Post by Amtram on Apr 19, 2014 9:17:54 GMT -5
I remember reading about this several years ago, with Russell Barkley making a case for it being separated out in the DSM from ADHD (at the time, he was proposing that Inattentive type was actually SCT) and it sounded fairly sensible. After all, the symptoms were different, and there weren't a lot of them in the Hyperactive or Impulsive list. Barkley's observations also included that stimulant medications that were effective for the HI or Combined types seemed to be ineffective for Inattentives, which indicated to him that it might be worthy of a distinct diagnosis. The Guardian has an article addressing the history and a nod to the view that it's a fake or controversial diagnosis.
The New York Times just published an article which, in a moderately subtle way, casts aspersions on the idea of SCT being a valid diagnosis. It focuses on funding for research coming from Eli Lilly (and Barkley receiving funding from them as well.) Definitely there are undertones of "are we overmedicating our kids?!?" Regardless of the relative merits of a critical article, I cringe when I see this being used as an argument. If we're medicating the kids who really need it, and we're giving them the medication that works, I really don't consider that overmedicating.
Psychology Today also weighs in, heavily on the side of "we're making up disorders so we can sell more drugs." Then again, it's Psychology Today. And the snarkiness of the piece does not make it seem more credible.
Psych Central has a much more balanced perspective, looking at the research that supports it, and being realistic about the amount of time, effort, and money that need to be invested in order to validate or disprove the existence of this diagnosis. They point out that this is not some newly hatched idea, but has been the subject of investigation for 30 years. Their "wait for more conclusive evidence, but it kinda looks promising so far" is the most pragmatic attitude expressed out of all the articles.
So what do YOU think?
The New York Times just published an article which, in a moderately subtle way, casts aspersions on the idea of SCT being a valid diagnosis. It focuses on funding for research coming from Eli Lilly (and Barkley receiving funding from them as well.) Definitely there are undertones of "are we overmedicating our kids?!?" Regardless of the relative merits of a critical article, I cringe when I see this being used as an argument. If we're medicating the kids who really need it, and we're giving them the medication that works, I really don't consider that overmedicating.
Psychology Today also weighs in, heavily on the side of "we're making up disorders so we can sell more drugs." Then again, it's Psychology Today. And the snarkiness of the piece does not make it seem more credible.
Psych Central has a much more balanced perspective, looking at the research that supports it, and being realistic about the amount of time, effort, and money that need to be invested in order to validate or disprove the existence of this diagnosis. They point out that this is not some newly hatched idea, but has been the subject of investigation for 30 years. Their "wait for more conclusive evidence, but it kinda looks promising so far" is the most pragmatic attitude expressed out of all the articles.
So what do YOU think?