Blog Post Four: Diagnosis

Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) is a medical term for a disorder which causes people to be hyperactive, impulsive, and inattentive (ADHD Support). Medical institutions have generally had the greatest impact on the study, diagnosis, and treatment of ADHD. ADHD symptoms have historically referred to inattentiveness and hyperactivity in children (“History of ADHD”). Peter Conrad and Deborah Potter’s article “The Emergence of Hyperactive Adults as Abnormal” points out, however, that ADHD began to be more commonly diagnosed in adults in the 1990s. They believe social factors caused this change in adult diagnoses, including the rise in behavioral medications, genetics, and an increase in psychiatric therapy (Conrad and Potter 142-143).

Hippocrates noted ADHD-like symptoms as early as 350 B.C. (“History of ADHD”). Sir Alexander Crichton gave out a diagnosis called “The Fidgets” in the late 1800s for patients who were incapable of concentrating on tasks (“History of ADHD”). Sir Andrew Still is regarded in the medical community for his studies on ADHD in the early 1900s and for providing this information to the British medical community (ADHD Support). He noted that children who lacked “moral control” had cognitive issues that prohibited them from concentrating (ADHD Support). Dr. Still did not, however, give these symptoms a formal name.

It was not until the 1920s that ADHD received its first scientific name: “Post-Encephalitic Behavior Disorder” (“History of ADHD”). In the 1930s, stimulant prescriptions became the treatment for restless children and adults, which have calming effects on hyperactivity (“History of ADHD”). Ritalin was quickly approved by the FDA in 1956 as a prescriptive treatment for ADHD, which became increasingly popular as a treatment over the next several decades (“History of ADHD”). ADHD was formally added to the The Diagnostic Manual for Psychiatric Disorders (“DSM”) in 1980, called Attention Deficit Disorder then (“History of ADHD”). It was in 1994 that ADD was changed to its current name of ADHD, and created three subgroups of the disorder: hyperactive/impulsive, inattentive, or both hyperactive and inattentive (Kearl). These subgroups may go away completely in the 2013 DSM, because people with ADHD can exhibit different subgroups over time instead of sticking purely to their diagnosed one (Kearl).

ADHD is fairly controversial, with some people doubting its existence all together. Its diagnosis assumes societal expectations of productivity and mild temperaments. A lack of these norms, along with the presence of prolonged hyperactivity and inattentiveness, can result in an ADHD diagnosis. This is where some of the controversy with ADHD comes from; do these people really have a medical disorder, or are they merely bored? Isn’t it normal for children to day dream, have a lot of energy, and not finish what they start (ADHD Support)?  

One side of the ADHD argument insists that the diagnosis in children may merely be immaturity, which will even itself out over time. Katharine Harmon’s  article “Are some ADHD-labeled kids just young for their grade?” points out that two recent studies have shown that “students whose birthdays fell just before their school’s age enrollment cutoff date—and thus were among the youngest in their class—had a substantially higher rate of ADHD diagnoses” than their peers (Harmon par. 3). These younger children are twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD as children older than them within their grade, but the diagnosis could simply be linked lower “emotional or intellectual immaturity” dependent on their younger age (par. 7). These studies imply that society may be too quickly to diagnosis children and give them prescriptions to help their inattentiveness, when their symptoms may actually subside as they get older.

The prescriptions given to treat ADHD are controversial, as well. The documentary Generation RX cites a 2006 Oregon State University study which examined over 2000 studies on ADHD and Ritalin. The study concluded that there was no quality research proving peoples’ lives improved by being prescribed Ritalin for their ADHD. In fact, the film suggested that Ritalin may cause more harm than help because of links to drug addiction, suicide, and additional lifetime diagnoses in patients (Generation RX).

Controversy also surrounds ADHD because of a lack of concrete tests to diagnosis the disorder. In fact, an ADHD diagnosis can potentially mask other difficulties in people, like anxiety, depression, lack of sleep, or a learning disability (“Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder”). Children diagnosed with ADHD may actually have a lack of education support at home which causes their academic inefficiencies instead of the disorder causing them; perhaps the child’s family has not emphasized the value of education, so they simply do not care to learn.

The controversy surrounding ADHD implies that mislabeling a person with ADHD could have negative effects on the rest of their life. There are, however, many people who believe ADHD is a very real disorder that should be recognized in order to help people who have it. Emily Willingham, a parent of a child with ADHD and academic with a P.h.D in Biology, wrote the article “ADHD: Backlash to the Backlash” to counteract doubts about ADHD. Willingham insists that hyperactivity-controlling medications can prevent the symptoms that cause other children to stigmatize and bully kids with ADHD (Willingham par. 7). Although Willingham does acknowledge studies that link suicidal thoughts with ADHD medications, she cites another study that shows these medications can actually reduce the possibility of suicide in teenagers taking ADHD prescriptions (par. 10).

