Abstract
I welcome the opportunity to respond to both Dr Roger Paterson and Professor Judith L. Rapoport [1] who seem to have misread my contributions to the ADHD debate [2, 3]. I accept their comment that the (quote) ‘unproven’ status of the disorder was from Jensen's article. However, Jensen clearly placed those words in quotation marks stating them as the National Institute of Health (NIH) ‘panelists' conclusion’ [4], p.195]. I stand by my original concern, namely, that the scientific status of ADHD as a ‘thing’ or ‘true entity’ is in question according to the NIH panel.
This critical matter, far from a ‘historically stale discussion’ as Paterson would have us believe, continues to cause serious medical and social debate. In light of this, the spate of recent ethical concerns: documented biased diagnosis; the limitations of the DSM diagnosis; sociocultural pressures on doctor's time; and advances in early attachment research, prompted us to look afresh at the ADHD story [5]. Divergent perspectives in the debate run the risk of polarizing medical views in this complex area. Yet we feel such tension should not prevent academics from advancing hypotheses regarding the causation of ADHD, and to draw on research findings from all aspects of child development, not just genetics [6].