Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder

I would like to throw in that many individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) have attention difficulties and are frequently diagnosed with FASD. Is there any place for overlapping or co-ocurring disorders or differential diagnosis in the article? Just curious, as I know this article is frequently edited and updated.MLHarris 21:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the following study for all psychological and psychiatric discussions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

Bizfixer 22:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

re, alzheimers

re: alzheimers, they can tell if a person had alzheimer's at autopsy. Same with MS. These are neurological diseases.

how you tell if a cadaver had ADHD? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dareu2move (talk • contribs) 03:30, 1 March 2007.

Unlike Alzheimer's Disease, ADHD does not cause obvious structural changes in the brain. Alzheimer's is a progressive, destructive disease, while ADHD is a lifelong disorder whose symptoms sometimes actually disappear or be reduced over time. ADHD requires more finesse to diagnose, and diagnosis always involves taking a detailed history not only from the subject, but from individuals close to him or her (e.g. teachers, parents, spouses), and neuropsychological testing is secondary. Alzheimer's is generally diagnosed primarily through neuropsychological testing. The only complete confirmation of an Alzheimer's diagnosis comes at autopsy with the examination of brain tissue, but there is no such complete confirming test for ADHD. --Ginkgo100^talk 04:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dementia of the Alzheimer's Type is diagnosed through psychological testing and is an Axis I diagnosis. Alzheimer's Disease is diagnosed medically, not psychologically, and is an Axis III disorder. The only current accepted methods of conclusive diagnosis for Alzheimer's Disease are biopsy and autopsy. Really, people who know what they are talking about (ie: those with an education in the field) should be the only ones editing these pages.--Jkhamlin 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is based on the DSM-IV, which is published by the American Psychological Association. Other countries use different criteria to diagnose physical and psychological illnesses. Don't forget that Wikipedia is an international project. Also, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Its mission is not to be written only by experts; there are other encyclopedias with that philosophy. Of course, all editors must provide verifiable and neutral information, previously published in a reliable source, and thoroughly cited. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about my comment regarding ADHD or the one above regarding Alzheimer's? The one regarding Alzheimer's is the internationally accepted standard based on ICD-10, the WHO, the AMA, and many, many other objective sources. True, the multiaxial scheme is supported by the DSM, but it is the standard in behavioral science. The DSM is the leading international standard for diagnosis of psychiatric disorders. Just because it is published by the American Psychiatric Association doesn't mean it isn't international. It is based on extensive international research, and is generally considered THE authority on pathopsychology/psychiatry. Even the World Health Organization had a hand in editing it. The use of the diagnostic criteria increases agreement among psychological and medical authorities. Edward Bauer intentionally reverted a factual statement to a non factual statement without providing a reference. Of course he couldn't provide a reference because there is not any reference that demonstrates that ADHD is a neurological disorder. In short, he didn't provide information that was verifiable and neutral. I notice also that you reverted it previously to this factual inaccuracy after someone else fixed it, but you didn't appear to have malicious intent, or an agenda, you just appear not to know that this is not a neurological disorder. Any person editing Wikipedia should AT LEAST know what they are talking about. Having an education is a good way to achieve this; in fact, it is the BEST way to achieve this. If not, they should not revert articles when people who know what they are talking about fix the factual errors.--Jkhamlin 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also see several previous sections on the difference between disorders and diseases, all of this has been covered before. --scuro 12:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

disorder

I changed 'neurological disorder' to 'disorder'. It's in the DSM. It's not truly a neurological disorder. If someone were to take the time and quote from the DSM rather editorializing on what THEY think ADHD is, then this entry would be much more accurate.

If it's not a neurological disorder then what kind of disorder is it???? And I changed it back because, you didn't cite it and also because it is redundent to say "AD/H Disorder is a disorder" Edward Bower 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You should check the DSM-IV-TR. It is a psychiatric disorder. There is no evidence that it is a neurological disorder. Semantic arguments notwithstanding, it is purely behavioral from what we know currently. --Jkhamlin 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is strong evidence that ADD/ADHD is neurological in nature. It can be observed on PET scans, it is primarily genetic in origin, and it is incurable. Edward Hallowell, M.D., a psychiatrist specializing in ADD, has written "...Most practitioners in the field now agree that the characteristic problems of people with ADD stem from neurobiological malfunctioning" (Driven to Distraction, Edward M. Hallowell & John J. Ratey, 1994). I support a discussion in this article of the neurological/neurobiological components of ADD/ADHD, and placing it more prominently than the very bottom of the history section. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. It is not primarily genetic in origin. You can say that all day long, but that doesn't make it fact. Can you give me the locus of genes that cause it? They have found some genes "associated with it." Sure, twin studies show a stronger correlation, but that doesn't prove causality, and it doesn't demonstrate main effect. It can have a genetic influence and still be 100% behavioral. There also is not strong evidence that it is incurable. Many people respond well to cognitive behavioral therapy, and despite pharmaceutical industry claims, there is no evidence that this continues into adulthood. In fact, 45% of behavioral professionals disagree that this is even a legitimate disorder, but it is objectively covered only in peer reviewed and edited sources like the DSM, which, I would point out, exactly matches the ICD10 criteria. Many things can be observed on PET scans; that doesn't make them neurological in origin. In fact, the patterns characteristic of ADHD are not significantly different from lack of sleep. In addition, sleep has many diffent levels that manifest themselves differently in PET scans; this doesn't mean they are neurological disorders. Correlation is not causation. There is nothing linking the PET scan findings with a neurological cause for ADHD. That is why you cannot find anything objectively peer reviewed that will make this conclusion. The book you mentioned is a pop psych book written by two physicians, not an objective, peer reviewed, collaborative international work like the DSM. It is fine to discuss in the article that the opinions of a handfull of experts are that this is neurological, and this discussion is present in the history section where it is appropriate, but that is not objective, and thus the article should NOT state this neurobiological hypothesis as objective.--Jkhamlin 21:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

All this discussion is pointless because the majority view of the scientific community is that ADHD is a true disorder and citations galore can affirm that this is the majority view within that community. That is all that Wiki requires for the article. We also know that ADHD is the most highly inheritable disorder out there and that it's more heritable then height and intelligence. Recent twin studies have indicated genes may have as high as a 97% influence in determining who gets ADHD.

