The Right to Dignity or Disorder? The Case for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Diversity

Kate Carr‐Fanning
{"title":"The Right to Dignity or Disorder? The Case for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Diversity","authors":"Kate Carr‐Fanning","doi":"10.18193/sah.v6i1.192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Different medically based constructions of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have been around since ‘mental restlessness’ in 1798, evolved through the 20th century with ‘minimal brain dysfunction’ and distinctions between Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and ADHD (DSM-III), to current presentations of ADHD (DSM5). As new insights and knowledge have become available, the meaning and labels attached to ADHD have changed, and so they are malleable. This piece will explore two different labels (or frameworks for meaning) for the cluster of behaviours and difficulties associated with the phenomenon known as ADHD; that is, the disorder label and the diversity label. These labels will be explored in terms of accuracy and consequences, particularly their impact on human dignity. Problems inherent in the disorder label will be critically considered, particularly how accurate it is given that psychobiological differences should not be viewed as disorder, may not ‘cause’ functional deficits, and may be understood as strengths. These problems call the disorder label into question, and suggest that ADHD-type behaviours could be understood as traits. This piece will also call into question taken-for-granted social structures that could contribute to or be responsible for the difficulties associated with ADHD, in particular, the stigmatisation of the ADHD label and socio-cultural norms and expectations around ADHD-type behaviours. An alternative diversity label, the neurodiversity framework (or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Diversity) will be explored, in terms of whether it applies to ADHD and the opportunities it offers for empowerment of people and the protection of their fundamental human dignity. In essence, this piece is a socio-political debate about identity; about the labels that can inadvertently harm human dignity and prevent other human rights. It is also about people’s right to choice and autonomy in their identity and ways of being in this world. These are human rights issues, because identity is about one’s inherent worth and dignity, and human dignity is the basis","PeriodicalId":31069,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Arts and Humanities","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Arts and Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18193/sah.v6i1.192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Different medically based constructions of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have been around since ‘mental restlessness’ in 1798, evolved through the 20th century with ‘minimal brain dysfunction’ and distinctions between Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and ADHD (DSM-III), to current presentations of ADHD (DSM5). As new insights and knowledge have become available, the meaning and labels attached to ADHD have changed, and so they are malleable. This piece will explore two different labels (or frameworks for meaning) for the cluster of behaviours and difficulties associated with the phenomenon known as ADHD; that is, the disorder label and the diversity label. These labels will be explored in terms of accuracy and consequences, particularly their impact on human dignity. Problems inherent in the disorder label will be critically considered, particularly how accurate it is given that psychobiological differences should not be viewed as disorder, may not ‘cause’ functional deficits, and may be understood as strengths. These problems call the disorder label into question, and suggest that ADHD-type behaviours could be understood as traits. This piece will also call into question taken-for-granted social structures that could contribute to or be responsible for the difficulties associated with ADHD, in particular, the stigmatisation of the ADHD label and socio-cultural norms and expectations around ADHD-type behaviours. An alternative diversity label, the neurodiversity framework (or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Diversity) will be explored, in terms of whether it applies to ADHD and the opportunities it offers for empowerment of people and the protection of their fundamental human dignity. In essence, this piece is a socio-political debate about identity; about the labels that can inadvertently harm human dignity and prevent other human rights. It is also about people’s right to choice and autonomy in their identity and ways of being in this world. These are human rights issues, because identity is about one’s inherent worth and dignity, and human dignity is the basis
尊严权还是失序权?注意缺陷多动多样性的案例
注意缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)的不同医学基础结构自1798年“精神不安”以来一直存在,在20世纪发展到“最小脑功能障碍”和注意缺陷多动障碍(ADD)和注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD) (DSM-III)之间的区别,到目前的表现(DSM5)。随着新的见解和知识的出现,ADHD的含义和标签也发生了变化,因此它们是可塑的。这篇文章将探讨与ADHD现象相关的行为和困难的两种不同的标签(或意义框架);即无序标签和多样性标签。这些标签将在准确性和后果方面进行探讨,特别是它们对人类尊严的影响。障碍标签中固有的问题将被批判性地考虑,特别是心理生物学差异不应该被视为障碍,可能不会“导致”功能缺陷,并且可能被理解为优势。这些问题对“障碍”这个标签提出了质疑,并表明adhd类型的行为可以被理解为特征。这篇文章还将对可能导致ADHD相关困难的想当然的社会结构提出质疑,特别是对ADHD标签的污名化以及对ADHD类型行为的社会文化规范和期望。将探讨另一种多样性标签,即神经多样性框架(或注意缺陷多动多样性),以确定它是否适用于多动症,以及它为赋予人们权力和保护他们的基本人类尊严提供的机会。从本质上讲,这是一场关于身份的社会政治辩论;关于那些可能在不经意间损害人的尊严和阻止其他人权的标签。这也关系到人们对自己的身份和在这个世界上的存在方式的选择和自主权。这些都是人权问题,因为身份关系到一个人的内在价值和尊严,而人的尊严是其基础
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信