Programme on ADHD this evening

Shel1951

There will always be diffences of opinion but I will say to my shame my friends daughter was extremely hard work and eventually diagnosed with ADHD, something I found hard to understand till,,,,,I had a son myself diagnosed with adhd/high functioning autism then a daughter diagnosed with adhd, its a real thing,

👍👍

And yes, lovethepuppies, I agree with you, too.

Good post, agnurse.

I am no expert, but I also think that as much as there may be those who wrongly self-diagnose themselves and others, there are more who wrongly disparage the fact that people know their own brain patterns and so on. Those people are not experts either, yet assume that their comments about 'everyone is somewhere on a spectrum', and how 'they could just as easily claim to have ADD because they didn't like sitting still at school are no more likely to be correct than are people who live with those traits and find (or don't find) strategies for dealing with them.

My daughter is diagnosed, and also has dyslexia, and I strongly suspect that I have ADD too. Neither she nor I were of the 'racing round the room' type as children - we both have many of the less 'lively' characteristics mentioned by agnurse above, and we both learned how to mask it to fit into a world that is designed for people who are just wired differently.

We also both believe that ADD, like other traits, is 'an explanation, not an excuse' - another popular misconception is that anyone saying they have or suspect they might have ADD or ADHD is trying to play a system. The problem is that there is no system for most - you either pay thousands for a private diagnosis (thus clogging the queue) or wait for years, until it's too late to have any real benefit.

Yes, I am (tentatively) self-diagnosed. I may decide to pay for a diagnosis, but (a) what's the point at my age? Now that there is more information in the public domain instead of in the hands of the gatekeepers, I can read around and add to the strategies I already have in place, and (b) the detractors complain that private assessors are over-diagnosing anyway, so it wouldn't even stop the put-downs.

As far as children and the higher numbers these days goes, I think that the change in systems of education explain a lot. When I was in primary school, we sat in rows in double desks, and learnt in silence, often by rote. These days children sit at tables, wandering around and asking questions as they occur.

Maybe my generation (like others) learned to fit with a system not designed to get the best out of us? I was often accused of laziness (at school and at home) when I can now see that I was anything but. Yes, I did things at the last minute (I still do) but I got them done - often more efficiently than the plodders who had 'a place for everything' and seemed more conscientious.

I don't know - I'm sure there are many degrees and variations, as with so much about human behaviour - but I wish the cynics would recognise that (unless they are qualified ed-psychs etc themselves, of course) they have no more right to stand on the outside and make negative diagnoses for others than those who know what's going on in their own or someone else's lives might be, regardless of how well masked it is.

Luckygirl3

*But I haven't seen the programme in question because we don't watch live TV or BBC iPlayer.* - the programme was on Channel 4 if that helps - I believe you can watch this on catchup.

This is a topic that I have long been interested in, especially in the context of our education system.

I think that for me the concern is about questioning the pathologizing (and medicating) of normal variation.

lovethepuppies - I am sure you are right that these variations have been present since time immemorial - but does this make them a pathology or does this simply argue that they are a normal variant? At what point do we call it a disorder?

agnurse - you are of course right that there are a whole variety of characteristics of people that we label as ADHD, but our choice to lump these together as a diagnosis is a factor here. They all seem to me to be variations on the norm as we might expect from diverse human beings.

As an example - people with exceptional musical or mathematical ability show distinctive brain patterns and function. We choose to label these in a positive way because in the context of what we choose to value they are seen as assets.

In the same way someone labelled as ADHD might show distinctive brain patterns. We choose to label these in a negative way because in the context of what we choose to value they are seen not to be assets. Although in fact the difference in brain scans for those diagnosed and those not is very tiny and not statistically significant as far as I can see from looking into it.

It is about labelling - we can choose whether to label a human difference as a disability/condition, or whether to see it as part of a spectrum of what is normal. When does the pathology/disorder line kick in? It seems to me that it only kicks in when it disrupts our constructed systems (i.e. the context)- particularly in education.

We also know that environment can produce demonstrable changes in our plastic brains, especially in children. So for instance a child with an innate talent for music will show certain brain changes if that is nurtured and not the same ones if it is not. The brain of a child with some innate ADHD characteristics might for all we know develop in a very different way in a different context. They do not get the chance to try as all children are funnelled into the same basic system.

