3 ms·
The article addresses this issues: One clinician quoted in the book more or less admits defeat: “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify th
by jackgavigan 10y ago
The article addresses this issues: One clinician quoted in the book more or less admits defeat: “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”
- leereeves 10y agoThe article briefly mentions the issue then moves on. But is it true that "it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment" or simply that established powers make more money by "modifying the kid"?
- Vraxx 10y agoIn a way, those can both be true simultaneously. Just from the assumptions that the "established powers" make more money by modifying the kid implies that even if modifying the kid's environment cost $0, it would "cost" them lost profits of modifying the kid. Costs are relative, and I think the point remains that the kid's parents are relatively powerless to alter the kid's environment significantly enough to solve the adhd problem. Thus, the decision of the cost/benefit analysis of modifying the environment vs modifying the kid falls to the "established powers", also known as, collective society.
- leereeves 10y agoBy "established powers" I meant the people with enough political power to influence educational and medical policy. As long as everyone with significant influence is comfortable with the status quo, there's little pressure to search for other options, even if many parents might prefer another option.