There is nothing new in the notion that ADHD behaviour is strictly seen as behavioural characteristic caused by the environment. A small but vocal group has always strongly argued that point, be they alternative medicine practitioners, Scientologists, or anyone else who has a stake in discrediting or treating ADHD. Yet the argument doesn't hold. For instance, a sense of humour would be associated with genes but wouldn't be considered a disorder because it doesn't impair with life functioning. There is a very wide body of evidence that shows that those with ADHD are impaired with life functioning, in fact that is a criteria of diagnosing the disorder. ADHD has been the most widely studied disorder ever with over 6000 studies looking at this disorder.

This all reminds me of arguments against global warming. Yes, we have no direct causational link to man and global warming but a wide body of evidence allows us to make that association.

--scuro 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're overreaching your point a bit. You mentioned "citations galore" can prove your point of view, but that is not all Wikipedia requires; it requires a balancing of all the major points of view (see WP:NPOV), and that the citations actually be provided, not just alluded to. I have not read anything suggesting ADHD is "the" most heritable disorder, and a few twin studies are not enough to prove the genetic link; many well-designed twin studies, as well as other methods such as adoption studies, would be necessary to prove 100% heritability. I think Jkhamlin does have a point in noting the behavioral aspect of ADHD; for example, I think we can all agree that environment has a large effect on symptoms and functionality. Also, though I cannot refer to any source, I strongly suspect that many other behavioral disorders have been studied more thoroughly than ADHD, including depression and schizophrenia. That's just my intuition though. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe there are a lot of scientists actively looking at many possible environmental causes of ADHD? Now that would be reaching.... You are right that you can mention other theories in a Wiki article although they shouldn't be given undo weight if they are a minority viewpoints. Dr. Russell Barkley does a nice job of summarizing the genetics of ADHD including the twin and adoption studies. ADHD is also the most studied disorder in child psychiatry, need I cite that also?

Sure I have no problem accepting that environment can play a role in how someone with ADHD manages their life. Good intelligent parents with great advocacy skills can do a lot for an ADHD child. But that's not the point of this discussion is it now. How many posts have we had recently in the talk section trying to refute the validly of the disorder ADHD? And none of the posts have amounted to more then a hill of beans. Have you stopped and pondered the possibility that all of those scientists may be on to something?

--scuro 03:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand the scientific process, Scuro. This all works by something called null hypothesis testing. This is the best way we have to study things, but it is not perfect. One way it is not perfect is that it lends itself to preconceptual science. All of those studies are done with the preconceived notion that ADHD is real. The ones alleging that it is neurological are done with the preconceived notion that it is neurological. Both of these lend themselves easily to two logical fallacies if you are not a well trained sceptic: 1. Petitio Principii, or circular reasoning, and 2. The fallacy of the complex question. For instance, stating that it is neurological because it responds to medication and it responds to medication because it is neurological. You seem especially quick to accept science that supports your view, and equally quick to reject that which does not. The overwhelming evidence so far has been that this is due to principles described by the behaviorist school of thought. The overwhelming consensus is that, although it responds to medication, it is a behavioral disorder, not a physiological nor anatomical one. And, you don't know what you are talking about when you say that it is the most studied disorder, or more genetically influenced than height and intelligence. You lose all credibility when you make outlandish statements like that.--Jkhamlin 22:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the overwhelming consensus is that it has a significant neurological component and a significant genetic contribution. This document notes that "The genetic contribution to these traits is routinely found to be among the highest for any psychiatric disorder (70-95% of trait variation in the population), nearly approaching the genetic contribution to human height." Although Scuro was off, his is actually much higher than what I thought was the case! JKHamlin, do you know of an authoritative source that effectively provides an alternative view? --Ginkgo100^talk 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, that is not an "overwhelming consensus." It is a bunch of fringe scientists trying to make a point. Science is not advanced through sound bytes and flashy political ads.--Jkhamlin 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

UMMM

The point is that if you look in the DSM-IV-TR, you will not find Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's, Post-Stroke Syndrome, Epilepsy, ALS, etc. THose are true neurological disorders. By DEFINITION a disorder does not appear in the DSM if it can be identified with brain scans- DSM only covers mental disorders, which are behavioral disorders with mysterious etiology.

If ADHD is a brain disorder like epilepsy it will eventually be taken out of the DSM and then you can call it a neurological disorder. Until then you do need to realize that having a disrder in the DSM does mean something!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 March 2007.

ADHD affects the CNS, any disorder affacting the CNS is a neurological disoder. Edward Bower 04:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"If ADHD is a brain disorder like epilepsy it will eventually be taken out of the DSM and then you can call it a neurological disorder. Until then you do need to realize that having a disrder in the DSM does mean something!!!"

UMMM....no. If you have an agent that causes a negative change in the body or mind and you can test for that, you have a disease. That agent is called a pathogen. ADHD is a disorder that most are born with. There is no pathogen that causes ADHD and it is not a disease. ADHD, by the way...is a neurological disorder and we have gone over this previously. See the above subheadings in this discussion page. --scuro 04:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone wrote this before me, but i guess its not loading anyway: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/adhd/adhd.htm Edward Bower 05:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Archived older content, check archives for some references Edward Bower 05:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does that reference say that it is a neurological disorder? How is that reference more credible than the American Pychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the World Health Organization?--Jkhamlin 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It says it is a neurobehavioral disorder in the first paragraph.Edward Bower 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, neurobehavioral, not neurobiological. The point being it is behavioral, not biological.Jkhamlin 15:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference? According to M-W.com, "neur" is a prefix meaning "nerve, sinew, from neuron". In other words, the physical structure of the brain itself, the central nervous system. That would make "neurobehavioural" mean something like "behaviour stemming from neuronal [physical] causes". If the causes for a behaviour reside within the physical structure of the brain, how is it not "neurobiological" (a branch of the life sciences that deals with the anatomy, physiology, and pathology of the nervous system) in origin? How exactly does that support your argument?--Mrdarcey 14:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

hmm

well what I guess we have here is the disconnect between wiki-world and real-world information. you can call it a neurological disorder if you like, but please reconcile its inclusion in the DSM with that, please. since almost all billing for ADHD comes from a disorder code included in the DSM- a list of mental disorders- and furthermore the entry that describes the disorder in the DSM says the etiology is unknown...this is real-world stuff. reconcile! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 5 March 2007.

