Psychiatrization Of Difference (ADHD)

In contrast many people dispute medicalisation of ADHD, believing it offers a ‘quick fix’ to the issue regarding lack of expertise and knowledge to deal with the severity of challenging behaviours (Isaacs, 2006). Castel et al (1997) states that. ‘Psychiatrization of Difference’ is the way medicalisation legitamises deviancy as attributing unacceptable behaviour to medical terms normalises difference. Likewise Malacrida (2004:69) claims that teachers often feel frustrated about the lack of ‘social control’ which compels them into giving children with ADHD preferential treatment which is unwarranted; evidenced by low numbers of expulsions for those with ADHD. With this in mind, it is possible to suggest that educators are disempowered

For example, ADHD can raise concerns about misdiagnosis as the symptoms often correspond with those of other illnesses. Therefore, differentiating between ADHD and other conditions, such as Autism, can be confusing and difficult; especially since both conditions present in behavioural issues which predominantly affect boys (Jick et al, 2004). Whilst cultural diversity and individuality makes each child act differently from stipulated behaviours of ADHD (Critten, 2007). On the other hand, there could be an agreement with the debate claiming that society has developed into a ‘culture of disability’ (Stead et al, 2006:3). Described as an ‘engine of medicalization’, technology has been influential in raising awareness of ADHD (Maturo, 2012). Either via the internet or television, people have the means to gather information to make self-assessments. Whilst this information is preventative and beneficial for ensuring early support, prior knowledge can also be exploited as sources state that ADHD is potentially over-diagnosed (Barclay, 2008). Not only is ADHD a condition where the symptoms are easily replicable, but the diagnosis process relies on self-reported symptoms. Furthermore, it is well documented that an ADHD diagnosis provides access to significant privileges, including extra time during exams and financial

Termed as a ‘cash cow’, ADHD has generated the pharmaceutical industry profits of almost $40 million over a 5-year period (O’Meara, 2013). Drug companies have vastly increased investment within advertising, whilst celebrities known for ‘suffering’ with the same ‘illness’ are recruited into campaigns to raise ‘awareness’ of ADHD (Kage, 2006). According to Gerald (2010) incorporating celebrity usage is a technique to gain the consumer’s trust and demonstrate credibility to the company’s motives. Yet businesses are actually ‘disease mongering’ and inventing ‘illnesses’ which shape understanding and misleads the public into thinking they are unwell and need drugs to combat the effects. By using deceit to ply on people’s insecurities, companies are able to exploit vulnerability for financial gain (Moynihan et al, 2002). At the same time, company greed is highlighted by their belief that research is cost-ineffective and warrants less monies ploughed into that area (Maturo, 2011). Inevitably it is children that fair worse as, although their well-being is supposed to be safeguarded in law, it can be suggested that medication prescribed for ADHD puts children’s health at risk. The drugs used to treat ADHD have an abundance of side-effects. Ritalin, one of the most commonly used ADHD medication, is strongly