ADHD - construct, 'disorder' or personality trait?

 

By now, numerous genetic aspects and neurobiological peculiarities are known that lead to the main manifestations of what can be subsumed under the term 'ADHD' (i.e. hyperactivity/impulsiveness, attention deficit related issues or the combination of both, and most likely a more or less constant increase in stress levels).

Voices which postulate that ADHD was 'only a construct' must be clearly disqualified here and taken offstage.

Nevertheless, one may question if individuals with an 'ADHD-personality' per se should be labelled 'disordered', or even 'suffering from a disease' (and thus, still being stigmatised). From what extent on, a peculiarity that may differ from 'the norm' might be considered to be pathogenic, depends on various variables.

Thus, psychological/medical classification schemes like the icd-10/11, or the DSM-IV/V, also can be considered to be mirroring the particular societal/political paradigms of the respective time at which they were published.

The conceptual distinction between ADHD and ADS, which can still be found in German-speaking countries, internationally is no longer used. They have been replaced by the 'subtypes' type hyperactivity/impulsiveness, attention-deficit associated type, and combined type respectively.


'Experts' are currently still in disagreement as to whether, in addition to the genetic predisposition, the 'becoming symptomatic' of the affected person is also, or to what extent, 'genetically predisposed' or whether, despite the existing 'genetic predisposition', this is primarily dependent on individual psychological/socialisation-related/systemic factors (see Faraone and Larsson, 2019).


Whether one wants to understand ADHD as a specialty deviating from the neurotypical norm, as a disorder or even as a disease, there should be agreement on one point: If a diagnosis of ADHD is accompanied by symptoms that imply a considerable degree of suffering for the person affected, the people affected must be helped.