Does
ADHD Exist? - The Ritalin Sham
by John Breeding, Ph.D.
See also
Drugging the
Children Video
Alice, the mother of a seven-year-old son, Nathan, recently
visited my office for a counseling session. Nathan had
reportedly been different and difficult from the beginning:
exhibiting early seizure-like activity, a most challenging
temperament, great sensitivity to various types of
stimulation, intense frustration, aggressive tantrums, and
other apparent developmental difficulties. Alice had taken
him to doctors from a young age, obtaining a variety of
mostly nonspecific diagnoses of developmental problems. Alice
felt unappreciated as a parent, hurt and angry that the
Montessori school her son had attended at ages four and five
had ultimately rejected him. She felt judged by other
parents, whom she felt blamed her for her son's challenging
behavior. And she felt unsupported by both camps of opinion
regarding "medication": the pro-Ritalin forces challenged her
reluctance to use the drug for her son, and the antidrug
group vehemently urged her to resist drug use.
Alice's personal stance on the Ritalin issue was clear. While
she basically agreed that these "medications" are not good
for children, she also felt that, in her family's case, it
had been helpful. Nathan had been diagnosed at age five with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and had
taken Ritalin for a year. Alice thought the drug greatly
helped her son, slowing him down enough so that he could
listen and process information. She and her boyfriend both
felt drugs made the boy much easier to be with; further,
their own reduced stress eased them so much that they were
now able to consider other alternatives for Nathan, such as
nutritional supplementation.
Proponents of psychiatric drugs attest that they "work,"
meaning they alter mood, thought, and action. They also
"work," of course, in that they assuage the medical
community's expectation that drugs be used to "treat" these
children. I believe that fully informed adults should have
every right to voluntarily use any drugs they wish, as long
as they don't endanger others in doing so. Children, however,
are not able to give fully informed consent to drug use -
especially those under six years of age, a group in whom we
are witnessing a dramatic increase in psychiatric drug
prescription. It is, therefore, our responsibility as adults
to ensure every possible opportunity for optimal development
for our children, to protect and defend our children from
powerful toxic drugs, particularly those prescribed for
psychiatric purposes.
Like Alice, a large percentage of adults who take psychiatric
drugs or give them to their children would prefer to avoid
them - and yet they capitulate and use them because the drugs
provide relief: from tension, fear, and desperation, as well
as from the external strains of judgment and coercion.
Lawrence Diller, author of the best-selling book Running on
Ritalin, argues that: "The 700 percent rise in Ritalin use is
our canary in the mineshaft for the middle class, warning us
that we aren't meeting the needs of all our children, not
just those with ADD. It's time we rethought our priorities
and expectations unless we want a nation of kids running on
Ritalin."2 Dr. Diller decries the trend (as I do in my book
The Wildest Colts Make the Best Horses), contending that this
increased reliance on drugs reflects a society in distress.
Rather than try to force our children to shrink into
situations that do not meet their needs, he states, we need
to take responsibility for our society.
Diller himself is, however, torn by the same conflict many
parents have concerning Ritalin. On the one hand, he says:
"As a citizen I must speak out about the social conditions
that create the living imbalance. Otherwise I am complicitous
with forces and values that I believe are bad for children."
On the other hand, though, he concludes: "As a physician,
after assessing the child, his family and school situation, I
keep prescribing Ritalin. My job is to ease suffering and
Ritalin will help round- and octagonal-peg kids fit into
rather rigid square educational holes." 3
This seemingly contradictory stance is the same one Alice and
millions of other parents face. It's not as if all parents
readily accept the prescription of Ritalin. Alice, in fact,
incurred the wrath of her son's neurologist because she
refused to give her son Adderall, a combination of three
different amphetamine-like stimulants often used as an
alternative to Ritalin. Increasingly over the past ten years
or so, millions of parents are nagged by their children's
physicians: "If your child had diabetes," the doctors taunt,
for example, "you'd give him insulin, wouldn't you?"
"What could I say to that?" Alice asked me. Her question was
not so much a call for information as it was a need to
express her hopelessness. It was encouraging to me that she
was angry, for anger is a great antidote to hopelessness. She
was mad about the treatment she had received from prior
medical and mental health professionals, as well as the lack
of support from two opposing drug camps. Before I would
hazard a possible response for that neurologist, Alice and I
talked about the feelings of relief, guilt, and anger the
Ritalin issue had caused for her family. Finally, I gave her
what would have been my response: the diagnosis of ADHD is,
itself, fraudulent.
ADHD:
Nothing but a Sham
A
condition such as diabetes carries detectable physical
evidence of disease - abnormal blood sugar levels, evidence
of pancreatic malfunction - justifying medical treatment.
Families confronted with the "wouldn't you give insulin"
argument could begin by asking the neurologist to provide
medical evidence that a disease requiring treatment exists.
Between 1993 and 1997, neurologist Fred Baughman corresponded
repeatedly with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis,
manufacturers of Ritalin), and top ADHD researchers around
the country - including the National Institute of Mental
Health - asking them to show him any article(s) in the
peer-reviewed scientific literature constituting proof of a
physical or chemical abnormality in ADHD and thereby
qualifying it as a disease or a medical syndrome. Through
sheer determination and persistence, Dr. Baughman eventually
got these entities to admit that no objective validation of
the diagnosis of ADHD exists.4
Prescribing Ritalin for something that is not a "disease"
does not, in my estimation, constitute a legitimate practice
of medicine. If ADHD is not a disease, treating it medically
constitutes a fraud. Yet many physicians are true believers
in medically treating "mental illness," despite the
consistent lack of scientific evidence of "mental illness" as
a "disease."5 Herein lies the conflict for parents like
Alice.
