Is The Diagnosis of A.D.H.D Helping or Hurting Children?

I ran across a “Room for Debate” article, “Is the A.DH.D. Diagnosis Helping or Hurting Kids,” arguing whether or not the A.D.H.D diagnosis is actually helping or hurting kids. A.D.H.D. is a chronic condition that includes attention difficulties, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. There has been an increase in children diagnosed with A.D.H.D in recent years. People argue that we are misdiagnosing children because they can be too hard to handle or that we are helping them from struggling later on in life. Dimitri Christakis, author of “The Diagnosis Does a Disservice to Children,” claims that diagnosis is tricky because attentional capacity exists on a spectrum, not from a list of behaviors that many children tend to have. The diagnostic tests are typically biased due to the fact that usually parents and teachers are the ones to assess the child rather than a doctor. Christakis believes that researchers should be aiming to find the best ways to maximize childrens’ ability to focus rather than treating A.D.H.D as a disease. Tanya E. Froehlich, writer of “Diagnosis Is Key to Helping Kids with A.D.H.D,” on the other hand, states that scientific evidence reveals the consequences of having A.D.H.D., such as impaired neurological connectivity and delayed maturation. She believes that children shouldn’t be diagnosed until a doctor can verify that their symptoms have been present throughout their childhood to their current age, but demonizing A.D.H.D can have terrible effects in a child’s life because we would then be denying them access to vital services. Access to medication treatment has been linked to reduced rates of substance abuse, delinquency, incarcerations, injury, and improved academic scores. Is the A.D.H.D diagnosis helping or hurting children? Are they being misdiagnosed just for being an active child? Should there be a standard diagnostic test or should the test be individualized?