Many people self-medicate, whether that’s with food, lifestyle choices, or prescription drugs. Nothing wrong with that and if it helps people to live without creating a different negative situation in their life, it can be very beneficial. I would argue that that does not need to be the case as there are many alternatives. As mentioned aboved, someone may use marijuana to help them relax. This does not mean they need it or cannot find alternative ways to do the same thing.

The most entrenched myth about attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is that it doesn’t exist. This myth about ADHD goes something like this: all children, especially boys, are rowdy and somewhat undisciplined; parents and teachers just choose to “drug children into compliance” rather than enforcing discipline. The components of this myth, which I’ll define as the myth of unbelief, have been largely spread through misleading media reports. In a society that relies more and more on popular media for information on whether and how to treat diseases, media reports that are rife with inaccuracies are problematic. Indeed, these types of media narratives contribute to the overall ADHD “backstory” and continue to drive the current backlash against ADHD, the people who have it, and the medications used to treat it.

To illustrate, the New York Times published an opinion piece last year by psychology professor Alan Sroufe, in which he questions the need for medication in the treatment of ADHD, and claims that the drugs most often prescribed for this condition do more harm than good over the long term. The author blames bad parenting and environmental stressors instead as the major factors that cause ADHD, though his conclusions are disputed by other respected researchers in his field.

While these types of media reports drive the current ADHD medication debate, the backlash started in the late 1980s. Between 1987 and 1996 the number of kids being treated with stimulant medications for ADHD increased 400% in Canada and the U.S. (Mayes 180). This dramatic increase triggered a series of lawsuits against school districts, doctors, and the American Psychiatric Association related to the use of the principal ADHD medication, Ritalin. The lead lawyer in these lawsuits, Richard Scruggs, was one of the lawyers involved in the ground-breaking U.S. tobacco litigation in 1998 that brought the tobacco industry to its knees.

In one lawsuit, Scruggs asserted that Big Pharma was even more culpable of wrongdoing than Big Tobacco insofar as the “stimulants are disguised as ‘medicines’…their imposition on children is called ‘treatment’…a ‘disorder’ has been manipulated to justify their use” (Mayes 184). To date, none of these lawsuits has come to fruition; however, the public’s perception of the use of Ritalin and other stimulant medications for ADHD were never the same after they were launched. These attention-grabbing lawsuits not only resulted in a chill in the medical community with respect to these drugs, but they helped propagate the myths that ADHD isn’t real, or if it is real, it has been grossly overdiagnosed.

As a recently-diagnosed adult with ADHD myself, and having the predominantly “inattentive type” variant of the disorder, my parents and teachers (in my pre-diagnosed years) failed to recognize my symptoms in large part because of the misconception that all children with ADHD are rowdy and undisciplined, which I was not. Also contributing to the prolonged failure of the “system” to diagnose me was that between 1980 and 1986, I was between the ages of six and twelve: the age range in which kids are usually diagnosed. By this I mean I was 13 years-of-age in 1987, and most kids are diagnosed between the ages of 6 and 12, so I did not get caught up in the flurry of diagnoses. Incidentally, the upsurge can be attributed to the inclusion, for the first time, of ADHD in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III), published in 1980 by the American Psychiatric Association. Other factors influencing the increase include a reduction in stigma of mental illness, the growing recognition of mental illness as a biological disorder, and the propagation of evidence on the effectiveness of stimulants in treating ADHD.

Science contradicts the assertion that the sharp rise in ADHD medication treatment was attributed to systematic misdiagnoses and over-prescription by “ADHD experts” who had financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Recent prevalence studies and research on ADHD diagnostic accuracy were reviewed in a 2007 study, and the authors found “no justification” for the claim that ADHD is overdiagnosed, pointing instead to public perceptions and inaccurate media coverage of the disorder (Sciutto 106).

Moreover, the increase in diagnoses over the last 25 years has had a positive social and economic impact. In point of fact, the National Bureau of Economic Research sought an explanation for a decline in crime starting in the 1990s, comparing the rates of prescriptions of antidepressants for depression and stimulants for ADHD to rates of violent crimes from 1997 to 2004. The evidence suggests sales of these psychiatric medications resulted in a significant inverse correlation; that is, as prescriptions went up, violent crimes came down (Young 116). Studies also show that over a quarter of adult inmates have ADHD (Young 115). This high rate is problematic for the offenders with ADHD and for the victims thereof, and contributes to the economic burden related to the high costs of incarceration. However, adults with ADHD receiving medication for their disorder show a significant reduction of 32% in criminality for men and 41% for women, according to a 2012 study in the New England Journal of Medicine (Lichtenstein 206).

