symptom while leaving the underlying physiology unchanged or introducing new disruptions into systems that are still developing.
The time constraints of modern clinical practice make these conversations difficult. But that difficulty is a systemic problem that should not be resolved at the patient’s expense, especially when the patient is twelve years old.
Rethinking What We Owe Adolescents
None of this argues against medication when it is genuinely warranted. There are situations where pharmaceutical intervention is appropriate and even necessary for suicidal ideation, severe depression, psychosis, or debilitating anxiety that significantly impairs a young person’s ability to function. That threshold exists for good reason.
But many of the symptoms that bring adolescents into medical offices — difficulty focusing, mood fluctuations, sleep disturbances, menstrual discomfort, irritability — are also features of normal neurological and hormonal development. Adolescence is not a disease. Treating it as one, without first exploring the physiological context, does a disservice to patients and families alike.
Before reaching for a prescription, families deserve the opportunity to ask deeper questions:
Is their child sleeping well?
Are they moving their body regularly?
Are they receiving the nutrients their developing brain requires?
Are underlying stressors being identified and addressed?
Symptoms are not always signs of disorder. Sometimes they are signals from a developing body that needs support and an invitation for clinicians to look more carefully before writing a prescription.
We invite you join us for a webinar with Dr. Kendra Kautz on Wednesday, May 6th, at 7pm ET, for Part 2 in our series on The Mind-Body Connection: Rethinking How Medicine Approaches Adolescent Development.
We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.
In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diverse range of voices and to encouraging compassionate, good-faith discourse.
We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.





I think at least some of this stems from the desire (which seems especially strong in the US when compared to other countries) for a "one stop" solution to any problem. After all, we've been fed the line for decades that science can and will fix everything, often with a single pill. And as medications have become more broad-spectrum (prior to things like Prozac you actually had to work through a number of anti-depressants to see which one worked better), it seems to have gotten worse. Add to that the very broad definition of things like ADHD and the like and you have a recipe for what we're seeing now. It's easier (and maybe even some how virtuous) these days to say "my child is on the spectrum" rather than looking at some basic root causes and perhaps finding a better solution.
Thank you so much for writing and speaking about this issue. For parents who have had their child harmed by medical interventions for a quick fix without looking at underlying comorbidities, the perspective you shared is appreciated. Vulnerable young adults in their 20s also need protective safeguards to perserve their natural and innate physiological and organ function.