The Significance of Oppression Theory
Victims of oppression are not only blamed for their
condition, and usually thought to be deserving of their
inferior position, they are eventually conditioned to accept
it as their reality. As the great American writer James
Baldwin stated: "It's not the world that was my oppressor,
because what the world does to you, if the world does it to
you long enough and effectively enough, you begin to do it to
yourself."6 In what may be the ultimate power play, a victim
is, over time, conditioned to internalize, accept, and
ultimately, forget about the very fact that they are
oppressed.
There are two specific forms of oppression that are pertinent
to the discussion of psychiatric drug use for children. The
first is adultism - the systematic mistreatment of young
people by adults simply because they are young. Like other
forms of oppression, adultism is self-perpetuating: when we
are treated poorly as children, we internalize the idea and
feelings that life is unfair; that rank and power should be
used for personal advantage; and that we are somehow unworthy
of respect, incapable of clear thinking, and unable to become
our own authority.
The second form of oppression is what I call psychiatric
oppression: the systematic mistreatment of people labeled as
"mentally ill" - including children diagnosed with fictitious
illnesses such as ADHD. Institutionalized in our society,
psychiatry is also guided by a worldview that embraces
biopsychiatry.7
Juxtaposed with adultism, psychiatric diagnosis and treatment
enforce the message that an "ADHD child" is inadequate,
defective, unworthy of complete respect, and in need of drugs
to control and cope with the effects of his or her "illness."
Lies My Doctor Told Me
What
exactly does it mean to "help round- and octagonal-peg kids
fit into rather rigid square educational holes?" I believe
there are at least six fallacies that underlie the rampant
prescription of drugs like Ritalin to our children.
1.
"Social adjustment is good."
While the ability to adjust socially may be important, it is
not always a "good" thing. In its most extreme form, social
adjustment leads to conformity and compliance, which has
resulted in dire social phenomena, including slavery and
genocide. This seems a particularly aberrant notion in a
society like ours, which is so deeply grounded in the quest
for individualism, free speech and association, and the
"pursuit of happiness."
2. "Children must learn to conform."
When a child fails to adjust to school, we should at the very
least think about our abilities to consider the child's
needs. It is certainly important for children to learn how to
get along in various situations, and how to avoid drawing
sanction upon themselves. Nevertheless, young children must
be enabled to express their unique gifts within their
communities. It is a mistake to force our children to fit
molds imposed upon them according to the needs and
conventions of the adult order.
3. "Failed social adjustment causes suffering."
In our competitive culture, we tend to view mistakes as
negatives to be avoided. It is hard to accept the notion that
mistakes can be good, and actually, in fact, are the way we
learn. We are obsessed with the notions of success and
failure. We judge a child's actions as success or failure
according to our expectations and demands, not through the
eyes of a developing child. Eventually, the child
internalizes both the standard and the evaluation: "I failed
to live up to the expectations, therefore I am a failure." I
would argue that it is not failure that causes suffering, but
rather it is oppression - in the form of adultism - which
imposes arbitrary standards, and an adult shame-based
worldview. This is what causes children to feel and think of
themselves as failures, and therein lies their suffering.
4. "A physician's job is to ease suffering."
Certainly it is - through the practice of medicine that
incorporates compassion - not labeling, coercion, or guilt.
5. "Ritalin helps children conform."
Not always. Sometimes it makes them "psychotic," sometimes it
makes them aggressive. Other times Ritalin makes children
anxious or nauseous. It can make some children feel suicidal.
And for some children, Ritalin has been a deadly
prescription. 8 When it "works" well, the child is observed
to produce better in the classroom. This, the research shows
us, is the only positive short-term outcome. There are no
positive long-term effects in any aspect of child functioning
- social, behavioral, or academic - associated with the use
of Ritalin.9
6. "Therefore, giving your child Ritalin lets me ease her
suffering."
In an 1854 speech on the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Abraham Lincoln
said, "I would consent to any great evil, to avoid an even
greater one."10 Many parents feel the compulsion to punish or
discipline their child in hopes that even greater misfortune
might not befall them. Given the reality of today's
oppressive society, and its lack of resolve to truly meet the
needs of our children, the argument goes, Ritalin may seem a
better choice than continued pressure, disapproval, and
sanction.
This "ease the suffering" argument reveals one of the most
consistent justifications for the use of psychiatric drugs
for children: on one level or another, Ritalin absolves each
person of his or her responsibility. The child is not
responsible, he's "sick." Parents, doctors, the community,
the medical and educational institutions - the society at
large - are relieved of their duty to meet the real needs of
that child. We prescribe drugs; the child conforms; the
educational and medical institutions don't have to change;
and our standards of "normalcy" are passed on to the next
generation of drug-assisted children learning to fit into the
mandated square hole. We have endless justifications that
allow us to conform to oppression with a seemingly clear
conscience, while an estimated 5,000,000 children are on
methylphenidate, and another 3,000,000 on other toxic drugs -
given to them by adults who care for them. Some may call this
"medicine," but a growing group of parents and others are
beginning to see it as institutionalized child abuse.
FAIR USE
NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use
of which has not been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. This website distributes this material
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C
ยง 107.
NOTE TO AUTHORS: If you are the author or owner of an article
or video that I have made available through THEINFOVAULT.NET
and you do not wish to have your article or video posted on
theinfovault, please contact me and I
will remove the item.