The DSM isn't the end all be all, it is constantly changing, and at a slower pace than wikipedia I might add. But I am thankful for the DSM, and anticipate DSM V.Edward Bower 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

So if we have the time maybe we should discuss what the introduction to the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder should say, before we post it. If we can colaborate on what it says I understand that we dont have to do this, but I feel we should including in the intrudction a mention of the Central Nervous System or the brain. Any proposals on what it should say?? (was this already done in the talk page, i'll check the archives when I have time, and if this is already addressed, and we deem that the former conclusions arived deserves further scrutany, then perhaps we should bring that part back to this page(while perserving it in the archives as well))Edward Bower 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to leave the task of sorting through the archives to you. I did notice that the word "neurological" in the article introduction was quite stable from at least several months ago until a few days ago, when several users began to remove it and, perplexingly, to refer to its inclusion as "vandalism". Out of respect to this original usage, presumably reflecting an old consensus in the archives, I am reintroducing the term for now, while we re-evaluate it. Meanwhile I have begun searching the literature (see below). --Ginkgo100^talk 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a bad idea. You are misinforming a lot of people. The reference you gave is an opinion piece by a fringe minority of the psychiatric and psychological community. That is highly inappropriate especially for an administrator to do. And, it is appropriate to call even what you did vandalism based on the link you provided that explains vandalism. I have already covered this with you. Who do I report you to for the vandalism since you are an administrator?--Jkhamlin 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted the below about accusations of vandalism before reading this, ironically. --Ginkgo100^talk 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ADHD: neurological and genetic factors

Yesterday, I posted a quotation from Driven to Distraction by Hallowell and Ratey because it was handy. Since that reference was challenged, I found some peer-reviewed sources. Google Scholar turned up many such references, but here is a selection.

References supporting the view that ADHD is either wholly or partially neurological

• "Anatomical imaging studies of individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) consistently point to involvement of the frontal lobes, basal ganglia, corpus callosum, and cerebellum. Imaging studies of brain physiology also support involvement of right frontal-basal ganglia circuitry with a powerful modulatory influence from the cerebellum." (emphasis added. Brain Imaging of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Giedd, Jay, et al., 2001. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 931:33-49

• "[L]eading international scientists . . . recognize the mounting evidence of neurological and genetic contributions to this disorder." International Consensus Statement on ADHD, January 2002. This document reflects the consensus of medical, psychiatric, and psychological researchers from many different countries.

References correlating ADHD with neurological disorders

• http://www.journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2333
• http://www.springerlink.com/content/j3u02483753920q1/
• http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=134641
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9150518&dopt=Citation (case study)

On the genetic factor in the etiology

Lack of an identified locus for a responsible gene does not disprove a genetic basis for a disorder; this is a logical fallacy. Furthermore, many disorders with a genetic basis likely arise from the interaction between a number of genes, and possibly from these genes' interaction with environmental factors (for example, see this NIMH document).

Based on the above, I propose discussing in some detail the view, now largely mainstream, that ADHD is a neurological condition with a genetic basis. --Ginkgo100^talk 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is why only people who know what they are talking about should be editing articles. First of all, just because they can pinpoint areas of the brain involved in this behavior doesn't demonstrate that this condition is cause by organic damage or defect. Otherwise, as I pointed out before, following this logic would mean that sleep would be a neurological disorder caused by brain damage. Your second reference is a fringe minority of the scientific community, by far not a majority. Just because they make provocative statements like "mounting evidence" doesn't mean there really is.

I checked those other five references. Here is how you should understand that: Just because evidence of organic damage or defect CAN cause ADHD type behavior doesn't mean it DOES cause ADHD type behavior. There is an emerging disease that is still hypothetical and quite controversial call Morgellon's Disease. It is thought to be caused by a species of Bacillus. Almost every person suffering from this disease has ADHD. Does that mean that ADHD is an infectious disease? No, of course not. Correlation is NOT causation. Just because you can find some comorbidity doesn't mean you found the cause.

Lack of a locus doesn't prove it's not genetic, but it certainly demonstrates that there is no evidence that it is, and until such loci are revealed, we cannot say that the main effect is genetic. Now, certainly, it appears that there is some genetic influence based on twin studies, etc., but that is by far the least of etiological causes.

It most certainly is not "largely mainstream" that ADHD is a neurological condition with a genetic basis, it is still a fringe belief mostly held by pharmaceutical companies.--Jkhamlin 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have not provided evidence that you are an expert yourself. Second, it's irrelevant who's an expert and who isn't because this is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. In fact, there was recently a tremendously disruptive controversy over another editor who made many edits on the basis of claimed expertise that turned out to be false. I do not mean to imply that your claims are false, only that that controversy shows one reason why Wikipedia does not rely on experts.

I am very aware that correlation ≠ causation. That should definitely be made clear in the article. However, the correlation has been demonstrated in the literature. You have not cited the sources you allude to that support your view.

Lack of a gene locus does not necessarily mean there is no evidence for a genetic link. Gregor Mendel proved a genetic link for many traits before DNA was discovered. --Ginkgo100^talk 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how do you want me to prove my expert status? It is not irrelevant who's an expert and who isn't because when anyone can edit this, and potentially millions of people are using the information in here, they are being misinformed by people such as Edward Bower, you, scuro, et al who are advocating a non neutral point of view in this article based on an agenda, rather than being informed of the truth.--Jkhamlin 17:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

First, your argument from sleep is a straw man. Sleep, like any other normative neural activity, is common to all humans. Its nature is not dibilitating unless maladjusted, and thusly is not a disorder. AD/HD (note the last D) is not common to all humans, and presents significant functional difficulties to those who suffer from it.

