Off the Map

I just read the opening of an article on a correlation between pesticides and attention deficit hyperactive disorder.

The article opens in this way:

‘

New research suggests that exposure to high levels of organophosphate pesticides, commonly found on berries, celery and other produce, could raise the odds for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children.

At this point, though, there is no evidence that pesticide exposure can actually cause ADHD, stated the authors of a paper appearing in the June issue of Pediatrics.

In my opinion, a general semantics treatment of this passage needs to be made. A general semantics treatment would note a few factors:

1. There is no definitive test leading to the diagnosis of ADHD (as far as I know). The diagnosis of ADHD hinges on human interpretation of observable behavior (including any brain studies).
2. The interpretation is arrived at by a process. We might call this process the diagnostic process. There is no mention of that process in the opening of the article.
3. Since there is no mention of that process, and since there is no definitive test leading to a diagnosis of ADHD, it is improper to say that someone has or is ADHD, and it is proper to note that someone has been diagnosed as or is diagnosed as ADHD.

Here is how I would reword the opening of the article in light of my general semantics treatment.

‘

New research suggests that exposure to high levels of organophosphate pesticides, commonly found on berries, celery and other produce, could raise the odds for being diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children.

At this point, though, there is no evidence that pesticide exposure can actually cause a diagnosis of ADHD, stated the authors of a paper appearing in the June issue of Pediatrics.

Granted, this wording is slightly improper in that the opening reports the findings of the authors of a paper, not the opinion of the reporter. But here’s what major difference you should note:

When studying mental illness, it may be more important to study the practitioners who make the diagnosis than the people who have been diagnosed. That is, there may be more interesting findings in the motivations that lead a practitioner toward diagnosis than in the conditions the practitioner apparently “finds.” There may be outside factors that lead a practitioner to a diagnosis. Organophosphate pesticides, maybe? 🙂

This means that people who are diagnosed as “ill” may not actually be so (since there may be no definitive test), and the “illness” may actually be in the perception of the practitioner. A patient should not be treated elementalistically; a patient should be treated with the appreciation of who actually diagnosed the patient, for perhaps the illness is a function of the diagnostic practitioner. The patient should be treated non-elementalistically (relative to the diagnosis).

It is my belief that this is the case in a number of people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness. Many people make their “illness” their identity, and thereby make the condition more terminal. Practitioners enforce their interpretations by legislating medication that has its own complicating effects.

Point being: When talking about mental illness, don’t say that people have or are their illness. Instead, make a point of saying that they’ve been diagnosed with their illness. This calls attention to the diagnostic process, the human interpretation involved, which better allows for disputation and contest of the practitioner’s perspective.

See also: adhd, definition, diagnosis, elementalism, identity, mental-illness, non-elementalism, process