Human capabilities exists naturally within ranges. We readily accept that some people possess a ‘good’ memory while others have a ‘bad’ memory, just as we recognise that some individuals are naturally more restless or more easily distracted than their peers. We might say of ourselves, that we don’t have a great memory. Teachers may report to parents that their child is easily distracted. We might say of a friend that they are quite restless.
These are descriptions of differences in people, and they are, in essence, labels. These labels provide explanations for those differences – and such labels are generally accepted. But what happens when a group of these descriptions commonly occur together? Why is ADHD when it’s a label of a collection of other labels a problem for some people? The implication is that people with ADHD must use multiple labels instead of one, that they must describe each of their traits separately for each to provide an explanation individually.
While most people understand the utility of labels as an explanation, a small number of detractors, including unfortunately even a few within psychiatry, push against the idea of labelling neurodivergence. Their argument often suggests that ADHD is ‘just’ a label for human behavioural differences. Yes, that is exactly what it is, that’s why it is helpful. These same people do recognise then, that differences exist, and accept descriptions of the differences individually – but they do not like it when a collection of differences (that commonly occur together) have a description. This perspective misses the fundamental point of a diagnosis: to provide a set of descriptions and an explanation that allows for targeted support. Some parents may also avoid labels for their children due to the stigma attached to them, but the underlying differences exist regardless of whether they are named with multiple labels or one. The problem to be addressed is the stigma itself, not the language used to identify the needs. Ignoring the label does not remove the challenges; it simply removes the roadmap for managing them.
The evidence consistently shows that receiving a diagnosis is often a source of relief, and helps people. Many people grow up feeling ‘different’ or ‘weird’, internalising their struggles as personal failings. A label provides the explanation that they are not broken, but simply wired differently. Research indicates that an early diagnosis reduces the likelihood of developing comorbidities like anxiety and depression and decreases the risk of self-medicating (e.g. substance abuse). With a label, teachers can implement classroom adjustments, parents can adapt their strategies, and workplaces can lean into an individual’s strengths.
Historically, outcomes for those with ADHD including lower life expectancy, higher rates of substance abuse, and increased school expulsions among many other challenges. This has all occurred largely in the absence of the ADHD label. The labels given instead were not less of stigma but more, (naughty, disruptive, etc.). Imagine if there were a refusal to label short-sightedness; without the description, there are no glasses, leaving the individual to strain against a world they cannot see clearly. The point being, the ADHD label is simply a descriptor – it is shorthand for a bunch of other labels, it leads to help and support, medication if desired, and an explanation for a collection of differences that are themselves labelled individually, often with greater stigma. So why do some people have such a problem with it?
References
https://www.additudemag.com/adult-adhd-diagnosis-reactions/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5567978
https://rehabsuk.com/blog/adhd-triples-risk-of-substance-abuse-but-it-doesn-t-have-to