Second, the consensus statement whose signitories you refer to as fringe scientists, was published in a mainstream peer reviewed journal. The Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review 5 (2): 89-111, to be exact.

Third, not to put too fine a point on it, but if people take you at your talk page's word, you most certainly are not an expert. You are someone who is on a Master's course and who has a putative acceptance to a medical school. Perhaps, after another few years, a residency and a fellowship you will be an expert. Even then some would suggest a Doctorate as a minimum standard for "expert status". As of right now, however, you are just another student.

Fourth, it is repulsive in the extreme to suggest in good faith that people cannot understand scientific literature without the interpretive lens of your grace. You have provided nothing but the DSM and NIH descriptions of the disorder, and your word that you have been to classes where the neurologic basis was dismissed as "fringe". Articles if you please. Preferably of the double blind, peer reviewed sort either cited above or given to me by my psychiatrist when we discuss the neurologic basis of mental disorders.--Mrdarcey 13:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

it's a mental disorder

It's a mental disorder. Check the surgeon general's report. posting a peer reviewed article or two that speculates that it is neurological doens't prove anything. except that people are actually arguing that ADHD is not a mental disorder, which is pretty hilarious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dareu2move (talk • contribs) 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

This guy Dareu2move wont stop with that mental thing. Can you ban him please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.226.230.36 (talk • contribs).

No. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

its a developmental disorder you guys have problems

You can't ban someone for an opinion. As long as one's POV does not influence the encyclopedic nature of the article, then it's all good.

As far as the controversy at hand, it's all and none. Why are you guys wasting energy on a point that can't be made? It would be better put to use (the energy) in establishing evidenced based statements that can be included in the article.

Is it a developmental disorder - yep.

Is it a neurological disorder - yep.

Is it a mental disorder - yep.

Is it an environmental disorder - yep.

Stop bickering and write the damn article! Blessings --DashaKat 14:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

addendum

if ADHD is 'neurological' then so are depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, panic disorders, personality disorders, insomnia, etc., etc., you'll notice that these are the province of psychiatrists, not NEUROLOGISTS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dareu2move (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

So becuase the province of ADHD is not neurologists it is therefore not a neurological disorder? check out this website: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/adhd/adhd.htm Edward Bower 04:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ummm no. The scope of Schizophrenia belongs to Psychiatrists? Psychiatrists treat the disorder, that doesn't mean they "own" the disorder. Many institutions and groups claim Schizophrenia under their umbrella including the neurological study of the disorder by some of the best researchers we have in this world.

But again, this is all pointless. If NINDS which is part of the National Institutes of health states that ADHD is a neurological disorder that is all that WIki needs. We have an excellent source here.

--scuro 05:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dare you -- all those things are neurological, and physiological, and organic, and phenomenological, and environmental, and psycho-social....read the literature before you start flailing...especially in this rarefied atmosphere...I can appreciate your positionality, but these guys, despite their tendency toward positionality (my own included) know what they're talking about. "The wise man listens, while the fool speaks." -- Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Blessings --DashaKat 14:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Please, let's dispense with accusations, mild or insistent, of vandalism in relation to the "neurological" dispute. According to the vandalism policy, NPOV violations, making bold edits, unintentional misinformation, stubbornness, and even harrassment are not vandalism. These issues, should they come up, should be addressed on this talk page and/or on user pages. If this is unproductive, an WP:RFCU can be considered.

Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.--Jkhamlin 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also been reading up, and it appears that the neurology references are also an NPOV violation, hence I put the NPOV tag on the page.--Jkhamlin 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a piece of advice — I have not seen any violations of the Three Revert Rule, but please do not forget about it. It can be easy to get carried away, and I know nobody wants to be blocked by another admin for violating it. (I myself will not block anyone involved in this discussion for 3RR or other issues, of course, as I am also involved.) --Ginkgo100^talk 19:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I am opening a Request for Comment. This discussion is not only not progressing, but I fear it is getting ugly. I am hoping some outside views will be helpful. --Ginkgo100^talk 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a no brainer

Pardon the pun but the question for some seems to be if neurological means the brain or the body. The brain is part of central nervous system. The Merrian Webster dictionary defines Neurology as, "the scientific study of the nervous system especially in respect to its structure, functions, and abnormalities". Neurology is not limited to the disease model as the NIND's website so clearly demonstrates. ADHD specifically impacts brain function down to the neuron level while impairing the ability of larger brain structures to function normally. We also see this when we similar symptoms to ADHD due frontal brain injuries. Now if someone doesn't believe this theory they are welcome post other theories with citations in the article as others have already done. These theories would belong to the minority viewpoint.--scuro 20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're interpreting neurology too broadly. Check out neurology, which defines this as the study of disorders of the nervous system, which matches Merriam Websters definition. Brain involvement does not prove a neurological link, or we could call any behavioral or mental disorder neurological. Yet some clearly do not meet the criteria of being neurological, such as dissociative disorders. Actually, every behavior, including maladaptive ones as well as reflexes, and even much of the working of the GI tract, originates in the nervous system. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a little tricky but those behavioural disorders which have clear genetic links such as BiPolar and ADHD would be considered neurological brain disorders as noted previously. People have assumed that such disorders fall strictly under the umbrella of Psychiatry but those lines in the sand were arbitrarily drawn from previous models of mental functioning where all behaviour was thought to be caused from internal conflict and interaction with the environment. We know better now.

