Living with Children: Do kids ‘have’ ADHD or autism? |
More Lifestyles

Living with Children: Do kids ‘have’ ADHD or autism?

I am perennially asked whether I do or do not “believe” in autism. I suspect that on most occasions, it’s a test.

Nonetheless, it’s a fair question that usually takes this form: “I know you don’t believe in ADHD; but do you believe in autism?”

To be clear, it would be absurd of me to deny that there are children — plenty of them, relatively speaking — who frequently exhibit behaviors associated with the bogus diagnosis of ADHD (attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder). Those kids are problematic, for sure. But no one has ever proven that they “have” something.

Childhood behavior disorders like ADHD are constructs; they are not realities. Leukemia and nearsightedness are realities.

The spurious claim that these kids “have” something — biochemical imbalances being the number one “have” — is used to sell various therapies, including drugs that have yet to reliably outperform placebos and involve the very real possibility of dangerous side effects.

But ADHD and classical autism are horses of different colors. I have no way of proving it, but I am convinced that autism in its classical form is a very real, “have” thing, albeit researchers have yet to discover the nature of its reality.

They are handicapped in doing so by the fact that autism is classified as a psychiatric/psychological disorder. What, pray tell, is psychological about a two-month-old baby who doesn’t want to be held, doesn’t smile and seems pained by eye contact? What unresolved issue is at work here?

The answers to those questions are “nothing” and “none.”

The symptoms of classical autism appear much too early and much too randomly to think of it as anything but a yet-undiscovered physiological malfunction of one sort or another. Taking it out of the realm of psychology/psychiatry — that is, removing it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — would be a boon to research, as well as a boon to the kids in question and their anguished parents.

The roadblock to that has much to do with the fact that autism is producing a significant income stream for lots of mental health professionals. And yes, I proudly admit to cynicism.

The further problem is that one can’t talk in general terms about autism without consideration of the so-called “spectrum” that includes, most prominently, something called Asperger’s Syndrome. I say “something” because this Asperger’s something is about as ill-defined as something can be.

The common denominator among kids who are hung with this label or are said to be “on the spectrum” seems to be “odd” and/or “quirky.” Personally, I think children should have the right to be at least slightly odd and quirky.

Without exception of which I’m aware, once a mental health diagnosis begins to gain traction — that is, it begins to sell — the mental health professions begins expanding it — explicitly or implicitly — such that it captures more and more people (i.e., paying clients) over time; thus things have gone with “the spectrum” and Asperger’s.

I don’t deny that some kids who are said to have Asperger’s may need help. Equally likely, their parents need help managing and disciplining them. The many anecdotes I’ve been told strongly suggest that most of the somewhat odd kids in question, however, grow out of it, whatever “it” is.

My long-time readers know that with some conservatively defined exceptions, I’m not in favor of allowing children into rooms with therapists (and I’m a licensed therapist). Labels, which therapists have a bad habit of dispensing, tend to stick.

For me to believe in Asperger’s (hypothetically) is one thing; for a child to believe he “has” it is quite another thing.

Visit family psychologist John Rosemond’s website; readers may send him email; because of the volume of mail, not every question will be answered.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.