Willingham moreover brings a personal ethos to the story of ADHD when she insists that ADHD is not the result of poor parenting (par. 10). She says her own experiences in teaching show that ADHD is a label which “refers to a set of behavioral excess that go beyond developmental norms” (par. 2). This implies that ADHD is caused by individual traits (such as genes) instead of poor parenting, like some people believe causes ADHD. Willingham’s extensive research in her article proves that ADHD is a complex issue that has positive reasons for being properly diagnosed:
     a). to prevent bullying and harm to children with ADHD (par. 7)
     b.) so that families can decide the proper treatment for a child’s symptoms (par. 9-13).

The symptoms of ADHD (mainly being inattentiveness and hyperactivity) rest on the social notions of norms and deviances, as well as expectations. People are expected to pay attention, complete assignments on time, and stay on task. Those who are able to complete meet these expectations are regarded positively because they met the social norms.  Those who cannot do these things and instead act unruly are the ones who are typically given the ADHD label. A video by The RSA claims that expectations about children’s intellectual capabilities stem from capitalistic goals that require productive and attentive workers to keep the economy moving forward. This could be where the stigmatization of ADHD symptoms comes from: people who cannot fully concentrate or complete tasks are seen as deviant and possibly harmful to society because they (supposedly) cannot contribute in the same way that non-ADHD people can.

The diagnosis of ADHD is truly a complex issue with positives and negatives for people who are diagnosed. Some people doubt its existence and believe it is a way to mask underlying issues in a child’s home, or that it could conceal undiagnosed learning disabilities. On the other hand, an ADHD diagnosis can result in medications and therapy that help people learn to concentrate, which will then help them be more successful in school and work. Whether or not this disorder does truly “exist,” its current symptoms are rooted in the societal expectations of mild temperaments and attentiveness. As long as these social norms exist, it is likely that inattentive and hyperactive children will continue to be stigmatized for their deviances.

Word Count: 1,243

Works Cited

ADHD Support. Shire US Inc. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. 

"Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder." PubMed Health. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 11 Apr. 2011. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.

Conrad, Peter and Deborah Potter. "The Emergence of Hyperactive Adults as Abnormal." Readings in Deviant Behavior. By Alex Thio, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2010. Print.

Generation Rx: Reading, Writing, and Ritalin. Dir. Kevin P. Miller. A&E Networks, 2008.
Harmon, Katherine. "Are Some ADHD-labeled Kids Just Young for Their Grade?"Scientific American Blog Network. Nature America, Inc., 17 Aug. 2010. Web. 1 Mar. 2012.

"History Of ADHD." ADHD Brain. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. 

Kearl, Mary. "No More ADHD? New Changes to the Guidelines for Diagnosing Children and Adults." ADDitutde. New Hope Media LLC, 12 Feb. 2010. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.

Willingham, Emily. "ADHD: Backlash to the Backlash." Scientific American. Nature America, Inc., 23 Feb. 2012. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.

Film review: "Generation RX"

The thesis of the 2008 documentary Generation RX is that prescription medications for youth do more harm than good for their well-being. The film presented interesting information, but its over-the-top scare tactics (like some information that was given without evidence) made it sometimes feel cheesy and unconvincing. 

Generation RX provided countless examples to support its thesis. One of their strongest points was that mind and mood drugs are given to children even though they were not designed for them. These pills were instead made for adults whose brains have already developed fully. Parents and scientists fear that this will hurt the child’s brain development and alter the person that they were supposed to be; after all, if a child has been on a hormone-changing prescription all of his/her life, how does one know who the child is beneath these medications? This lack of research can also have detrimental and currently unknown consequences, like future problems with kidney disease, diabetes, weight gain, violent thoughts, and suicide.

Another strong point made in Generation RX was that there is a general lack of biological research that supports the notion that prescriptions like these re-balance the chemicals and hormones in the brain. In fact, some scientists think the drugs may actually imbalance the brain further. The film similarly cites a 2006 Oregon State University study about the lack of supportive research for children on the ADHD medication Ritalin. This academic project examined over 2000 studies regarding prescription usage in youth. The study concluded that there is no quality research to show that young people on Ritalin have improved their lives because of the drug. In fact, it may cause more harm than good by possibly resulting in more lifetime diagnoses, drug addiction, and suicide.

Points like these helped the film demonstrate that behavior-changing prescriptions can have serious consequences for youth. Not all of the film, however, was this convincing. The first 20 minutes of the film felt fairly over-the-top and consequently unpersuasive. At one point, when talking about the negative effects of prescriptions on youth, big words flashed on the screen: Diabetes, suicide, weight gain, and violence were among them. Similar dramatic effects were used throughout the movie, where “scary” words would come onto the screen but without any further explanation at the time. These parts of Generation RX felt too focused on scare tactics to actually convince a single point.

Generation RX relates to sociological deviance because it shows that what a society “knows” about science is socially constructed. Expected behaviors about children, like their manners and school abilities, are based off of societal values about education and politeness. When a child does not fit into the expected norms related to these values, they are put on medication to “fix” them, even though their behavior may be adequate in another society or home environment. Katherine Harmon’s article “Are some ADHD-labeled kids just young for their grade?” also brings up the idea that society sees some children in need of “fixing” because of their age; younger children within a grade may be diagnosed with ADHD not because they actually have a disorder, but because their fidgeting and disruptive habits are seen as a brain problem, not the fact that they have had less time to mature than their classmates. This shows again that societal expectations of children affect how they are viewed in a society and whether or not they will be given mind and mood changing drugs.