--scuro 12:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bipolar and ADHD don't have "clear genetic links." They have putative genetic links. That doesn't mean they are neurological, however (see Ginkgo's post again). The DSM-I was written that way, however that Freudian point of view was nixed after that first edition. Most, if not all, behaviors are thought to be derived from interaction with the environment, whether they are genetic, neurological, cognitive behavioral, etc, in etiology. See diathesis stress.--Jkhamlin 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ginkgo, I fully agree with your post here, except for the misstatement about dissociative disorders, it makes my point exactly. Dissociative disorders are mostly cognitive behavioral responses to stress. --Jkhamlin 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late contribs. This whole argument strikes me as too semantic. There needs to be an agreement on the use of the word neurological, obviously. There is a distinction between what are now called neurological disorders and mental disorder with a neurologic basis. However, most research I have seen links Axis I psychiatric disorders to the realm of neuroscience. If the brain's structure is inately compromised or undergoes either traumatic or plastic changes through time, the condition will eventually be able to be studied and diagnosed neurologically, if we don't do so already. That does not account, of course, for the current scope of practicing neurologists.

My own feeling would be that since ADHD is largely thought to be inate in the brain of children, and not a genetic predisposition to plastic neural change from environmental factors, like MDD, bipolarity or schizophrenia, that it would more closely fall into the realm of neurology. If we accept it as an inate condition, then it is more akin to Autism or Epilepsy than to psychiatric disorders. Indeed, the NIMH states that behavioral neurologists can diagnose the disorder. My own psychiatrist refuses to provide an ADHD diagnosis himself, although he thinks it present, because he feels it falls out of the range of his expertise, and I should undergo further neuropsychological testing for a positive diagnosis (I already have a positive diagnosis from one of user:Jkhamlin's "fringe scientists", but we need to account for changes in behavior since beginning treatment for a mood disorder).

The alternative (someone correct me if I'm wrong here), would seem to be to list ADHD as a purely behavioral psychiatric disorder lying on AXIS II. Something more akin to a personality disorder with clear and primary environmental causes. But that seems to belie most, if not all, of the existing evidence, does it not?

So what is the problem in saying that AD/HD is a developmental/behavioral disorder with a highly suspected neurological etiology, or something of the sort?

As an aside, there is a clear genetic link to bipolarity. I've linked an article below. There is also an on going NIH study to isolate the genetic factors involved in AD/HD.--Mrdarcey 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

this is very simple

This is very simple. What ADHD is, is defined by the DSM. The DSM does not define as ADHD as neurological. It's a mental disorder per the APA. I suggest to make the article more accurate, someone should list all the criteria from the DSM. Then be clear that when we are talking about ADHD, we are talking about a DSM-defined disorder, and what people speculate outside of the DSM is not official... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dareu2move (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Firstly, the DSM is copyright, and there have been discussions about whether it is possible to reproduce DSM criteria in wikipedia (e.g., [1]).

Secondly, the DSM is written by the American Psychiatric Association. I have no idea whether it is 'official' in the US, but it's certainly not official everywhere. --Limegreen 02:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On balance, while the APA are very keen for their content not to appear on wikipedia (letter from APA), it is currently in Narcissistic personality disorder in a slightly paraphrased fashion. That still doesn't make DSM authoritative, however. --Limegreen 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is very simple. Psychiatrists don't own the concept of ADHD. Simply, you have to stop believing every word that Fred Baughman or Peter Breggin post on the internet.

It was not Psychiatrists who first clinically described ADHD. Rather George Still did so in three lectures before the Royal Academy of Physicians in 1902. George Still coined the observed behaivour of 20 children that he was clinically observing as, “volitional inhibition”. Throughout the century clinicians and researchers believed the disorder to be neurological in nature and used terms such as "minimal brain dysfunction", "Hyperkinetic impulse disorder", and "hyperactive child syndrome" to describe the disorder. It wasn't until the 1968 that Psychiatrists finally incorporated the disorder into the DSM2 based on psychoanalytical model of Freud and they first called it, "hyperkinetic reaction of childhood". Even though the average layperson's understanding comes from the the DSM, scientists have always had an interest in the disorder and continue to study the disorder. Recent neurological studies of ADHD using MRI, PET, SPECT, ERP, QEEG technology was not done by Psychiatrists. In fact this research has led to a greater understanding of ADHD and the specific areas in the brain where differences are noted between ADHD subjects and controls.

--64.231.167.52 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The DSM-IV-TR is a diagnostic manual. It's in the title. Its scope is limited. It's not a textbook on etiologies, nor is it by nature reflective of the most current research on anything. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Though DSM IV claims its limitations, it is used widely around the world - esp. here in Australia. The criteria are used in Law and also to qualify medications prescribed under Authority (i.e can onyl be subsidised and prescribed for a patient if thye qualify for the DSM criteria) - so it has become a Lingua Franca much more so than ICD.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The original purpose of the DSM was to take disorders that often had different names, or had differently defined symptoms, and to standardize the language and diagnostic criteria. In my opinion, it was not designed to be a SCIENTIFIC document, but to facilitate science by having everyone on the same page when doing research. If you look at the introduction to the DSM, specifically the history (I have the DSM III-R), you will see that this publication has changed with changing theoretical frameworks, and with politics. For example, homosexuality used to be a psychiatric diagnosis, but, due to pressure from special interest groups was removed. In Appendix A of the DSM III-R, proposed diagnostic categories needing further study are listed. Self Defeating Personality Disorder (which I believe may be a viable diagnosis) was not included in the DSM IV as a result of women's groups lobbying against it due to fears that this would be used by defense attorneys in rape cases to impune that the rape was the woman's fault. Appendix E has a detailed analysis of historical changes to the current edition. Other changes were made to coincide with the ICD categories. My point here is that while these labels have a history and a common usage, they are often somewhat arbitrary in their origin. I don't personally care if a disorder is "psychiatric", "mental", "behavioral", "neurologic", or whatever. I am a psychiatric nurse who has worked in the field for over 20 years. I have often told my patients that a diagnosis serves two purposes: to get the insurance company to pay, and to give the practitioner a starting place for treatment. I find this whole discussion to be non-productive. What a person needs is to have an accurate diagnosis so that they can get effective treatment and improve their lives. Gorebaugh 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

US

I replaced the "US" that Garrondo removed in the opening paragraph. I tried to check the ref but it doesn't lead to an article. I'm not saying it isn't biased. My point is to be careful about altering referenced statements without verifying that's what the ref is saying. Garrondo may have done that, but didn't state it, so I assumed it was pulled without this consideration. If I'm wrong, please pull it back out.

