Adult ADHD

Suggest you get a book or two on the subject.

e.g. amazon.co.uk and search for 'adult adhd' in books. Loads of them!

Baltrux wrote: »

I suppose my biggest issues are motivation and procrastination, I have been told that "driven to distraction" is one of the best books to learn about it. Does anyone have any experience with the ADHD coaches?

What does ADHD tell us about motivation and procrastination?

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I was convinced I had adult ADHD as I am so fidgety, can't keep concentration and tend to never shut up when I really should. I went to a doctor and she just said it's normal and I shouldn't be looking for excuses for bad behaviour and to cop on more or less

What did you make of the doctor's opinion in this instance, oppenheimer? I'm just curious as another poster took offense to a similar statement by his own GP in a now locked thread.

Dave47 wrote: »

Say you're depressed as well if that what it takes to get a referral- just look up the textbook symptoms of each- quite simple really

This is quite a profound observation really; one that we all intuitively recognise but fail to appreciate out of deference to the faddish notion that 'mental illnesses are just like physical illnesses'. Objectively and scientifically speaking there is no difference whatsoever between the person in your example above and somebody who is genuinely depressed; this is because our main method of diagnosing mental illnesses is simply accepting what we are told. I am depressed. I hear voices. I have high moods, then low moods. A highly trained psychiatrist or psychologist has no grounds to definitively contradict how a person says they feel; similarly they have no grounds to say this person is genuinely 'sick' either, unless we render the concept of disease so flexible as to be almost meaningless.

Of course your example points to the obvious fact that the mental health system can be thoroughly abused to gain access to drugs or welfare if a person so desires but you would wonder then whether the whole system is in fact encouraging the very syndromes it is supposed to eradicate. I suppose that is a separate argument.

huberto wrote: »

Due for publication in March: "ADHD Does Not Exist", by Richard Saul. Previewed in the Times recently, and seems interesting.

Without having read the book, I'm wondering how he is going to approach the subject. It is very difficult to criticise a mental illness (or the concept in general) without coming across as simply denying someone's problems, feelings or distress.

I would say the behaviours, attitudes, and thoughts which characterise what we call ADHD very much exist but that ADHD as a discrete illness like cancer or diabetes does not exist.

*EDIT* From reading his synopsis this seems to be part of Saul's argument! I think I will definitely buy his book.

Valmont wrote: »

Without having read the book, I'm wondering how he is going to approach the subject. It is very difficult to criticise a mental illness (or the concept in general) without coming across as simply denying someone's problems, feelings or distress.

I would say the behaviours, attitudes, and thoughts which characterise what we call ADHD very much exist but that ADHD as a discrete illness like cancer or diabetes does not exist.

*EDIT* From reading his synopsis this seems to be part of Saul's argument! I think I will definitely buy his book.

If ADHD was not a discrete illness patients would respond FAR less effectively to medication- also fwiw the medication is quite similar to that used to treat illnesses such as psychosis, schizophrenia and alzeimers- dopamine uptake issues are associated with each one of those illnesses.

Also this guy is similar to the climate change deniers- cite a whole bunch of anecdotes and crude records for a laissez-faire argument and you're bound to make some press- serious lack of scientific literature for his claim.

Okay Valmont I should have clarified that the hypothetical basis for ADHD has similarities to the aforementioned disorders/illnesses (I was beginning argument with viewpoint that it exists- my bad)- I absolutely agree that there is not a proven biological basis to the disorder however since certain items such as people having an indicated genetic pre-disposition towards the disorder plus the response to medication (ADHD sufferers seem to respond differently based on what I've read- again not conclusive proof- to my knowledge not many studies supporting either contention- I do know of instances where amphetamines were used on a general group however any ADHD sufferers were not divulged or discussed). As for conclusive evidence of its physical cause obviously that has not been found- there are however numerous indications of it being a biological disease

Where I would probably have agreement with you is ADHD is definitely over-diagnosed in children especially- 70% of children in the US have had their symptoms disappear by adulthood which is obviously indicative of a large degree of misdiagnosis.

I read reviews and a synopsis of the book- he does cite anecdotes to uphold his argument- which might make for a nice read but do not hold up to scientific scrutiny at all - not saying it's a bad book, just saying these kind of left-field works are done all the time- guaranteed a few sales also

edit: as regards stimulant experiments I do know one involving modafinil (prescribed for ADHA sometimes as provigil) in relation to memory- improvements in subjects who had average memory was quite minimal- people with poorer memory responded better- people with impaired dopamine uptake in the pre-frontal cortex respond to stimulants in a different way imo :P

bananatoast wrote: »

I don't feel meds would help but a label would

Wouldn't a label just excuse the problems you are experiencing right now rather than help you to fix them? I mean this in the sense that the labeling effect associated with mental illness is generally considered to be a bad thing. Thomas Scheff's book 'Being Mentally Ill' explores this idea in great detail, perhaps it would interest you.

bananatoast wrote: »

I'm not looking for an excuse for my problems, definitly not. I am looking for a way to explain certian behaviours that have been a part of me since day one that I find hard to explain to others.

Often in employment I would have to work in different ways than others to learn and progress and while I have always got the job done and well I feel being able to explain myself with this particular label would help me express certain difficulties I have and then explain the things I do to overcome them.

Its about opening a dialogue. One where everyone speaks the same language.

