Regardless of the history of the condition or how the original diagnostic criteria were developed it's widely accepted that ADHD is a neurological (neurodevelopmental) disorder -- i.e. not a psychological one.
For the record, to fill in the gaps, ADD and ADHD were treated as separate but related conditions for some time, but eventually were merged under ADHD (in DSM IV?) a bit like that other spectrum disorder.
> This is the reason why ADHD isn't the same as other mental health issues, because it was empirically determined instead of finding an actual issue
No, it's not. ADHD isn't the same as other "mental health issues" because it's a different one to the other ones.
> none of them were told by the doctors what the plan was to remove them off of it. None. Without any guidance on how my child gets off ADHD medication or a reevaluation whether they need it, how can I trust the initial diagnosis?
I don't see the logic here. Trust in the diagnosis stems from trust in the diagnostician.
You try it and see if it helps (if you think it could)? If it helps keep using it. If it doesn't work, try something else (medication or not). If there are unwanted side effects, balance the pros and cons.
Stimulants for ADHD aren't like 80s cartoon drug pusher pills. They also aren't like SSRIs et al. or lithium or anti-psychotics or something where there is pressure from the medical people to stay on it (or get put away).
The biggest problem with ADHD is that many kids who are diagnosed with ADHD eventually grow out of it. Your method is to keep medicating them permanently, with no thought or strategy as to how to evaluate whether or not they still need it.
And yes, all of the stimulants taken during their formative years has a tremendous effect on them as they get older. It changes their brain. This isn't sugar tablets they're taking.
