Bit difficult to respond to youor mini-polemic without completely highjacking the thread so sorry to original poster but I felt I needed to respond.
I do think you have made a mistake in reading a two paragraph response on a forum and then make a whole load of implicit assumptions about my intention and beliefs.
My points were made as points to 'consider' , I think I used that word so please, consider them, don't assume you know me from two paragraphs of quickly written prose.
Also, it seems odd to criticique me as not answering the poster's question and then create 3 pages + all about my post and not about theirs.
The existence of labels for experiences IS driven precisely by a medical model of experience that pathologises certain collections of experiences.
This is what Psychiatric diagnosis do, it is their job, it is not a conspiracy theory it is a just a description of what the process is. If you learn about how the DSM was developed you will find that Psychiatry deliberately made the process a process of getting collections of 'symptoms' and applying labels to them. It is quite explicit about this, it was a deliberate exercise in removing causation and context out of the picture and focussing purely on collections of experiences that would be deemed abnormal.
Drug companies need profits to fund drug research, that is a fact of life. The problem is that this means that treatments that have no commercial value e.g. Tui Na, do not get the benefit of this kind of research because it doesn't make business sense and so the research evidence base over time naturally becomes dominated by studies in favour of commercially viable treatments. The extension of this is that now the identification of new 'disorders' then provides the opportunity for the development of drugs to treat those disorders and so research that identifies disorders has commercial value so is more likely to be funded, it is not rocket science to see this happening. Whether you view it as scientifically flawed or go further and view it as sinister a matter for opinion but it is easy to see this happening and it is easy to find many many examples fo Drug companies suppressing data and negative trials to support their drugs.
I don't really understand why you have got so upset about what I said, it is just descriptive of what has happened.
I'm afraid I don't think it is insulting to parents to address their part in the picture. What is insulting is to presume that they are not adult enough to look at their part in things. yes it might be upsetting for them to find ways in which they could have been 'better' but who is perfect? It is normal not to be perfect and to make mistakes, should we pussy foot around the issues that might help a child simply because it might prove challenging for parents? For me that is what being a skilled practitioner is, helping people past their feelings fo failure into new areas of growth and development. I don't feel avoiding thorny issues does that.
Should we be 'glad' these drugs exist. They have effects in some situations and of course sometimes that effect is what people want but what is the effect? Is it a cure, or is it just that the child stops showing the behaviours everyone finds so difficult because their brain has been altered. It is commonly commented that Children on Ritalin seem like they are not quite there, that tells you something about their experience.
it changes the behaviour of some kids in some situations but if you get rid of the 'problem' behaviours you get rid of the very sign that is driving people to help the child and so that is seen as a 'cure'. What else does it take away? It is a dampener on a childs experience of life.
And what effect does the stigma of being labelled as 'ill' 'with ADD' have on the child in the long term, how do they feel.
I think this URL while a funny joke sums up the problem:
My opinions are a combination of my own observations but also in large part from listening to the experiences of my wife who is a very experienced child clinical psychologist and who works exclusively with severly traumatised children in care. I discussed the stridence and content of your reponse with her and she said, "yes people really don't like it if you challenge the medical model. I don't really understand why they find it so troubling when it is obviously so flawed."
I don't either and your response has left me perplexed and disappointed in a number of ways, not least that I found it on a forum for practitioners of more rounded healing arts where I would have hoped for a more open minded response.