Also: we need to fix that ref so there's no ambiguity about which article is being referred to (ref #4 http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/default.htm). --DanielCD 14:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am moving anything about the Epidemiology of ADHD to the Epidemiology section.If anyone has objections lets hear them. Also, Garrondo made a section about Anaylitical testing, which i put a call to cite a reference. This section has bad style in my opinion, and I dont know how to attempt to fix it, just point that out. Here is what I removed from the main section of the artcle: Different studies across the world lead us to believe that ADHD affects between 3-6% of the population, including both children and adults.Edward Bower 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

psychiatrists dont 'own' adhd?

are you kidding me. ADHD is a mental (ie. psychiatric) disorder. IT IS OWNED by psychiatrists!!!! the concept is psychiatric!!!!! this is mind blowing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.201.100.221 (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Who owns the copywrite for "Atttention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder"?Edward Bower 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This might help people put this whole debate into view: -- Ned Scott 20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

From Neurology#Overlap with psychiatry:

"Although many mental illnesses are believed to be neurological disorders affecting the central nervous system, traditionally they are classified separately, and treated by psychiatrists. In a 2002 review article in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Professor Joseph B. Martin, Dean of Harvard Medical School and a neurologist by training, wrote that 'the separation of the two categories is arbitrary, often influenced by beliefs rather than proven scientific observations. And the fact that the brain and mind are one makes the separation artificial anyway.' (Martin JB. The integration of neurology, psychiatry and neuroscience in the 21st century. Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159:695-704)"

In other words, it overlaps, and is not just one or the other. -- Ned Scott 20:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Let's hope this can be a starting point to put this discussion to bed. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also see Neuropsychology and Clinical neuropsychology. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's good that we are "blowing your mind". Did you read the post where it was stated that Psychiatry didn't even codify ADHD until 1968 while research on the disorder started in 1902? I know Baughman and Breggin wants everyone to believe that ADHD is a made up disorder by the APA. They have written so much about this, but really it is malarky. In fact, that argument was the gist behind the ritalin class action lawsuits where Breggin was an advisor for council of the plaintiffs and Baughman was a cheerleader in the background. The court didn't buy the argument. Within the scientific community they are simply ignored and no respectable journal will publish them. Why would they? The bias is so blatantly obvious. So who is their audience? Scientologists eat their stuff up, right wing organizations and zealots love them too, and interestingly enough Muslim fundamentalist organizations have bought into their message...

--scuro 04:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Scuro - Actually, about 45% of behavioral scientists disagree with the concept of ADHD. It really is not a fringe movement. You should understand that. I am not taking a side here, just pointing out a fact. This discussion isn't about that, anyway. Please do not resort to these personal attacks, it is not constructive for this discussion, and it is a logical fallacy.--Jkhamlin 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that 55% of behavioral scientists do? And how are you defining behavioral scientist. A neruologist? A neuropsychologist? A behavioral psychologist trained in Kleinian psychoanalysis? Even assuming we include everyone who could possibly be concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, or theorization of ADHD, 55 > 45. How is that fringe?--Mrdarcey 15:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jkhamlin, do you have a citation to back up your 45% claim? Also please do not accuse me of making a personal attack when in fact none was made. Every point I made can be cited and none of them were about you. --scuro 16:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref

Ref #4 (http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/default.htm) doesn't seem to refer to any particular article, only to a page that has links to several articles. Could someone look at this. I don't see any use for this ref as it is. --DanielCD 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

neurology

Yes eventually if ADHD is a real, objective brain disease, it will be moved from the DSM and will be neurological in nature. THis happened with epilsepy. of course with homosexuality it didn't go this way! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Again you missed points made previously. ADHD will never be a brain disease because there is no pathogen. The environment or agents from the environment does not cause ADHD. A wide body of evidence points to the conclusion that genetics plays a highly significant role as the main cause of the disorder. We are born with it. As to the checklists validating ADHD...wrong once more. Any Doctor can diagnosis ADHD, with or without the use of a checklist. A checklist is only one tool used by a skilled practitioner to diagnosis the disorder. And a skilled practitioner also wouldn't simply only use a checklist to diagnosis the disorder. Finally when our national scientific organizations label the disorder as neurological, how can you simply discount that so quickly? Oh I forgot, Breggin said that the scientific insitutions of the US have all been bought off by the pharmaceutical companies.

--scuro 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't edit this article. Gingko100 is adamant but fair.

Which locus is ADHD affecting? Do you have a background in genetics? You either don't have any at all, or you are highly educated and trying to get published. I have some other theories that would violate wiki's policy even though I'm anonymous. I've seen the studies, they really don't prove anything.

Insofar as there not being a pathogen involved, I wouldn't be surprised if there was.

-cyanide_sunshine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.225.242.164 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Stop the bickering, kids. ADHD is a neurologial disorder because it constitutes non-linear brain function. It is not a disease because there is no pathogen. If there is a pathogen, it has yet to be discovered. If there is an environmental antecendent during gestation, it has yet to be isolated. But, by definition, it is neurological... DashaKat 21:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

MISSING THE POINT

I really feel like people are missing the point. When a person is diagnosed with ADHD, it's because ADHD has a checklist and description used for diagnosis. Other instruments may be used to diagnose it, but the diagnosis they are seeking to confirm is * DSM *. Outside of the DSM description you are not dealing with ADHD- because all of the brain research, the med research, the behavioral research- all of it- uses the DSM definition of ADHD. So when you point at someone and say, "he has ADHD" the reason we know this is similar to someone else who is also diagnosed with ADHD is that both use the DSM for diagnosis.

