Herald on Sunday letters: what readers are talking about this week

I realise that modern lifestyles will put increased pressures on children that my generation did not experience. However, I feel that doctors are too quick to jump on the bandwagon of mental health issues with the child.

In many cases parents will put pressure on the doctors with perhaps exaggerated descriptions of behaviour at home.

The problem in misdiagnosis is probably not helped by pressures on parents having less time with their children through work, with the child being left with childminders (their job being to mind the child not to bring him/her up), and the size of classes at school, leaving teachers little time to give that little bit extra attention where required and the doctors themselves not having enough consultation time with the children.

George Dale

Beith

Dr Lorraine Johnstone makes some salient points upon the potentially excessive diagnosis of mental illness in our youth, but her argument is essentially one of rationing (Concern grows over effects of how we label our children, The Herald on Sunday, October 6). In this, she prioritises the interests (arguably realities) of the NHS over its patients. But her logic disintegrates when she asserts “we need to build emotional resilience” in our children.

In the opinion of some people, there is nothing inherent in anorexia that could not be cured by a good meal. Nothing in bulimia that could not be remedied by a little self-restrains. Nothing in agoraphobia that could not be sorted by learning how to turn a door handle. (But, to be fair, they are not all psychiatrists.)

So what is mental illness? Weakness? A bad choice? A morality defect? A physiological condition? And can we sort the sane from the insane?

Perhaps the definitive study on this was DL Rosenhan’s Being Sane In Insane Places which concluded psychiatry, er, didn’t have a clue. His research has been shamelessly shunned by practitioners, not because there was anything wrong with his scientific method, but because they did not like its conclusions. (Sound familiar?)

So many of the interventions regarding mental illness are derived from nostrum medicine and a forensic tendency to confirmation bias.

Put succinctly, in the words of Rosenhan: “The facts of this matter are that we have know for a long time that diagnoses are often not useful or reliable, but we have nevertheless continued to use them.”

Archie Beaton

Inverness

I write with disappointment at your front page story last week, which contained the suggestion that ADHD is not real. This disagrees with overwhelming scientific consensus. It is a real disorder which leaves people feeling constantly on edge, incredibly sensitive to rejection and emotionally unstable.

ADHD is subtle -- often leaving those with it wondering “why do I keep making these mistakes? Why do I keep leaving things on the bus? Why am I always running late?”, culminating in self-loathing because of these internalised messages that “this just an excuse”. These things can be hugely damaging to self-esteem, as well as discouraging people from seeking support. Indicating it’s not real reinforces the idea that those suffering from it are just stupid or lazy.

Please, think again before publishing something claiming that a neurological disability which is majorly underdiagnosed (particularly in women and girls) is not real, particularly during ADHD Awareness Month, in a week containing Mental Health Awareness Day.

Jonathan Kiehlmann via email

Who are the real experts?

An interesting letter last week from Dr John Cameron of St Andrews criticises current concerns about climate change (The Herald on Sunday, October 6). Dr Cameron tells us to look at the scientific evidence and quotes three “international heavyweights” – Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson and Elliott Bloom – who oppose the climate-catastrophe “consensus”.

Lindzen, the most plausible of the three, is, indeed, an expert in climate matters, having been an atmospheric physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for many years. However, in 2011, he had a major paper on climate science rejected by PNAS, one of the world’s leading scientific journals, and admitted that his paper included “some stupid mistakes”. Later, he did get his paper published in a little-known Korean journal.

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist from Texas A&M University, published a paper which found errors in Lindzen’s paper. He also concluded that the observations it had presented “are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models”. He stated that there were no reasons for revisions in the current predictions of climate science. So let’s not be too hasty in accepting that Lindzen’s views are correct.

Dyson is a theoretical physicist and a mathematician. His area of expertise is quantum mechanics, solid state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Most climate scientists disagree with his views on climate change and say they are not backed by any evidence.

On to Bloom, perhaps the most interesting of the three. Bloom is Professor Emeritus at Stanford University. His area of expertise is astrophysics and cosmology. However, earlier this year he supported papers from Willie Soon who disagreed with mainstream thinking about climate change.

So who is Willie Soon? He is an astrophysicist, aerospace engineer and part-time researcher at the Smithsonian Institute in the US whose work has been funded by a six-figure grant from the fossil fuel industry.

Now I have no idea who Dr John Cameron from St Andrews is, but I have to conclude that he knows little about the scientific method. It is very difficult to “prove” things 100% in science. Science is not like mathematics where two plus two always equals four. In science you have to make decisions on the