I have ADHD. I can achieve more of what I want to achieve when I am on my medication. I prefer not to take it on Saturdays, as a day of rest kind of thing, but otherwise I think the treatment is quite beneficial, and think "treatment" is entirely the correct word.
The idea that there isn't such a thing as a condition causing malfunctions in mental processes, and that all such things are just differences in preferences and such that merely need to be "accepted", doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If someone gets brain damage which damages say Wernicke's area, and causing Wernicke's aphasia. It would be quite silly to say that this isn't a problem or damage which could make sense to treat.
I see no reason that this should change when the differences are more subtle and such.
Now, that being said, I do think it makes sense to basically always defer to the person's own evaluation of whether they need treatment. If someone claims they don't need or want treatment, forcing them to receive "treatment" is, uh, in almost all possible situations, very bad? (note : this doesn't mean "in almost all situations in which this actually ends up happening.". I don't know about those cases. But the danger of like, classifying political opponents as being mentally ill and as needing treatment, is such a terrible danger, that norms should forbid anything within a very large conceptual distance from it.)