Ok I agree with this first halfEdward Bower 16:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In the scientific community this issue would never be debated like this, if ADHD were in fact a known neurological disorder it wouldn't appear in the DSM, this page needs major work by people with knowledge of science in order to make it useful and not propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

OK ADHD is a label we use to describe a neurobehavural disorder, would you compromise towards that lable? Just as with any other symbol any society chooses to use for a disease or disoder, the symobl is is existential from the chemical reactions taking place within the body, in that the symble indexes something real, but it is a symbol humans have constructed. We dont have to discuss this concept everywhere because it would be a waste of time to do so because it is implied with (I believe) almost every word we use to describe the physical universe.Edward Bower 16:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There are disorders in the DSM with neurological (organic) causes. That is not to say they are 100% neurological, which is why they are still in the DSM, and not relegated to medical etiology in a publication such as the ICD. Examples are schizophrenia, dementia, bipolar disorders, delerium, mental retardation, etc. The fact is that there is a neurological section in the DSM, but disorders such as ADHD are not listed there. The research shows that ADHD has much more in common with Conduct Disorder, which few (if any) are arguing is a neurobiological disorder.--Jkhamlin 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

important issues

these issues are very important, this not a semantic debate. ADHD is a *MENTAL DISORDER*. Not a neurological disorder. Which are considered to be disorders because they meet criteria created by the american PSYCHIATRIC association- not the american neurological association!!!!!

if ADHD is a neurological disorder then why don't neurologists write the criteria for it rather than psychiatrists??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.201.100.221 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Because they the American Neurological Association does not need to repeat efforts that the American Psychiatric Assocation has put forth. They are both compitent enough and are not trying to compete for who treats which humans.Edward Bower 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Because there are no useful or consistent laboratory findings for the diagnosis of ADHD.--Jkhamlin 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

oh and

Oh and you can call it a neurobehavioral disorder if you like- but I think someone should go through the 377 other disorders from DSM that are scattered throughout wiki-land and change all those pages also.

does anyone writing this page even have a DSM? or are you all just copying information off the internet based on your personal experience? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.201.100.221 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Are you implying that there is more information in the DSM relavent to ADHD then can be obtained on the internet. I live next door to the university library and have read the DSM section on ADHD atleast 4 times recently. Neurology deals with the central nervous system, the -ology suffix translates roughtly to study off. I do not know what these terms mean to you but, where do you think the chemical reactions behind something 'mental' are taking place? A vast amount of resouces would be needed to change the boundries of what neurologists treat and what psychiatrists treat, any this would never happen 'over one night'.Edward Bower 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Me! Me! I have one! What's more is I have a degree in psychology, and I have studied the DSM and the research under the guidance of experts in both undergraduate and graduate classes at a respectable and accredited university.--Jkhamlin 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

broken record discussion

I have access to the DSM4 so what's you point? That you have special knowledge about the disorder because you have your own personal copy? Or are you suggesting subjective bias on our part due to ignorance? I'd say that bias and ignorance is a double edged sword. Several people have made many important points in this discussion area but it's like some haven't even read these posts. We simply get the same mantra repeated over and over again like a broken record. That is a display of dogma like Breggin/ Baughmans's viewpoint on ADHD which NEVER changes. Read their literature from 1990 and it is identical to what they write in 2007 even as science has told us so much about this disorder in the last 30 years. True academics change their viewpoint as they learn more about a subject.--scuro 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

definition of mental disorder

Look up the definition of mental disorder in the DSM. Look up ADHD, which is a mental disorder. Compare them. Mental disorders are complex entities that largely lack reliability and validity. The arguments are articulated throughout the scientific literature, but consider a child diagnosed with ADHD who is moved to another school and whose ADHD no longer needs treatment. Since the behavior (not lesion) is not causing problems anymore, they could eventually undiagnose such a kid.

Consider multiple sclerosis. The social context matters ZERO. IF you scan their head and they have lesions, they have MS. A trained neurologist can find reason to suspect that in a 5-min neurological exam and can confirm it with MRIs. Now that's a neurological. You will notice that social context matters zero and that reliability is very high.

These things are different so they are called different things. One is a mental disorder. The other is neurological.

If you will fight like this over a minor point like this, all in the biased direction of making ADHD seem more legit, essentially, then no wonder this page is so bad and no wonder psych professors tell students not to go to this page!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

There is no "undiagnosing" a psychiatric disorder. Psychiatric labels are forever. That they are arbitrary and suspect makes no difference to the people who make their living by applying them. 208.181.100.29 16:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"neurological in nature"

"neurological in nature", is the exact text within the article which seems to offend some and which some have tried to delete. What does Neurological mean? Again, the Merrian Webster dictionary defines Neurology as, "the scientific study of the nervous system especially in respect to its structure, functions, and abnormalities". The brain is part of the nervous system, brain functions are impaired. How can one not accept that ADHD is not neurological in nature? You would either have to say the disorder is a FRAUD like Fred Baughman does, or you would have to believe that ADHD is caused by other regions of the body besides the nervous system, or finally you would have to believe that brain functions are not impaired. But...again, it doesn't matter what we believe because there are numerous highly reliable sources that state the majority view and that majority view is that ADHD is neurological brain disorder. Where does this majority view come from? Not from anecdotal stories about children being moved from school to school but rather this majority viewpoint is based firmly on the overwhelming and wide body of evidence of scientific research. Call this a joke, nazism, or what not...but it keeps zealot and crackpot minority viewpoints from overwhelming Wikipedia.

I will defend the inclusion of "minor" contributions that ring true because the uniformed may first turn to Wikipedia for information. If you don't like that, try finding reliable majority viewpoints that support your contentions. --scuro 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

nope

This is so simple.

ADHD is a mental disorder. You can look up the disorder in the definitive textbook of mental disorders, the DSM. It states, "There are no laboratory tests, neurological assessments, or attentional assessments that have been established as diagnostic in the clinical assessment of ADHD...." (pg 89).

Find me another neurological disorder that cannot be detected with a neurological assesment.

