As someone who buys the Monthly and often recommends it to friends, I was extremely disappointed with the article regarding medication for ADHD (‘Prescribing Behaviour’, October). I am the mother of two boys with ADHD who are now well-adjusted young men. I was appalled by the ignorance about ADHD displayed by the author, Gail Bell, and the low standard of journalism employed. As an ADHD support association co-ordinator for two decades, I have spoken to thousands of people, and know how much this style of journalism adds to their burden and stress.
My sons are now young men, of whom I am very proud, thanks to the fact that we managed (despite great difficulty) to get expert help with managing this condition when they were young. I can assure the author that the stigma that children with ADHD, and their families, have to suffer is immense, and greatly exacerbated by articles such as this.
Instead of consulting published statistics and appropriate experts on the subject, the author used a number of journalistic tricks to create the erroneous impression that ADHD is over-diagnosed and that medication is over-prescribed. The argument rests on interviews with unidentified people (“Allan”, “Jack”, “Donna” and “Dr K”). If these are real people with genuinely held beliefs, why were their names withheld? If the author really did come across a paediatrician who described some childen as “fucked in the head”, could we please have the name of this person so that he can be reported to the appropriate medical board?
Similarly we are asked to believe that a school (also unidentified) does its own diagnosis of the students, and then sends them to a compliant doctor (also unidentified), who accepts the school’s assessment and obliges with a prescription. The impression is given that this is a widespread practice, and that it results in over-diagnosis and unwarranted use of medication. Can we please have the name of the school that does this so that we can verify and follow-up this allegation as well?
The author describes two troubled youngsters (the failure to identify them is justified), then gives us her own view: “the rationale for medicating boys such as Aaron and Brian seems valid, but does the rationale extend to every fidgety, tantrum-throwing child?” Here Bell assumes what she set out to prove; that is, that children are being wrongly diagnosed on the basis of normal childhood behaviours.
For me, the saddest thing about this article is that it negates the professionalism of dedicated medical specialists, and of schools working with challenging children. Over the years, I have met many of these hardworking people, and know how mortified they would be at the picture Gail Bell paints of uncaring and incompetent doctors, and schools whose only concern is to make life easy for the teachers.
The final sentence summarises the author’s message: “Donna’s immediate quandary – should she wait or medicate? – may be decided for her, in the end, by the social strictures that squeeze a boy who can’t stay in his seat.”
My advice to “Donna” is to do what Gail Bell failed to do: read widely the authoritative information available on the topic, speak to a range of knowledgeable and experienced clinicians and, with the benefit of their advice, make the decision that is in the best interest of her child.
Geraldine Moore
Hampton, VIC
