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.
quietly - DS1's ADHD diagnosis came 3 years after his ASD diagnosis, with all the SALT, OT and other input that had happened in the process. The ADHD diagnosis involved screening and observation appointments spanning 6 months. If you're inferring that CAMHS hand out pills like smarties, you're very wrong.
I am afraid that this attitude is prevalent within sociology as an exemplar of a particular viewpoint - that of 'social constructionism' - and is implicity accepted in the viewpoints of realist sociologists that remain ignorant of neurology.
tbh I think it is being generous to think that the lecturer was being deliberately provocative in order that students think for themselves - sociology is about learning required texts and bodies of thought just like any degree.
...and having the courage to argue with them.
Basically what your friend should do is to write an essay highlighting the problems with a social constructionist view of ADHD and other neurological disorders bringing in research from other discplines but also experiential evidence of parents. Counter-argument needs to be research based.
Quietlysuggests. Well that makes you wrong in two so far.........DS also has salt, ot input and sensory work, behaviour management team and autism team. prior to meds.
I like keepingOns idea for counter argument purposes
I must confess that I have never felt more shame for my displicine than the stance on some SEN as the medicalisation of 'normal' naughty behaviour. But I am aware that this is only one view (and that another needs to be articuated) and am well used to dismissing the views of those I don't, and will never, agree with. Its a bit different being a 1st year undergrad.
The main thing is to spark a passion but to remain objective ifykwim.
Yy, it was objectivity that let me down.
The lecturer was frankly wrong and has no right to 'express an opinion'! They are in a position of educating in a higher education setting, and the very least they should do is be basing their teaching on valid research, not opinions!!!
ADHD when diagnosed by the appropriate HCP is a diagnosis of a set of behaviours which can be managed - sometimes with medication, if other methods do not work.
If lazy HCPs are medicating naughty children then they are not doing their jobs properly.
It is not a mental illness but it probably does have a genetic link and probably a physiological cause. In my DS case his father shows ADD signs and was similar as a child, and my father died unexpectedly when I was 7 months pg with DS (cortisol stimulation). As for parenting, DD was always little miss perfect despite having the same parents!!
Have had a little drinkies right now, so will return with sensible responses tomorrow. Thank you all though.
The lecturer is not wrong and is not expressing an opinion but in most cases is merely teaching to requirement - quite frankly they might not have an opinion! Most 1st year tutorials will be led by PhD students who have no personal experience of parenting.
I am seeing my friend this afternoon, so will print this off for ease of reading. Thank you all for you input, especially coff33pots DD.
I think she will give it a lot of thought, given what madwomanintheattic has said. Thanks again all.
Keepon. If the teacher is not wrong and not expressing an opinion then does that mean they were right Does that mean a teacher is teaching that ADHD is down to poor parenting and doesn't exist but the children are just naughty? Sorry it flies in the face of research and REAL experts. A sociologist is not an expert in paediatric psychology!
The tutor is not 'wrong' or expressing an opinion but is referring to a well established body of sociological research and writings. There is other research from within sociology that counters these views. Sociologists do not need to become medical doctors or psychologists to challenge this viewpoint. In fact doctors and psychologists lack the philosophical and sociological knowledge of all that lies behind social constructionism and so are not in a position to challenge it theoretically. There is no such thing as being 'right' in academia - there is always vehement disagreement within and between disciplines and so it is not as simple as correcting the tutor. See for example the work on embodiment and a realist perspective (Like Simon Williams - Is there any body there?).
It can be difficult to read abstract research on areas of our own lives with which we have intimate experiential knowledge. This is one of the reasons that some researchers prefer to have personal experience of the issues they research whilst others go to methodological lengths to give a voice to 'lay-knowledge' ie the voice of parents.
Leonie that is a shocking tale. Here children rarely get diagnosed under 7 years old.
Link please Keep. To the body of research that says ADHD doesn't exist but is a combination of bad parenting and naughty children? Preferably something up to date.
I disagree with your statements as to what the lecturer was expressing. If there is no right or wrong in academia (which I agree with) then the person in question should not state his views as fact but should offer both sides of the argument, which he did NOT do.
If the lecturer is then expressing a 'fact' he should qualify it with research. It appeared to be tacked on opinion.
Am I saying all children treated as ADHD are correctly diagnosed? No, I am sure some are not, but equally some are. Unlike the lecturer I am open to the fact that there are two schools of thought and am prepared to concede this. Something I feel the OPs friend should point out in her email. It's about balance!
leonie sorry - didn't mean to ignore you. What you draw attention to is quite correct - the consequences of the non-medicalisation (and hence non treatment) of so-called behavioural problems leading to self-treatment and individual, familial and social costs.
Sneeze - this is not my area and so I do not have up-to-date references and I wish it was so simple that there was a single link to this - it would certainly make research a lot easier! As a start, I would do a google scholar search on the 'medicalisation of ADHD', choose and read one recent article for and one article against and use the references to find further papers. If you cannot access the full journal article but only the abstract (without paying an extortinate amount) PM your email address. Current research is influenced by 'old' research on the sociology of deviance (for example, the illegality/legality of homosexuality) and the history of psychiatry and the progression of the social identification of those who are 'ill' (and in need of treatment) rather than morally lacking (and in need of incarceration and/or punishment). Rightly or wrongly, focus remains at the level of the social and there is no sociological interest in attempting to attach blame to parents or children.
I think you are right - it should have been made clear that the views expressed were not necessarily those of the tutor. Depends on the institution - it is possible that the tutors also conduct original research but it is very unlikely that the tutor was referring to their own research. Universities are places of debate and disagreement and as such 'facts' have no place there - which is why it sometimes comes as a shock to mature students but also why tutors do not imagine that students believe they are teaching facts to a passive audience.
I teach medical sociology, and there is a lot of misunderstanding about the concepts of social construction and medicalisation.
The argument that illnesses are social constructions in most sociological theory is that illness can only understood socially. This does not mean that they have no biological basis, but that it is the social context through which we understand them.
For example, my DC are ASD. If society didn't expect everyone to act in a certain way in relation to behaviours around communication and interaction then ASD would be unlikely to exist as diagnostic category as they would not be seen as different. This is not denying that the condition is a bodily fact. The brain difference would be the same in societies that accepted them as 'normal' or see them as different. But as society does not tolerate the difference, their behaviour stands out and needs a 'label' to explain it.
Another way of explaining it is to think about other forms of body difference.
We don't divide people on the basis of the shape of their ear lobes, but we do use skin colour. Both are actual bodily differences, but the fact that one is significant and one isn't shows us that these type of divides are social constructions.
Medicalisation refers to the way that certain conditions come under the remit of medicine. It is a concept about professional power. This means the medical profession gets to decide both what behaviour is within a diagnostic category and who fits them (and don't we all know it ). Categories of difference move in and out of the control of medicine (for example being gay was a crime, then an illness now it is not either).
So the argument that ADHD is a medicalised social construction does not necessarily mean that there is no underlining biological basis. What it means is first, society deems their behaviour as outside of the range of normal and second that medicine claimed power to name and control the behaviour.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.