In spite of these positive statistical indicators, psychologists like Sroufe seek to reduce ADHD to mere “difficulties with concentration” and allege that folks (like me) are far too quick to use medications to address simple “problems in focusing.” The vast majority of people taking stimulant medications do not develop a tolerance and the efficacy does not disappear, as Sroufe claims. In fact, I have experienced no side effects or diminished efficacy with my ADHD medication since I began treatment a few years ago, and I have been more effective and productive in my work. As a result, I am now more fulfilled and happy than I was before taking medication. His article has the potential to do great harm by deterring the patients who need medication from using it, thus increasing the risk of social and academic failure and later substance abuse and criminality. These are risks that are much more certain than, for example, Sroufe’s assertion of delayed growth and puberty in teenage boys taking stimulant medications. Furthermore, hyperactivity is just the most noticeable symptom and there is no evidence to support that anyone suffering from ADHD merely has trouble sitting still. According to the Standard Diagnostic Criteria, a child must exhibit symptoms of hyperactivity, inattentiveness, or impulsiveness in at least two settings, typically at home and at the school, in order to qualify (Mayes 188). Critics like Sroufe also fail to recognize that the neurological basis of ADHD has been clearly demonstrated with over 10 years of genetic studies and brain imaging studies, contradicting his claim that ADHD is caused by bad parenting (Curatolo 36).

In my early schooling I experienced unrelenting humiliation and chastisement for my ADHD-related behaviour. In grade two my teacher gave me the nickname, “Eric ‘I forgot’ Anderson”. In grade four I was embarrassed daily by being sent to sit alone in the public hallway for daydreaming or forgetting to complete an assignment, where I would receive taunts from other kids walking by. Because of impulsive or inattentive behaviours, people with ADHD experience persistent blows to their self-esteem and personal accomplishments as I did. Medication can reduce the behaviours that cause these setbacks, and thereby improve the quality of life. Only by confronting this ADHD stigmatization and discrimination whenever we see it or hear it, will these attacks be reduced to a level that will protect people like me, with a very real disability, from being vilified as a living example of a medical diagnostic fraud.

Works Cited

Curatolo, Paolo, et al. “The Neurological Basis for ADHD.” Italian Journal of Pediactrics 10 (2010): 36-79. Web. 25 Mar. 2013

Lichtenstein, Paul, et al. “Medication for Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder and Criminality.” New England Journal of Medicine 367 (2012): 206-212. Web. 26 Mar. 2013

Mayes, Rick, et al. Medicating Children: ADHD and Pediatric Mental Health. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999. Print.

Sciutto, Mark J., et al. “Evaluating the Evidence For and Against the Overdiagnosis of ADHD.” Journal of Attention Disorders 11.2 (2007): 106-113. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.

Young, Joel L. “ADHD and Crime: Considering the Connection.” Medscape Education Psychiatry & Mental Health 12(2010): 1-5. Web. 21 Mar. 2013

I agree. I saw a fantastic presentation by Norman Kunc about inclusive schools the other day. Having lived with a disability his entire life, he talked about how he simply had to become more creative about how he approached some everyday tasks. I thought this was an excellent lesson. Even if you lack certain skills, by approaching things in alternative ways, you can often find a solution that works that doesn’t involve drugs or eliding responsibility.

On the definition end, I think the argument goes both ways. If we can define it, then we can explore root causes and search for solutions. It also helps on receiving funds for therapy or what-have-you in the US.

There are several YouTube videos in which Dr. Szasz argues that ADHD is not a mental illness at all.

http://blog.memrise.com/2012/07/a-new-way-to-enhance-our-learning.html

This is always a hot issue for teachers. For one thing, who is to say that every child needs to be able to be wrangled effectively in a group of 15-40+ by a single adult? That’s certainly not the expectation nature puts on human offspring, so why do we expect them to be adapted to it? The classroom itself is stretching the limits of what we can expect from a child. We shouldn’t presume they are defective if a few of them don’t stretch so well and start administering medication. We can’t even test drugs (research) on children, so how does this happen?

That being said, we do encounter children in the classroom that are, in our experience, special cases. We don’t have the resources to give them what they need. Is the choice sometimes a quick fix or no fix at all?

There was an interesting study done with mice not too long ago that measured the effects of overstimulation through images in early years. It showed that mice exposed to rapidly changing images and videos were unable to concentrate and became much more likely to take risks. I would not be surprised if extensive television watching or video game playing in early development was linked to ADHD behaviors later in life. A lot of adults also speak about this relating to Twitter and today’s social media. We are so used to immediately access to quickly changing information in small bites that it’s sometimes harder to concentrate on more traditional tasks. However, as the brain is plastic, what can be learned can be unlearned.

I agree with your last point that I think a lot of it has to do with the curriculum and the way we teach. Well it’s important to teach self-control, I still see teachers who expect the class to sit nicely and do what they are told even through the most boring and irrelevant material.