Ok I see where you are coming from but I think this is where the stigma and discrimination come into play. The bottom line of explaining an individual in terms of any particular mental illness is that one is admitting that they sometimes have no control over what they do, say, or feel. The theory is that mental illnesses are brain diseases which compel people to experience what we call ADD or schizophrenia. If one openly presents as bipolar or ODD people will assume correctly (if they follow mainstream interpretations of mental illness) that this person in front of me is not in full control of his person, and he may act or experience thoughts over which he has no control. That people are afraid and/or discriminate against the mentally ill on these grounds is, unfortunately, perfectly rational.

I also sometimes wonder whether labels entrench the behaviour they are supposed to help people overcome. As behaviour is often reflexive and habitual it stands to reason that people will sometimes acquire behaviour that causes distress to themselves or others and which will be very difficult for them to overcome. Taking the necessary steps to rub out a bad habit or to slowly alter one's cognition in a positive direction must involve an active recognition of responsibility and individuality; indeed, many of the most successful psychotherapies involve such a process in one way or the other. However, to the extent that one explains certain features of themselves in terms of a putative brain disorder, they absolve themselves of responsibility for that behaviour. It could be responsibility for letting certain actions become engrained habits or it could be responsibility for taking active steps to change and to overcome certain behavioural obstacles. The responsibility is absolved because the 'disease' is now responsible and we can't really blame someone for catching a cold. The problem, as I see it then, is that 'recovering' from a mental illness involves taking absolute responsibility for all of one's actions and seeking help accordingly but the idea of mental illness itself presumes a negation of responsibility. Cutting one's ego off to spite the ID we could say.

I think an example could help clarify my point. Some time ago BBC Radio 4 had Professor Bryan Lask on to discuss anorexia nervosa; specifcally the case of Melanie Spooner, the young doctor who died from heart failure after losing a serious amount of weight from refusing to eat. Bryan Lask adamantly propounds the conventional, stock-and-trade, professional belief about mental illness which I'm sure you've heard before:

Bryan Lask's interview wrote:

And one of the myths that still persists is that people with anorexia choose to go on a diet, choose to remain the way they are, choose to have all these features and that’s just as nonsensical as saying someone with pneumonia chooses to have a fever, to be short of breath, to cough and to be in pain when they breathe - none of that’s a choice and none of what happens in anorexia is a choice. So trying to convince someone with anorexia that they are thin not fat, that they should eat, all those things, it doesn’t work because it’s like trying to tell someone with pneumonia don’t cough, don’t have a fever. Their illness is a very manipulative and controlling illness but they are not manipulative or controlling.

Now for a shocking contradiction which to me typifies any discussion on mental health:

Bryan Lask wrote:

One of the most important types of therapy is motivational therapy, where we work on the patients’ motivation to help them to gradually reverse the balance - the balance is so much in favour of the illness, the pros of the illness, and we try and help them work towards the cons outweighing the pros rather than pros outweighing the cons.

Professor Lask is advocating that patients need to draw up a list of pros and cons and choose to eat or to change, something which he said was impossible in his previous breath. He is saying that with the help of a therapist, people with anorexia need to convince themselves that eating is better than not eating. Indeed, motivationally therapy is all about affirming an individual's ability to choose. Further, by referring to the list of pros and cons, Lask is tacitly admitting that his patients are choosing not to eat. He is saying they have a list of pros and cons and for the moment the pros to not eating outweigh the cons. It is the therapist's job to simply try and change the patient's mind!

Lask, and in fact most mental health practitioners, tell us that one can't choose to engage in certain behaviours which are in fact caused by psychiatric illnesses, but they can choose not to. It cannot be both ways. We are told that negatively valued behaviours are not within the realm of individual responsibility (not eating) but positively valued behaviours (eating) are. This approach simply dehumanises the very people it is supposed to help. Listen to what Robert Spooner, Melanie's father, had to say on the same radio show:

Robert Spooner wrote:

And she didn’t believe in herself totally and she also felt pressured by the university itself. There was one of her supervisors told her she wouldn’t pass and that was the year that she came first. And that was a bit of a nail in a bit of a coffin for Mel because her driven person was even more driven. And part of the dealing with it was self-denial of food, this was where she could - there was a buzz from not eating and she was away from home.

I suppose I just wanted to bring up the existential entanglments involved in a label of mental illness. Responsibility, individuality, absolution, are all tied up in how we explain the way we are. Good luck!

banana imo ur right on the money and best of luck with going in for a diagnosis- the experience is a scary one perhaps but will wind up being not all that bad at all

Yes labels are an artificial, somewhat crude construct wrt to mental illnesses however adhd is treatable hence seeking a diagnosis for it is imo a pretty good idea. While the meds require a large degree of improvement there are some exciting developments in the field and in obtaining prescriptions for these will require a label.

bananatoast wrote: »

Dave47 thanks so much for your clear and helpful advice. I really appreciate it

yeah i u got anything else ask away

was prescribed medication there the other week so hopefully it'll help a bit.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

It's cultural. The general psychiatric consensus in Ireland is that anyone who is presenting claiming adult add, is weedling for a speed prescription, with the purpose of partying.

slowburner wrote: »

Evidence please.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

In the US, adult ADD has exploded, and largely because of young people weedling for legal speed. .... College students use their prescriptions for partying.

slowburner wrote: »

Evidence please.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

If someone is periodically experiencing hyped up agitated states, and at other periods experiencing depression, that would most likely be bi-polar depression than ADD. Bi-polar is much more difficult to manage than mono-polar depression.

What's that got to do with anything?


(Labarbapostiza - everytime you make a statement that you claim is a fact, you have to be able to back it up. That's what the request for evidence is asking.)