Was Will Gompertz right when he said the arts had been subsidised to 'no great effect'?

A cock-eyed view? BBC arts editor Will Gompertz. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi

My Twitter feed this morning was very cross, very cross indeed. My colleague Will Gompertz, arts editor of the BBC, had been on the Today programme talking about arts subsidy. Despite Arts Council England's best efforts since its foundation after the war, he argued, funding for the arts had been "it would appear, to no great effect". Under 8% of the population, he said, go to the ballet, opera, or classical music concerts, according to government figures. Was arts subsidy, pondered the report, really just supporting the tastes of the upper and middle classes? Have institutions such as the Royal Ballet and Royal Opera succeeded in attracting any but the privileged few?

I think – with all respect and a friendly tip of the hat, as ever, to Will – that the picture presented here was too bleak; and incomplete. Hence the irritation of my Twitter pals. The implication (though perhaps not the intention) of the piece was to suggest that classical music, opera and ballet "stood in for" the whole of the arts. That is, of course, a partial picture. It misses out whole swathes of cultural activity. Theatre, galleries, museums. Street theatre, carnival, festivals... whole chunks of stuff supported by the public purse. It didn't mention the incredible work done in the community by arts organisations; or by companies like Clean Break and Streetwise Opera that work with a very particular social purpose in view.

The report was perhaps too a rather incomplete picture of the work of the Royal Opera House. I would not for a moment suggest that its audience on an average night presents an accurate picture of British society, or that it is not a forbidding place in many ways, or there is not work to do: but you don't have to pay £115 to see the ballet; my two-second, random click around on the website threw up £4 tickets for a terrific-sounding evening at the ballet in February (you do have to snap 'em up in advance) – a sum for which you'd struggle to find London cinema tickets. The ROH puts on family performances (tickets £5-£20). Chance to Dance is a scheme that works with schools in Lambeth, Southwark and Thurrock to encourage kids – not the kids of the privileged – to access ballet and enjoy dancing themselves. But enough about the Royal Opera House. The ROH is not the arts in England. It's one arts organisation in England and it shouldn't dominate discussions about funding (I know, I'm doing it...).

"Great art for everyone" – a glib motto for Arts Council England, perhaps. But I'm not sure anyone need be apologetic about the aspiration. Through our schools, through the extraordinary outreach work done by arts organisations, through the committed work of artists and teachers, I don't see why every person (and importantly every child) shouldn't encounter great art. God knows enough people are doing their best to make it happen. And actually, I think it's working.

View the original article here

Giving A Voice To Children With ADHD: Study Finds Medication Frees Them To Choose Between Right And Wrong

Main Category: ADHD
Article Date: 19 Oct 2012 - 0:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Giving A Voice To Children With ADHD: Study Finds Medication Frees Them To Choose Between Right And Wrong

Children living with ADHD tend to feel they benefit from medication to treat the condition and do not think the medication turns them into 'robots', according to a report just published. In fact, they report that medication helps them to control their behaviour and make better decisions. The study, which gives a voice to the children themselves, provides valuable insights into their experiences and the stigma they face.

The ADHD VOICES - Voices on Identity, Childhood, Ethics and Stimulants - study has worked with 151 families in the UK and the USA to examine ethical and societal issues surrounding attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), particularly the use of treatments such as methylphenidate (Ritalin). The project has been led by biomedical ethicist Dr Ilina Singh from King's College London and was funded by the Wellcome Trust.

Dr Singh and colleagues interviewed children and their families about ADHD, behaviour, medication and identity across four contexts: home, school, the doctor's office and peer groups. The findings of their study, just announced, are accompanied by a series of short films by award-winning animators The Brothers McLeod.

The report is intended not only to highlight ethical and social issues surrounding ADHD but also to help families, doctors, teachers and the children themselves to understand from a child's perspective what it is like to live with ADHD.

"ADHD is a very emotive subject, which inspires passionate debate. Everyone seems to have an opinion about the condition, what causes it, and how to deal with children with ADHD, but the voices of these children are rarely listened to," explains Dr Singh. "Who better to tell us what ADHD is like and how medication affects them than the children themselves?"

Dr Singh points out the controversies that surround providing medication to children with ADHD, which some people argue turns the children into 'robots'. She believes that in many cases and with a correct diagnosis, treatment using stimulants is appropriate and beneficial, particularly if it is complemented by other interventions. The evidence from the children she interviewed suggests that they think medication improves their ability to make their own moral choices.

Glenn (age 10), from the USA, says: "If you're driving in a car, and there's two different ways, and you usually always go this way...and then one day you want to go the other way, but...the ADHD acts as a blocker, so you can't.

"[The medicine] opens the blocker so that you can go [the right] way. But you still have the choice of going the wrong way... It's harder [without medication], that's what's the truth. But it's not like [on medication] you're a robot."

Dr Singh also found that children often did not understand their condition or why they were receiving medication, and many children in the study reported that they had little meaningful contact with their doctors. After the initial evaluation, clinic visits tended to focus on side-effect checks, during which children were weighed and measured. Most children were not asked any questions during these visits.

Roger (age 13), from the UK, says: "I've only just started going to the ADHD clinic, but I haven't actually been to it properly. I've seen the doctor and he's talked about [ADHD] and I get weighed. But...they'll just say parts of what it is but then they'll stop, so they will only say some of it and then change the subject."

Dr Singh argues that children need to be better informed and able to discuss their condition. "Given the ethical concerns that arise from ADHD diagnosis and stimulant drug treatment, it is imperative that children are able to openly discuss the value of diagnosis and different treatments with a trusted professional."

The report concludes with a series of recommendations for how parents, doctors and teachers can help children cope with and better understand the condition, and begin to tackle the stigma that currently exists around it.

Professor Peter Hill, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, says: "We hope that the VOICES Study and the ADHD and Me animations will inspire people to think differently about ADHD, drug treatments and children with behavioural difficulties.

"Behaving differently around these children is the main challenge. We hope that the strategies we have outlined will help improve the interactions with these children and help improve their lives."

Clare Matterson, Director of Medical Humanities and Engagement at the Wellcome Trust, comments: "It is refreshing to hear the voices of children included in the debate about ADHD.

"It is a very emotive subject and despite the fact that these children are at the centre of this debate, they are too often ignored. This report sends a clear message to doctors, teachers and parents about the importance of talking to children about their condition - and more importantly, listening to what they have to say."

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our adhd section for the latest news on this subject. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

n.p. "Giving A Voice To Children With ADHD: Study Finds Medication Frees Them To Choose Between Right And Wrong." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 19 Oct. 2012. Web.
19 Oct. 2012. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

'Giving A Voice To Children With ADHD: Study Finds Medication Frees Them To Choose Between Right And Wrong'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.

View the original article here