| Why I Believe that Attention Deficit
Disorder is a Myth
(first published in Sydney's Child [Australia], September, 1996)
by Thomas Armstrong, Ph.D.
When parents hear me say that attention deficit disorder is a myth,
they sometimes become very upset. They think I'm saying that their
kids aren't jumpy, distractible, forgetful, impulsive, or disorganized.
That's not what I'm saying at all. It's quite obvious to me that
our nation's children have probably never been so hyperactive. The
question is, what accounts for this? Is it a medical disorder called
ADD (or ADHD as it's sometimes called)? I think not. I think instead
that what we've learned to call ADD is instead a number of things
all jumbled up together under this simplistic label.
Kids can be hyperactive for any number of reasons: because they're
anxious or depressed, because they're allergic to milk, because
they're bored with school, because they have a different kind of
mind and aren't being challenged, because they're overstimulated
from television and video games. I could go on. The point is that
the ADD label makes is too easy to ignore what might be going on
beneath the surface of things. "Oh, he has ADD? Whew! Glad
we know what the problem is now." But perhaps we don't really
know at all.
Although there is a great deal of support from the medical and scientific
community for ADD, once one looks into the literature, things become
less clear. Nobody can actually tell you, for example, how many
kids have ADD. Though the literature traditionally says 3-5% of
all children have ADD, I've seen statistics in textbooks that have
ranged from .019% (in England where its far less common) to 10%
and above. ADD is in the eyes of the beholder.
Many of the "tests" that are used to diagnose ADD are
flawed. The behavior rating scales that ask parents to rate their
kids on a scale from I to 5, for instance, in terms of hyperactivity,
impulsivity and so forth, are very subjective and parents and teachers
often don't agree on what they see in the same child. The continuous
performance tests that are often used to diagnose for ADD are a
joke. One of them is a box that sits on a table. The child is told
that random numbers will appear in a screen on the box. They are
instructed to press the button below the screen whenever a 9 is
followed by a 1. What a stupid task! Yet on the basis of this, children
are being diagnosed and having their medication levels adjusted.
As the textbooks themselves declare, "there is no blood test
(or other objective test) to tell when a child has ADD." If
this is so, then how do we really know for sure if he or she has
it? I've seen studies showing that the symptoms of ADD disappear
or lessen under several real life situations: when the child is
doing things that interest him, when he's engaged in one-to-one
interaction with someone he trusts, when he's being paid to do something,
and when he can control the outcomes of his activities. If ADD can
disappear under these conditions, then how can ADD really exist
as a medical disorder?
Many parents tell me that they don't medicate their ADD-labeled
children on weekends or holidays. Why? Because they're not in school
and they have more opportunities to behave in active ways. If this
is true, then it's clear to me that at least in those instances,
we're using Ritalin and other drugs to control children in specific
environments (i.e. restrictive classrooms). I realize that Ritalin
is very effective and for some kids it can make a big difference
in their lives. But it shouldn't be the first thing that parents
and physicians turn to at the sign of problems. On Ritalin, research
suggests that kids begin to attribute their actions to the pill,
not to their own internal effort. Studies suggest that many child
hate taking Ritalin, yet you don't see this reported anywhere in
the ADD literature. For kids who have that wide-focus attention
span (e.g. paying attention to lots of different things rather than
one single stimulus), Ritalin can close them down to a fine point
of attention, which is great for doing a math page, but can hamper
more divergent forms of thinking associated with creativity.
Probably the thing that bothers me the most about this ADD Phenomenon
is its emphasis on negatives. We're talking here about disease and
disorder; we're talking about a psychiatric illness. Do we really
want to be handing these labels out so freely? In the 1950s, only
a very few children were labeled as having these problems by the
American Psychiatric Association, and they were grouped under the
category: "organic brain syndromes." This was a serious
category, that included kids who'd had accidents and illnesses (like
encephalitis) that had dramatically impaired areas of the brain
important for attention and behavior. However, over the past four
decades, more and more children have been drawn into the behavior
and attention disorder web, kids who back then might well have been
regarded as "fireballs," or "daydreamers," or
"bundles of energy," but would have been seen basically
as normal (or even better than normal).
I'm very concerned that the literature on ADD has so much to say
about what these kids can't do, and virtually nothing about what
they can do. In my own informal research, I've seen countless examples
of kids labeled ADD who are musicians, dancers, athletes, leaders,
and creative in many other ways. Why don't we see these kids as
basically healthy and creative individuals who may not function
as well in certain kinds of environments (for example, the worksheet
wasteland of many classrooms), but do great when given a chance
to learn in their own way. Many kids labeled ADD in fact do great
when they're fixing an automobile, or doing experiments in their
nature lab, or performing in a theater piece. Many kids with behavior
difficulties grow up to become great individuals. People like Thomas
Edison, Winston Churchill, Sara Bernhardt, Louis Armstrong, and
Albert Einstein. Why don't we start using models of growth to describe
our highly energetic kids and throw this ADD disease label in the
trash basket where it belongs?
|