Here some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.
Help write an email to a Sociology tutor who says ADHD is medicalising the problem of naughty children.(65 Posts)
My friend has just started uni. She has a son with ADHD. She went through many years of hardship with him before diagnosis. He is on ritalin and has greatly improved.
She sat in a sociology lecture where the lecturer was talking about over medicalising problems. The lecturer said that obesity is over medicalised, fair enough in some cases, getting operations and tablets for something that can be controlled by diet and excercise.
They then went on to talk about ADHD. ADHD is medicalisation of naughty children, just sticking a medical label on them so the parents don't have to blame themselves.
One of her cohort then said 'Maybe their behaviour is due to tablets and things taken during pregnancy' (not meaning recreational, but prescribed). The tutor then shrugged as if to say 'Well maybe'.
My friend sat there trying to control her anger and tears and would like to correct the tutor in the best and calmest way possible, via email. She has asked for my help and I in turn am asking for yours.
Oh and if anyone want to read a really good sociological explanation of ADHD try reading this (be warned, it is a long document)
Thank you creamteas, very helpful.
My friend has been lurking and thanks you all for your contributions. She has formed a plan of action that no longer means an email.
creamteas thanks You have just explained a lot to me not that I want to go to Uni
But I actually get the whole sociology system now
Very enlightening creamT.
I was skimming the fist 40 pages of the thesis when I lost the will to live! But the gist at that early point was that if we lived on a primitive island where the inhabitants valued energetic, innovative and lateral thinkers instead of sitting learning from books in a limited rigid society, DS would have been valued and happy....I like that scenario very much. . I've never regarded DS as mentally ill or disabled thankfully so maybe I'm glad after all that they didn't offer Ritalin....I think? No wonder its so divisive.
In the thesis a 7 year old boys parents were prosecuted for not giving their child Ritalin saying it was child neglect (in the US).....now that is really shocking.
creamteas I found that very helpful, thank you.
I havent read back the whole thread and my initial reaction was to get on my high horse. But actually, in this context I am probably wrong.
Still think the OPs friend should approach the lecturer and ask him to clarify his comments. After all the comment of one of the other students
[One of her cohort then said 'Maybe their behaviour is due to tablets and things taken during pregnancy' (not meaning recreational, but prescribed). The tutor then shrugged as if to say 'Well maybe'. ]
Would indicate his words were not taken in a sociological context (as the assumptions are saying) but possibly by other students in a literal and possibly condemnatory way. If a teacher is offering food for thought he should at least indicate this to his students.
Look I used to tutor in sociology. In a Russell Group uni. I could easily have come out with that stuff. I knew jack shit about parenting or ADHD.
It's just social prejudice masquerading as social science in my view.
ghost Your friend might find the work of Peter Conrad is significant in this respect. eg The Social Construction of Illness : Key Insights and Policy Implications published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior in 2010. This article is a general overview and places current writings in historical and sociological context. He has also written specifically on ADHD as has others. Should be able to get free full text access. PM if you can't.
She will probably be able to get it throught the library, I would have thought. Thanks again all. Still more helpful comments keep coming.
The idea of disability/illness as a social construct often pops up on Mumsnet. I always end up asking how exactly we could construct a society where people don't mind being in pain.
As for medication being doled out like sweets, I think it is a very bad idea to make assumptions based on a totally different culture like the US. Having spent years trying to get a non-functioning dd on medication, I'd like to think that the final decision of her medical team was guided by actual medical considerations, not by the need to prove that they are not like something they were never like in the first place.
cory the idea of illness as a social construct within sociology (eg can only be understood within society) does not mean that it denies pain nor supports or rejects medication.
What it can do is explain why and how some pains are taken more seriously than others and who gets access or is denied medication and on what basis.
Unfortunately most people see the words and take a literal meaning rather than the conceptual one that it is meant to describe.
Yes I understand that, creamteas; my objection is not to a scholarly discussion of social constructs and their implications (though better perhaps in seminar than in the lecture theatre), but to those who claim (not infrequently on MN) that if only society was constructed differently there would be no such thing as disability.
There is an interesting chapter in Gillian Bendelow's Health, Emotion and the Body published in 2009 - chapter 3 - Medically Unexplained Symptoms and 'Contested Conditions'.
There is controversy around ADHD and other conditions and I believe it is misleading to argue that social constructionism is merely arguing that such things can only be understood within the social realm. Social constructionism does not argue that there is an independently existing biological reality that has causal effects in the social realm. See for example the writings of Timimi and Breggin. According to Timimi with regard to ADHD the claims of scientific evidence for the existence of a biological brain disorder are highly questionable and so argues that ADHD is best understood as a cultural intervention rather than a medical condition. For over a decade social constructionist perspectives have argued that ADHD is psuedomedical and is not a biological conditon - like 'hysteria' which used to be a popular diagnosis (for women only as it means wandering womb) but it is longer a valid diagnosis.
The core symptoms of ADHD (inattention, hyperactivity, impulsiveness) are controversial as they can be argued to be 'normal' aspects of childhood and teenage behaviour. Hence it is argued that there are value judgements in particular social contexts regarding desirable behaviour and ADHD is based on just such a value judgment rather than physiological symptomatology.
From the perspective of Goffman's labelling theory (which is commonly misunderstood and misappropiated by professionals telling parents that it may be damaging to seek diagnosis) it is then argued that children may 'live up' to the label and that both children and parents benefit from this labelling as the stigma of having an unruly child is legitimized by medicalisation.
Neatly wrapped bollocks in my opinion. Tutors will teach this history of ideas regardless of whether or not they agree with it and tbh will not expect 1st year students to have any additional knowledge or personal experience. Also many first years are open and so the discipline trys to appear exciting, relevent and controversial - Marx, Weber, Durkheim don't do it anymore.
I haven't got time to read the whole thread, so this may have been said, but maybe he was basing his viewpoint slightly on this which says 15% of under 15s in the Wirral are given Ritalin, presumably as not all children with ADHD are prescribed Ritalin the incidence of ADHD is higher again. Is something that occurs that often actually normal behaviour? He is a lecturer he should be able to back up his statements, isn't sociology meant to make you think things through, certainly not spoonfeeding a load of facts? As a student your friend needs to find journal articles backing up both his viewpoint and hers and then say why her's is right
little the lecturer was not expressing a viewpoint but was teaching the required sociology texts and referring to research previously carried out. Sociology 101 is a whistle-stop tour through all things sociological and the material taught cannot be selected according to the individual viewpoints of the tutors. Logistically the lecture will be to the whole year whilst tutorial groups will contain a fraction of the students. There are multiple tutors.
The lecturer was not spoonfeeding supposed facts and unfortunately the statements that were made can be backed up by sociological research - see above (whether or not it is an adequate theory is a matter of academic debate). Sociologists, like other academics, do not base their 'viewpoint' on news articles but on research published in peer-reviewed journals. In any case they would not been seen dead reading the Daily Mail or quoting BBC news but are Guardian readers
Join the discussion
Please login first.