We have become better at accepting difference but still want to pathologize it.

Pathologizing them has one huge negative aspect and that is medication, especially for children. Should we medicate people to conform? Should we have an education system that says that anyone who does not fit needs a drug to turn them into the person we want them to be?

I would argue it's not a pathology at all for those on the higher functioning end. It's the structure of society and the requirements of it that are the problem for people who have a difference, such as autism. It's a different way of seeing the world and thinking. I don't think that's a problem. The context we live in makes it so for those who are this way.

I feel there is a huge difference between an adult choosing medication because they feel that their personality features are causing them problems and a child being medicated at the choice of their parents and school because it makes them easier to manage.

I do think there are very real moral aspects to be considered.

And the vested interests of drug producers are not to be dismissed. There is big money in all of ths.

I know of so many examples where a child could not fit in with school but once they later found their niche they are thriving and are valued. The child of a friend of mine could not manage school - changes of school were tried to no avail. After struggling through his childhood and being very unhappy he went to agricultural college and is now employed and blossoming - he is out and about on tractors, mending machinery, troubleshooting logistical problems - his hyperfocus is a huge asset to his employers and his "overactivity" is channelled in a positive way. What a waste of his childhood .....

There will always be diffences of opinion but I will say to my shame my friends daughter was extremely hard work and eventually diagnosed with ADHD, something I found hard to understand till,,,,,I had a son myself diagnosed with adhd/high functioning autism then a daughter diagnosed with adhd, its a real thing,

Luckygirl3

*But I haven't seen the programme in question because we don't watch live TV or BBC iPlayer.* - the programme was on Channel 4 if that helps - I believe you can watch this on catchup.

This is a topic that I have long been interested in, especially in the context of our education system.

I think that for me the concern is about questioning the pathologizing (and medicating) of normal variation.

lovethepuppies - I am sure you are right that these variations have been present since time immemorial - but does this make them a pathology or does this simply argue that they are a normal variant? At what point do we call it a disorder?

agnurse - you are of course right that there are a whole variety of characteristics of people that we label as ADHD, but our choice to lump these together as a diagnosis is a factor here. They all seem to me to be variations on the norm as we might expect from diverse human beings.

As an example - people with exceptional musical or mathematical ability show distinctive brain patterns and function. We choose to label these in a positive way because in the context of what we choose to value they are seen as assets.

In the same way someone labelled as ADHD might show distinctive brain patterns. We choose to label these in a negative way because in the context of what we choose to value they are seen not to be assets. Although in fact the difference in brain scans for those diagnosed and those not is very tiny and not statistically significant as far as I can see from looking into it.

It is about labelling - we can choose whether to label a human difference as a disability/condition, or whether to see it as part of a spectrum of what is normal. When does the pathology/disorder line kick in? It seems to me that it only kicks in when it disrupts our constructed systems (i.e. the context)- particularly in education.

We also know that environment can produce demonstrable changes in our plastic brains, especially in children. So for instance a child with an innate talent for music will show certain brain changes if that is nurtured and not the same ones if it is not. The brain of a child with some innate ADHD characteristics might for all we know develop in a very different way in a different context. They do not get the chance to try as all children are funnelled into the same basic system.

We have become better at accepting difference but still want to pathologize it.

Pathologizing them has one huge negative aspect and that is medication, especially for children. Should we medicate people to conform? Should we have an education system that says that anyone who does not fit needs a drug to turn them into the person we want them to be?

I completely agree with all your points

My one overriding feeling with ADHD labelling is sometimes it appears to be used to excuse what we might consider “behavioural” issues, which often leads to the real core issues are never addressed.

Very interesting concepts, as others, I do have mixed feelings.

My DD was always “different”, but extremely quiet and calm and very “rules” orientated.

However, she never slept, never properly rested. Her brain never appeared to completely settle or “switch off”.

She was very sporty and loved being outside.

As an adult, she went through two rigorous assessments, one for autism and one for ADHD. Tested and diagnosed positive for both. I was permitted (by her) to sit in on both assessment results, I was interviewed by the physiologist assessing her prior to both assessments and she herself had to complete a very long forms for both, as well as attending two long face to face assessments.

