New ADD Guidelines Helpful But Not
Enough
By Dr. Gabor Maté
The guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics this week
for the diagnosis of attention deficit disorder are timely--and, unfortunately,
inadequate.
Throughout North America the number of prescriptions for the
stimulant medications used to treat ADD has greatly increased in the last decade,
with Canadian statistics showing a five-fold growth between 1990 to 1997. Many of these
prescriptions are for children, some quite young, whose inconsistent attention skills,
poor impulse control, deficient emotional self-regulation and, in many cases,
physical hyperactivity interefere with their ability to study and to learn, and to
get along with peers. All too often they become the objects of shaming and punitive
control from the adult world, a propensity shockingly illustrated recently when a teacher
in Port Hardy, British Columbia, taped a hyperactive boy's head to his desk in an effort
to settle his restlessness.
The recent recommendations reaffirm the need for a careful and
thorough approach to diagnosis on the part of physicians, but they fail to address the
most fundamental and dangerous flaw in the current treatment of attention deficit
disorder: the heavy reliance on medications once the diagnosis is made.
Most of the time a child is found to have ADD, stimulant medications become not only the
first treatment, but the only treatment.
The psychological and emotional factors in the environment that
may exacerbate the child's symptoms are widely ignored. At best parents and teachers
are advised self-defeating behavioral techniques of punishment or reward which are almost
guaranteed to make matters worse for the child and for his relationship with his
caregivers.
The narrow view of ADD as a biological
"disease" is an example, among many others, of how problems of society and of
human development can become defined as medical ailments. A child's (or an adult's) brain
physiology cannot be reduced to a simple matter of genetics-driven biological
mechanisms. As the neurologist and neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has written,
"much of each brain's circuitry, at any given moment in adult life, is individual and
unique, truly reflective of that organism's history and circumstances." This is
no less true of children and adolescents. The genetic potential of the brain unfolds under
the influence of the environment. The chemistry and wiring of the brain circuits that
malfunction in ADD are deeply affected in their development by the emotional milieau
surrounding the infant. Their ability to regulate attention, emotion, and behavior remains
highly vulnerable throughout childhood to both positive and negative inputs. If we
want to understand why so many children are now being diagnosed with attention deficit
disorder and related neuropsychological conditons, we need only look at the stresses
current social and cultural trends have inflicted on the family. For the first time
in history children are brought up on a mass scale without the supporting nexus of a
stable community, of a multigenerational extended family, or, in these days of high
divorce rates, of even two parents in the same home. The issue is not bad parenting,
which is what mothers and fathers of ADD children are often accused of: it is
stressed parenting, parenting under circumstances in which the calm, attuned
parent-child interactions which some important brain circuits require for their
development are becoming alarmingly difficult to maintain.
How poorly today's North American way of life serves the needs of the
human body may be gauged by the high levels of, say, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity
on this continent. The situation of the human brain is analogous. the miswired
ADD circuits of the brain's gray matter are as much the effect of unhealthful social
circumstances as are the cholesterol-plugged arteries of coronary disease.
If we see that ADD is a problem of suboptimal brain development
rather than of disease, it makes sense to place the emphasis on promoting development. The
scientific evidence is that the particular part of the brain most involved in ADD happens
also to be the part that appears to be most capable of positive changes even into
adulthood. One cannot, thefore, address only the immediate physiological
malfunctions--which is all that medications can do. Even when they work without
causing side effects, drugs can mask deep emotional wounds and lead everyone to believe
that the child's "illness" is now under control. When the drugs stop, so
does the improvement. The child has not developed new coping skills, has not been
helped to grow emotionally, and his relationship with the important adults in his life may
remain just as precarious.
Medications do have their place: as an adult diagnosed with
ADD, I take one myself. As a physician, I prescribe them to both children and
adults. But the question we all need to be asking ourselves: as parents, as educators, as
doctors, as political leaders, and as members of society is not simply how we can
control troublesome symptoms, but how we can provide our children with the kind of
nurturing environment--in the home, in the schools, in the culture-- in which healthy
development and healing can take place. The guidelines issued by the Academy of Pediatrics
would make it seem as if this question did not exist at all, as if drugs were the sole
answer to the ADD dilemma.

[home] |