Absolutely, yes. I managed to get "has to be treated in a clinical setting as it's actually exhaustion depression" burnout trying to keep a job in research. And I wondered for the longest time afterwards how on earth I am supposed to earn a living being that way.
It really helped to realize that as long as I can pay for rent, food and other basic needs, I am not actually required to a) stick with anything I do or any path I choose and b) be accountable for my life or "career" to anyone other than myself.
With that in mind, I am now trying to find another way - I read (among other things) the book "How to be everything" by Emilie wapnick, which is basically career advice for people who want/need to do lots of things instead of having one specialist career path. It helps you explore what you actually need in terms of money and free time and variety, and gives you some example ways of how you could structure your life to meet these needs, with pros and cons.
As a result, I now set myself on a track to qualify for a job field which would allow me to meet my modest financial needs by working part time (yes, it's software development), while still being paid during qualification. I'm hopeful I'll always find something interesting to do in that field without requiring that soon-burnt-out need-to-know-everything-about-it-NOW passion for it all the time (which was quite necessary in research to tolerate the shit working conditions, and which I cannot sustain), and allows for ample time and energy to cycle through temporal interests at my leisure.
I can't tell you yet if this idea actually works out for me, but I feel that I've covered all my bases to be sure that it feasibly could (which included an internship to make sure the working conditions aren't shit, as well. Discovered they can be, but aren't everywhere, so I tried to keep where they wouldn't be for the getting paid part). I'm really quite happy to be on the way to finding it out, though. I'm starting in September. Check back in 4 years and I can tell you for sure!
The problem I have with self-medication (of ADHD meds or any other substance) is not so much that people are doing it - as you said, it's a rough world out there, and you do what you can to survive and function.
But - "Medical supervision of treatment" is (or should be) not just a couple of empty words. All ADHD meds can have serious side effects and contraindications that you don't necessarily know about beforehand or notice by yourself. Discovering your un-diagnosed heart disease by taking amphetamines without supervision and getting life-threatening arrhythmia can just feel like "I'm getting a bit dizzy for a time after taking the meds, no need for concern, I'll just take it easy" (I know, because I have arrhythmia, and wouldn't know it if I hadn't had an ECG, as I barely notice it happening). Medical supervision should catch that kind of thing, that's what it's for.
You and I don't know who reads this and what kind of conclusion they will draw, and what kind of risk assessment they do beforehand trying it out themselves. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have done your full research, and are aware that there is a chance you might harm or, if particularly unlucky, kill yourself doing this (especially if you cannot verify the purity of your medication, it could be cut with anything), and have weighed that against the benefits of being able to do work and function better in everyday life, I have no problem with you self-medicating or talking about doing that.
But if you don't transparently communicate these risks, and how you came to your conclusion that this is the only way for you, it looks to others like an easy way to forgo the harder, non-medical, not-as-effective but also not-as-dangerous ways to treat yourself, implying that everyone can and should do it this way.
And I understand why some communities want to curb that from the get-go. Some rules are written in blood.