After two long post diagnosis meetings with the physiologist, both DD and I have total faith in her assessments and diagnosis.

I accept and acknowledge that this may not be the case with other assessment processes carried out by different people and including children.

I would never have considered medication for her ADHD, even if diagnosed in her childhood, there are many coping techniques and parenting advice available.

I also acknowledge that some children may have been diagnosed incorrectly and wrongly medicated and, of course, I can only speak of mine and DD experiences.

But I haven't seen the programme in question because we don't watch live TV or BBC iPlayer. - the programme was on Channel 4 if that helps - I believe you can watch this on catchup.

This is a topic that I have long been interested in, especially in the context of our education system.

I think that for me the concern is about questioning the pathologizing (and medicating) of normal variation.

lovethepuppies - I am sure you are right that these variations have been present since time immemorial - but does this make them a pathology or does this simply argue that they are a normal variant? At what point do we call it a disorder?

agnurse - you are of course right that there are a whole variety of characteristics of people that we label as ADHD, but our choice to lump these together as a diagnosis is a factor here. They all seem to me to be variations on the norm as we might expect from diverse human beings.

As an example - people with exceptional musical or mathematical ability show distinctive brain patterns and function. We choose to label these in a positive way because in the context of what we choose to value they are seen as assets.

In the same way someone labelled as ADHD might show distinctive brain patterns. We choose to label these in a negative way because in the context of what we choose to value they are seen not to be assets. Although in fact the difference in brain scans for those diagnosed and those not is very tiny and not statistically significant as far as I can see from looking into it.

It is about labelling - we can choose whether to label a human difference as a disability/condition, or whether to see it as part of a spectrum of what is normal. When does the pathology/disorder line kick in? It seems to me that it only kicks in when it disrupts our constructed systems (i.e. the context)- particularly in education.

We also know that environment can produce demonstrable changes in our plastic brains, especially in children. So for instance a child with an innate talent for music will show certain brain changes if that is nurtured and not the same ones if it is not. The brain of a child with some innate ADHD characteristics might for all we know develop in a very different way in a different context. They do not get the chance to try as all children are funnelled into the same basic system.

We have become better at accepting difference but still want to pathologize it.

Pathologizing them has one huge negative aspect and that is medication, especially for children. Should we medicate people to conform? Should we have an education system that says that anyone who does not fit needs a drug to turn them into the person we want them to be?

I fully agree with Luckygirl. As a retired adult autism diagnostician I have been dismayed to see such lack of precision in diagnosis of autism but also the gradual seeping of ADHD into public consciousness. I've seen ADHD in its most classic form and its very different from the self diagnosed form that seems rampant. I've found myself saying that sometimes people are just people and dont have to have a diagnosed condition to account for what is often totally explicable behaviour and habit.

Lucky girl it’s all too easy though. Of course we are all at different points on a spectrum however when there is a definitive cluster then surely appropriate treatment is required.
Without recognizing this too much could be and always has been unfairly allowed to be.
Every child deserves equal opportunities and unless given a level playing field according to abilities nothing changes.

Yes I am really concerned about it, there is just beginning to be information relating to this being disseminated to professionals, mostly around trauma. So children who have experienced trauma in their lives often present in ways which can easily be interpreted as adhd or autism. It is quite possible that for some of these children this is an incorrect diagnosis. Thanks for bringing it up luckygirl.

Human behaviour lies on a spectrum. People vary in their abilities and personalities.
My concern is the medicalisation of what is normal variation.
The explosion in the diagnosis of ADHD has to be seen in context. Our social milieu demands that we conform to behaviours that often run counter to our natures. This is especially true for children, who do of course need to be socialised to encourage cooperation and harmony, but I have long felt that we go about this in the wrong way and that our education system does not nurture the sense of exploration and curiosity that is our nature, nor value difference.

Instead children are faced with a system that rewards sitting still and concentration from too young an age, and whose goals are skewed towards exam results and competition. For some children this feels impossible, not because they have a medical condition but because they are simply of a personality and constitution that does not fit what the system requires of them. In the process their true talents are missed, especially if medication is used.

