I too have ADHD and have faced people that argue it is over diagnosed, but to them I say who cares? Described in this article is was almost a life changing diagnosis for Mary's daughter who was literally having anxiety attacks about going to school because she was embarrassed she was different from other students. I was failing out of college before I was on medication and now I am at least passing. People don't understand what it is like, truly. Unless you have it, you don't know how much harder it is to study, to sit in a classroom and listen to a teacher talk but every time someone hits their pencil on a desk your distracted, and the worst part is when teachers and parents blame it as being lazy.
As stated in this article, the rebuttal would be that over diagnosis is possible. There are many symptoms to this that might just be a kid being an immature kid. It may be true that anyone could be ADHD. Perhaps this isn't a clear way of handling a child's behavior. I would say that many kids do need to be disciplined better at home and maybe they could sit still while sitting in a class room. Perhaps getting kids outside when they are home would help get rid of some of that energy, rather then letting them sit in front of a tv every night or play video games.
There is also the part about medicating children that I could see scaring many parents. But really what side effects have been shown to damage your kid from taking 15mgs of adderall each day for school? Nothing. Your not getting your child high. For a true child that has ADHD your doing absolutely nothing but giving your child a chance at succeeding in school. This medication isn't an advantage in my mind. It is the proper tool needed for a someone with this psychiatric disorder to keep up with every other normal child in school. To give them a chance at working hard, learning to study, staying focused and ultimately living normally.
6 comments:
Hello Erica,
I liked that you chose a piece that you were very familiar with, this always helps with this kind of writing. I would also agree with the rebuttal, because I have had plenty of friends say they have ADHD who definitely don't, but they are just trying to get their hands on some adderall. I would also suggest maybe saying where this article was published.
Hello Ms. Erica,
Great topic, I like the fact that you brought up how people are so quick to persecute ones choices or how they may be ignorant to something that they don't personally experience. They are merely judging blindly, for their knowledge is limited and is based on what the media or books may present. I'm pretty sure it's different if its something you experience first hand.
Hello Erica,
I can definitely feel that you have a strong opinion about this topic of ADHD. I agree with you in that I too think most people do not take in the serious consideration of what it truly means to have ADHD; most do, like you said, just think it is laziness. Life would be so much simpler if it was black and white, but it is not, and so many children fall between the cracks. I cannot say that medication is simply the answer, but it would not hurt if all children were better disciplined at home!
Erica,
Make sure you avoid writing in 2nd person (using "you"). Typically, we don't speak directly to readers. Opinion writing doesn't require the formality of other genres, but using 2nd person effectively is difficult, and using it well requires very specific motive. Stick to 1st and 3rd person.
You write, "Mary is explicit about her view on the diagnosis of ADHD as she has changed her thinking from a critic of the disease to a believer." Good. Does she have a thesis she states explicitly, then? The example you use below, "They aren’t magic, but they’re another tool in her arsenal", appears to be a possible thesis, but you don't quite clarify whether this is simply one of her points or the piece's overarching claim.
You also write, "As stated in this article, the rebuttal would be that over diagnosis is possible. I think you mean "concession" here - if her argument supports identifying/diagnosing ADHA, or that it exists in more cases than we might imagine, then she's CONCEDING a point to the "other side" by saying, "hey, it's possible that people who don't truly have ADHD are diagnosed with it. So you've got the idea down; you just have the terms mixed up.
She offers several concessions early on: “I’d love to pretend I was never judgmental about behavioral issues before our experience, but it’s not true. I’d more than once asserted that “some” kids just needed more firmly delineated lines, and I’d smugly assumed I’d never resort to “drugging” my own children.” These lead to the beginning of a rebuttal: “But the remarkable, wonderful thing about parenting is how often it flicks you off your pedestal.”
These first concessions are defined to root out and reassure a portion of an audience that’s either on the fence or actively believes ADHA isn’t real/common. She’s also trying a common tactic for getting an audience’s empathy: owning up to incorrect thinking and smug behavior, saying she was, effectively, wrong.
Concession and rebuttal more pertinent to the author’s main claim:
Concession: “I am deeply empathetic with societal reluctance to medicate children. In fact, the idea initially terrified me.
Rebuttal: “For us, though, there simply came a point where it seemed selfish not to try the drugs.”
I hope this helps a bit. You seem really passionate about the topic, and that always helps!
Erica,
Make sure you avoid writing in 2nd person (using "you"). Typically, we don't speak directly to readers. Opinion writing doesn't require the formality of other genres, but using 2nd person effectively is difficult, and using it well requires very specific motive. Stick to 1st and 3rd person.
You write, "Mary is explicit about her view on the diagnosis of ADHD as she has changed her thinking from a critic of the disease to a believer." Good. Does she have a thesis she states explicitly, then? The example you use below, "They aren’t magic, but they’re another tool in her arsenal", appears to be a possible thesis, but you don't quite clarify whether this is simply one of her points or the piece's overarching claim.
You also write, "As stated in this article, the rebuttal would be that over diagnosis is possible. I think you mean "concession" here - if her argument supports identifying/diagnosing ADHA, or that it exists in more cases than we might imagine, then she's CONCEDING a point to the "other side" by saying, "hey, it's possible that people who don't truly have ADHD are diagnosed with it. So you've got the idea down; you just have the terms mixed up.
She offers several concessions early on: “I’d love to pretend I was never judgmental about behavioral issues before our experience, but it’s not true. I’d more than once asserted that “some” kids just needed more firmly delineated lines, and I’d smugly assumed I’d never resort to “drugging” my own children.” These lead to the beginning of a rebuttal: “But the remarkable, wonderful thing about parenting is how often it flicks you off your pedestal.”
These first concessions are defined to root out and reassure a portion of an audience that’s either on the fence or actively believes ADHA isn’t real/common. She’s also trying a common tactic for getting an audience’s empathy: owning up to incorrect thinking and smug behavior, saying she was, effectively, wrong.
Concession and rebuttal more pertinent to the author’s main claim:
Concession: “I am deeply empathetic with societal reluctance to medicate children. In fact, the idea initially terrified me.
Rebuttal: “For us, though, there simply came a point where it seemed selfish not to try the drugs.”
I hope this helps a bit. You seem really passionate about the topic, and that always helps!
Post a Comment