The apparent need to “control” disruptive students is moreover related to the socially-constructed importance of a thriving economy. The charity RSA made a video about how “education is modeled on the interests industrialization.” This means that expectations about children’s ability to pay attention in school is believed to relate to their ability to contribute to the economy later in life. When it is perceived that children may not value education and may consequently not contribute to this economy, they are put on medication to “fix” them so that they will fit into these expectations.

I found it particularly interesting that there is a lack of biological research to support the notion that mind and mood drugs actually fix brain imbalances that cause ADHD or depression. I would research this point but taking chemical and/or hormonal samples of adults before they begin a mind or mood medication. I would then take the same sample every three months afterward to assess any changes. This would show if the medications do rebalance hormones and bodily chemicals like they are expected.

Word count: 739

Works Cited

Generation Rx: Reading, Writing, and Ritalin. Dir. Kevin P. Miller. A&E Networks, 2008.

Harmon, Katherine. "Are Some ADHD-labeled Kids Just Young for Their Grade?" Scientific American Blog Network. Nature America, Inc., 17 Aug. 2010. Web. 1 Mar. 2012.

Film Review: "Tough Guise"

Part one of the 1999 film “Tough Guise” aims to prove that masculinity is male trait highly associated with media perceptions. This masculinity is projected to hide vulnerability, retain male power, and emphasize toughness, which then leads to violence.

To prove that violence is primarily a male problem, narrator Jackson Katz first provides statistics on aggressive crimes in America. For instance, 95% of domestic violence is committed by men. One out four men will abuse a spouse at some point in their lives. Furthermore, 85% of murders are done by men, and most murders committed by women are done in defense. Katz presents these statistics to demonstrate that within American society, violent crimes are highly a male issue.

Katz finds issue with the way media talks about this violence, because the discourse does not echo the fact that violence is male-driven. When the news talks about school shootings, for example, they call it “kids killing kids,” instead of mentioning that school shootings are typically committed by males. Of the 28 school shootings in America from 1982-2001, all but two were committed by white boys (Kimmel and Mahler 78). The news continues to address school shootings generally though, instead of as a gendered problem. When females commit violence, however, the focus is on their gender because it is unusual. Thus, male and female violence is talked about differently is because male violence is expected due to media portrayals of men; violence is not addressed as a gender issue until women are the offenders, because it is unexpected of them.

Another convincing argument about male violence relating to media comes from media personalities. Men who degrade and/or make jokes about women are particularly popular in American society. When men like Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern get attention for their misogyny, it is because they are relating to something that is already present in the male-dominated society. These jokes moreover reinforce the contrasting “weakness” of women and justify why they should have less power than men.

Katz’s strongest argument is that as rights and awareness come to women and gay communities, the masculine discourse heightens in response to retain their societal control. He claims that men appear more muscular and women are skinnier over time in movies and TV as a response to women’s rights increasing; men are dominating the screen (physically and metaphorically) while women are literally taking up less space on the same screen. When women take up less space, they are perceived as less important and therefore it is justifiable to not take them seriously. Katz says that this increase in male physicality began in response to the feminist, anti-war, civil rights, and student social movements of the 1960s. Increasing male masculinity in media was a backlash by the heterosexual, white, adult male population in order to reassert their dominance.

There were no points in particular that I found unconvincing in “Tough Guise”. I would have liked, however, more analysis regarding his argument about men of color being portrayed as “hyperviolent” in comparison to white males. Katz claimed that this projection occurs because the American structure systematically denies people of color the opportunity to get a good education or job, so all they have left is their masculinity. James Gilligan makes a similar point in his article, “Shame, Guilt, and Violence”. Gilligan writes that “racial discrimination” and “economic inequality” can alienate a colored man and make him think that owning a gun is “like a bank card – an equalizer” (Gilligan 12). I felt Katz could have expanded this point with further explanation and examples to get his point across.

“Tough Guise” relates to Sociology 360 because it focuses on social constructions and ideals in American society. According to the film, the ideal male is socially constructed by media to appear strong and violent to hide vulnerability and retain authority. This is similar to the “tough” ideal male that we have discussed in class. It also relates to our class discussions on male dominance over women and people within the gay community, because of their supposed “threat” to male power.

One point that stood out to me was the idea that violence is a learned behavior that is not necessarily natural to males. If I were to plan a research study around this point, I would ask boys between the ages of four and ten to use one word to define a man. I would then ask them where they learned that a man should be whatever word they said. This would determine if young boys really do learn ideas about violence from the media, like Katz suggests.

Word Count: 755

Works Cited

Gilligan, James. "Shame, Guilt, Violence." Social Research Winter (2003): 1149-180. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.

Kimmel, Michael S., and Matthew Mahler. "What Triggers School Shootings?" Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2010. 76-82. Print.

Tough Guise. Dir. Sut Jhally. Perf. Jackson Katz. Media Education Foundation, 1999. DVD.