I believe that some children are labelled with a diagnosis when in fact there is nothing wrong with them .... their personality simply does not fit with their context.

There is actually a lot more to ADHD than just difficulty sitting still. Here are a few examples:

-poor working memory
-emotional dysregulation
-ability to focus is determined by interest; if an individual with ADHD is interested in something, they can engage in "hyperfocus" and they can be focused for hours, even forgetting to eat
-extreme sensitivity to rejection (even to perceived rejection; as an example, a boss asking to meet triggers fears of being fired; a partner asking to talk brings up worries of the relationship ending)
-sensory issues
-struggles with object permanence (i.e. if you can't see something, it doesn't exist; this leads to clutter and also to losing things)
-increased intensity of emotional reactions
-easy distractability
-challenges with proprioception (i.e. walking into things, tripping over your own feet, clumsiness); brain scans of people who have ADHD show a decreased number of neural connections in the cerebellum, which controls balance and fluidity of movement, as compared to neurotypical people
-challenges with time management
-executive functioning issues (e.g. trouble planning and carrying out tasks)
-restlessness, inability to relax
-trouble sleeping; there is evidence that the brain secretes melatonin later in the night in people with ADHD compared to neurotypical people

Several years ago, Hubby told me that my stepdaughter posited that I might have ADHD. She had female friends who had a diagnosis and noticed similarities between them and me. As I started to look into signs and symptoms of ADHD in women, and to look at the lived experience of people who have ADHD, it was as if I finally figured what was up with me. I had known since I was about 6 or 7 years old that I was "different". I just didn't know WHAT was going on with me.

I don't have an official diagnosis, but we do strongly suspect I have ADHD. However, I always say it's an explanation, not an excuse. It doesn't mean you can just say that it's acceptable for you not to be organized or to be late. It DOES mean that you can recognize that it's not just a case of "trying harder"; you need to find specific solutions that work for you. For me, for example, this translates into options such as making lists, putting things in a digital calendar, and even putting things I'll need to take with me the next day in my car the night before so I can't forget them when I wake up. It's about recognizing that techniques that work for neurotypical people won't work for you - and figuring out alternatives that WILL.

Many people who have ADHD invest substantial amounts of energy attempting to cope with a neurotypical world. This can even lead to issues such as burnout and (especially in women) mental illnesses such as anxiety and depression.

This is not just " trouble sitting still" or "trouble paying attention". It's A LOT more than that.

I haven't seen it but have heard about it. I'm not buying it. There are documented cases of what would be called ADHD now that go back to ancient times. Brain scans show differences in the brains of people with ADHD. ADHD existed well before there were screens. ADHD is real, though I don't disagree that over use of screens and lack of old fashioned play time, especially outside, are problematic and no doubt cause issues.

And I've trained social workers and take a bio-psychosocial approach to everything. I believe ADHD is rooted in biology but psychological and social elements can have an influence for better for worse. I've noticed that medication does have a place for some people (helping them get through university, for example), but I don't think most ADHD children would need medical if they weren't expected to conform to an educational system that doesn't suit them.

By the way, I agree with you on the getting children to move around bit.
It's why many of them ( me included) constantly ask to be excused for the toilet - nothing to do with the bladder!
(At least not until now!)

I have mixed feelings about this.
I wasn't diagnosed with ADHD till I was in my 60s but had there been more understanding of it when I was a child (NOT necessarily medication) I feel I could have achieved so much more.
I supposedly had a high (158) IQ but was easily distracted, labelled "Dolly Daydream" and "Butterfly Brain" as I rarely finished what I'd started (except books - I could lose myself in books for hours) and could never cope with "read, learn and remember" subjects like history (as it was taught when I was a child anyway) and always did better in exams than class work.
"Could do better" was teachers' constant comment so I always felt like a failure.
Poor memory has always been a problem too, now of course made worse by age!
Many women don't suffer from the physical hyperactivity that used to be associated with ADHD but instead the constantly churning brain, never able to switch off, stupid phrases and snatches of songs or conversations on an endless loop...
I'm sure there will be others on here who can identify.
But I haven't seen the programme in question because we don't watch live TV or BBC iPlayer. (Refuse to pay for a licence).