What you have quoted means to me is that there is no test that can diagnose ADHD. Assuming "neurological assessment" means "central nervous system judgement" then I don't see the point of your query becuase ADHD is detected by a doctor's judgement of the central nervous system.User:Edward Bower 69.19.14.25 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's diagnosed by a doctor's judgement of a patient's behaviour. 208.181.100.29 16:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's based on the doctor's judgement of the patient's behavior, not the doctor's judgement of the central nervous system. A physician or a psychologist can diagnose mental disorders. Only a physician can diagnose medical disorders. Only a physician can diagnose neurological disorders. There are no neurological or laboratory findings with which to diagnose ADHD. It is diagnosed behaviorally.--Jkhamlin 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because the doctor uses behavior to make a diagnoses doesn't mean the cause is behavioral. -- Ned Scott 17:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When that's the only thing they have to go on, yep it sure does. Just because you have to have a brain to have ADHD doesn't mean the cause is neurological.--Jkhamlin 17:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Come back when you actually have something to back up your claim. -- Ned Scott 18:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting choice of words from someone who has the burden of proof on themself. Careful not to violate the three revert rule.--Jkhamlin 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder#_note-dopamine, Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder#_note-gene, Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder#_note-15, Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder#_note-17, pulled from the article itself. You on the other hand, you cite a class you went to. See this from my perspective, why should I believe you, who has provided no proof and asks that I take his word for it? -- Ned Scott 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't reference a single class. I referenced every university in the world. Get and education, then come back and debate this.--Jkhamlin 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you're just saying it, which doesn't make it true just because you said it. Heck, you might be right, but only a fool would believe you based on your word alone. -- Ned Scott 20:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Find me another neurological disorder that cannot be detected with a neurological assesment.

Uh, Autism?--Mrdarcey 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)--68.174.86.137 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WRONG, fundamental misunderstanding

No this is not true. This speaks to why ADHD is controversial and why it is a mental disorder and not 'neurological'.

For someone to have a mental disorder, the symptoms MSUT be negatively impacting their life in some way. Their social context MUST be examined. If a child is hyper, or has the entire checklist of symptoms, but they are homeschooled and have patient parents, and no one is bothered by these symptoms, then you shouldn't diagnose ADHD. No matter how closely they meet the criteria!

A disease like MS which is neurological- well they could care less about social context. If you have the signs and lesions then you have the disease. It doesn't matter at ALL how it impacts your life.

Being designated a 'mental disorder' rather than a 'neurological disorder' says nothing about the severity of the syndrome (schizophrenia is a mental disorder and is NOT treated or diagnosed by neurologists).....but it is the most accurate way to portray it.

I haven't even gone through the entire article, but if there is this much kicking and screaming over the first sentence, I can't even imagine all the miststated facts that probably plague this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

What are your thoughts on if the article was changed from saying its a neurological disorder to a neurobehavioral disorder?User:Edward Bower66.82.9.46 04:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

By your broad definition of "neuro," every mental disorder is neurobehavioral or neurological. The point is that no research has conclusively demonstrated that there is an organic cause for ADHD. There is great effort to medicalize this disorder because of many factors. One is pharmaceutical companies (sorry Scuro, but it is true). Another is due to the stigma that goes with mental disorders. People with the condition, or with affected family feel that somehow if it is mental, then it is their fault; but if it is medical, then it is no one's fault. A third reason is because of deterministic beliefs of laypeople that we can find a simple, single cause. As part of this, it is also popular these days to find the gene for everything so we can explain it away. I have studied genetics. The funny thing about genetics is that genes don't provide the simple, single answers we expected them to. Genetics are much more complicated than that. Finding a gene is only the beginning.--Jkhamlin 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The correct term is behavioural. In point of fact, the DSM should change its name to reflect the fact that all mental illnesses are in fact behavioural disorders. 208.181.100.29 16:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As much as you would like to define what ADHD is, your opinion simply doesn't matter to Wikipedia

As I have stated previously ADHD has been defined as a neurological disorder by highly reliable and numerous sources which hold the majority view on ADHD. Why is this fact being ignored?

As to your challenge, "Find me another neurological disorder that cannot be detected with a neurological assessment",...how about 2 which I found in a minute. Opening line from webpage..."Tourette syndrome (TS) is a neurological disorder". Second line from webpage...."Asperger syndrome (AS) is a developmental disorder. It is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), one of a distinct group of neurological conditions..."

My thoughts on changing it to neurobehavioural...not a chance.

We simply get one red herring after another and they never really deal with the fact that what is posted is the the majority view of the scientific community. We have numerous excellent reliable sources which can be cited. From the negative side we have whining, no citations, anecdotal stories, and a dogmatic belief that ADHD wouldn't exist without the DSM4....not a chance I want to see those words changed. --scuro 05:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that the correct medical term is Tourette's disorder any more than the next guy, but the facts are the facts, and Wiki reports the facts as the majority views them. ADHD is a neurological disorder, for encyclopedia purposes. This articles has much bigger problems than that one sentence, though, and a really sustained effort is needed to bring it even to GA level (I've been meaning to initiate a GA review for a long time, because this article is not GA quality). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Scuro - if it is the majority view of the experts, then why isn't this majority view being taught in universities? Have you been to a single class on the subject?--Jkhamlin 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have anything at all to back up this claim? -- Ned Scott 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you taken a class in a university that covers the subject like I have?--Jkhamlin 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Another uni kid who thinks that his class gave him all the answers. -- Ned Scott 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, have you the practice that my psychiatrist has?--Mrdarcey 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

ahhh

I believe you are correct and that my opinion doesn't matter to wiki! I do believe the downfall of wikipedia will be the reporting of popular opinion that can be acccessed via the internet as fact. it's fine for reporting what happened to brittney spears lately but it's an embararasment as far as science.

There is popular opinion and then their is scientific opinion, Wikipedia's policy would guide us towards the more reliable scientific opinion. I actually like Wikipedia's policy, it limits propaganda on important issues. --scuro 13:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)