Over-diagnosis

[sean]

It came to my mind in the thread about drugging kids, but I didn't want to drag it off topic, so I'm making a new thread.

Do you think that the over-diagnosis of certain disorders (ADHD definitely comes to mind) leads to a stigma that harms those who actually suffer from the disease? If it seems everyone has it, no one will take the disorder/disease seriously, it would seem to me. The people who actually do then suffer, because it seems like they too were diagnosed wrongly, to most outsiders...

[SecularHumanist]

ADHD is heavily over diagnosed. This is a fact that they even teach us as psychology majors. The problem isn't that these kids have a disorder but that they're normal in a society that is continually become more sedentary in nature.

[Sparticus]

Of course diseases like ADD/ADHD are over-diagnosed, and I really don't think that it's helping anyone but the parents in the short run. Kid is all over the place and can't seem to concentrate, so he much have some kind of disorder...

[Savage]

Yes, I think a lot of the time childrens behaviour can be controlled simply by living a better lifestyle and most of the problems are food related, or because they are stuck infront of a television, television is terrible for people's attention spans and I think it's an increasing problem.

[Sparticus]

Or there's just shitty parenting

[madgeisgod]

Of course over-diagnosis is present, it has been for quite some time. Here is a good article about the current state (laughable) of the psychological profession: http://slate.com/id/2223479/

[iwpoe]

Originally Posted by Freudian Slip

ADHD is heavily over diagnosed. This is a fact that they even teach us as psychology majors. The problem isn't that these kids have a disorder but that they're normal in a society that is continually become more sedentary in nature.

Having been formally diagnosed with ADHD after a long set of tests, I wonder whether the problem of ADHD diagnosis lies in the diagnostic criteria or the failure of parents to have their children adequately tested. I've gone through a rigorous testing process twice (because it's required for university and GRE disability accommodations). In contrast it was a far simpler matter to have both my doctor and my pediatrician prescribe me ADHD medications. They only required that my primary school recommend that I be treated for ADHD or that I report classic symptoms. I'm wondering whether strictly following diagnostic procedures and criteria would cut down on the number of cases.

[iwpoe]

Originally Posted by Sparticus

Of course diseases like ADD/ADHD are over-diagnosed, and I really don't think that it's helping anyone but the parents in the short run. Kid is all over the place and can't seem to concentrate, so he much have some kind of disorder...

I don't see why that can't be formally defined as a disorder.

Originally Posted by Sparticus

Or there's just shitty parenting

Plenty of things we classify as disorders can stem from "shitty parenting"- depression for instance. I'm uncertain that this fact disqualifies the patient from having a disorder. This isn't to say that ADHD does stem from crappy parenting, but even if it does what does it matter? Crappy parenting might get someone into a mess that good parenting can't fix. There's nothing at least conceptually wrong with my reasoning here. By analogy, taking care of my dog poorly might cause him to develop an aggression problem that can't be cured by just doing what I was supposed to be doing from the start. It may take, for example, some professional behavioral therapy.

In the same way, lets grant that poor parenting leads to ADHD. It might be the case that the person with ADHD can't be fixed by changing parenting styles, but rather needs medication and behavioral/environmental modification.

[SecularHumanist]

Originally Posted by iwpoe

Having been formally diagnosed with ADHD after a long set of tests, I wonder whether the problem of ADHD diagnosis lies in the diagnostic criteria or the failure of parents to have their children adequately tested. I've gone through a rigorous testing process twice (because it's required for university and GRE disability accommodations). In contrast it was a far simpler matter to have both my doctor and my pediatrician prescribe me ADHD medications. They only required that my primary school recommend that I be treated for ADHD or that I report classic symptoms. I'm wondering whether strictly following diagnostic procedures and criteria would cut down on the number of cases.

It is probably a mix of both.

ADHD testing is generally recommended by school's because a child is having trouble paying attention, can't sit still, etc. The problem is that most parents just go along with it since they don't know shit. Odds are their child is just bored, may not be being challenged, etc. The symptoms for ADHD should be present in any environment and in most cases they aren't. It is very easy to have someone diagnosed with ADHD.

I was diagnosed with ADD back when it was a disorder. I would now be diagnosed with ADHD in all likelihood. I have never taken a medication for it or anything. The odds of me having ADHD, and graduating high school without medication is incredibly small.

The entire diagnosis process for ADHD needs to be completely redone.