This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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, 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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
Archived older content, check archives for some references Edward Bower 05:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
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
References correlating ADHD with neurological disorders
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)
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).
its a developmental disorder you guys have problems
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).
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.
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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).
This might help people put this whole debate into view: --
Ned Scott 20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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).
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).
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.
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).
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).
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).
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)
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).
"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)
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.
Nope, it's diagnosed by a doctor's judgement of a patient's behaviour. 208.181.100.29 16:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
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).
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 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". [3] 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..." [4]
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 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 [5], 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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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, 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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
Archived older content, check archives for some references Edward Bower 05:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
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
References correlating ADHD with neurological disorders
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)
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).
its a developmental disorder you guys have problems
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).
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.
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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).
This might help people put this whole debate into view: --
Ned Scott 20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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).
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).
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.
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).
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).
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).
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)
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).
"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)
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.
Nope, it's diagnosed by a doctor's judgement of a patient's behaviour. 208.181.100.29 16:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
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).
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 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". [3] 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..." [4]
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 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 [5], 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)