The Hastings Center, Garrison, New York 10524, USA.
Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2009 Jan 19;3(1):1. doi: 10.1186/1753-2000-3-1.
The Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute, is holding a series of 5 workshops to examine the controversies surrounding the use of medication to treat emotional and behavioral disturbances in children. These workshops bring together clinicians, researchers, scholars, and advocates with diverse perspectives and from diverse fields. Our first commentary in CAPMH, which grew out of our first workshop, explained our method and explored the controversies in general. This commentary, which grows out of our second workshop, explains why informed people can disagree about ADHD diagnosis and treatment. Based on what workshop participants said and our understanding of the literature, we make 8 points. (1) The ADHD label is based on the interpretation of a heterogeneous set of symptoms that cause impairment. (2) Because symptoms and impairments are dimensional, there is an inevitable "zone of ambiguity," which reasonable people will interpret differently. (3) Many other variables, from different systems and tools of diagnosis to different parenting styles and expectations, also help explain why behaviors associated with ADHD can be interpreted differently. (4) Because people hold competing views about the proper goals of psychiatry and parenting, some people will be more, and others less, concerned about treating children in the zone of ambiguity. (5) To recognize that nature has written no bright line between impaired and unimpaired children, and that it is the responsibility of humans to choose who should receive a diagnosis, does not diminish the significance of ADHD. (6) Once ADHD is diagnosed, the facts surrounding the most effective treatment are complicated and incomplete; contrary to some popular wisdom, behavioral treatments, alone or in combination with low doses of medication, can be effective in the long-term reduction of core ADHD symptoms and at improving many aspects of overall functioning. (7) Especially when a child occupies the zone of ambiguity, different people will emphasize different values embedded in the pharmacological and behavioral approaches. (8) Truly informed decision-making requires that parents (and to the extent they are able, children) have some sense of the complicated and incomplete facts regarding the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD.
Hastings 中心是一家专注于生物伦理学研究的机构,正在举办一系列 5 个研讨会,旨在探讨围绕使用药物治疗儿童情绪和行为障碍的争议。这些研讨会汇聚了来自不同领域和视角的临床医生、研究人员、学者和倡导者。我们在 CAPMH 上发表的第一篇评论文章就是基于我们的第一个研讨会产生的,它解释了我们的方法并探讨了一般的争议。这篇评论文章则是基于我们的第二个研讨会产生的,它解释了为什么知情的人会对 ADHD 的诊断和治疗存在分歧。基于研讨会参与者的发言和我们对文献的理解,我们提出了 8 点观点。(1)ADHD 的标签是基于对一组导致障碍的异质症状的解释。(2)由于症状和障碍是维度的,因此存在不可避免的“模糊地带”,合理的人会对此有不同的解读。(3)许多其他变量,从不同的诊断系统和工具到不同的育儿方式和期望,也有助于解释为什么与 ADHD 相关的行为会有不同的解释。(4)由于人们对精神病学和育儿的适当目标持有相互竞争的观点,因此有些人会更关注,而另一些人则不太关注在模糊地带的孩子。(5)认识到大自然并没有在受损和未受损的儿童之间划清界限,并且选择谁应该接受诊断是人类的责任,这并不会降低 ADHD 的重要性。(6)一旦 ADHD 被诊断出来,最有效治疗方法的相关事实就变得复杂和不完整;与一些流行的观点相反,行为治疗,单独或与低剂量药物联合使用,在长期减少 ADHD 的核心症状和改善整体功能的许多方面都可以有效。(7)特别是当一个孩子处于模糊地带时,不同的人会强调药物和行为方法中所包含的不同价值观。(8)真正的知情决策需要父母(并且在他们能够的情况下,包括孩子)对 ADHD 的诊断和治疗的复杂和不完整的事实有一定的了解。