Channel 4’s controversial new ADHD documentary, The Great ADHD Myth?, will air on Tuesday 18 August at 8pm.

I have not seen the documentary yet.

It may contain thoughtful contributions. It may raise legitimate questions about ADHD diagnosis, medication and the effects of modern life on our attention. These are important conversations.

However, my concern is not currently with the contents of the documentary.

It is with the way Channel 4 has chosen to market it.

And I believe Channel 4 should be ashamed.

 

Is ADHD “genuine”?

Channel 4 announced The Great ADHD Myth? with a press release stating that the programme would seek to determine “whether ADHD is a genuine neurodevelopmental disorder, or a social construct.”

It opened by asking whether children should be given “powerful psychiatric drugs” to medicate it.

These words were not taken out of context by an angry social-media user. They were deliberately chosen by Channel 4 to generate interest in its own programme.

Words matter.

When you place the word “myth” beside an already highly stigmatised condition and ask whether it is “genuine,” you are not simply opening a neutral scientific discussion.

You are planting doubt.

You are handing ready-made language to people who already believe that ADHD is an excuse, a fashionable label, poor parenting or a lack of discipline.

Channel 4 understands how headlines work. It understands that provocative language generates reactions, arguments, shares and viewers.

But people with ADHD should not become collateral damage in a marketing campaign.

 

Debate is not the problem

There are important questions to explore about ADHD.

Why are more people seeking assessment? Why have so many women and adults previously been overlooked? Are all assessments completed to an appropriate standard? How do sleep, stress, trauma, technology, education and working conditions affect our attention? When is medication appropriate, and how should it be monitored?

Our environment unquestionably influences our ability to concentrate.

Johann Hari’s Stolen Focus, for example, explores research and arguments about the societal forces competing for our attention. Phones, algorithms, chronic stress, disrupted sleep and constant interruption can all make concentration more difficult.

For somebody with ADHD, these conditions may intensify difficulties that are already present.

Recognising environmental influences does not require us to deny biological or developmental differences. Biology and environment are not competing explanations. Human beings are always shaped by interactions between our genetics, development, relationships, experiences and surroundings.

Presenting ADHD as either a “genuine” neurodevelopmental condition or a social construct therefore creates a false and unnecessarily inflammatory choice.

 

ADHD is not a myth

ADHD is recognised within established international diagnostic systems. In the UK, NICE has an evidence-based guideline covering its recognition, assessment and management in children, young people and adults.

The scientific evidence does not suggest that ADHD was suddenly invented by smartphones or social media.

The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement brought together 208 evidence-based conclusions approved by 80 authors from 27 countries. The research reviewed supports the substantial heritability of ADHD, its presence across different countries and cultures, and the involvement of both genetic and environmental factors.

Research has also identified modest average differences in aspects of brain development, structure and function between groups of people with and without ADHD.

That does not mean ADHD can be diagnosed using a brain scan. It cannot. These are group-level findings rather than a test that can determine whether one individual has ADHD.

They do, however, form part of a much broader body of evidence that cannot reasonably be reduced to people being distracted by their phones or seeking an excuse for their difficulties.

Science should always remain open to scrutiny. Diagnostic practices, prescribing decisions and the quality of services should be examined carefully.

But scrutinising how ADHD is diagnosed and treated is very different from asking whether ADHD itself is genuine.

 

ADHD UK challenged Channel 4

On 4 August, the charity ADHD UK sent an open letter to Channel 4 raising concerns about the title, promotional framing, scientific balance and potential impact on people with ADHD.

The letter did not ask Channel 4 to avoid difficult questions. It explicitly acknowledged that waiting lists, service failures, diagnosis and treatment deserve serious investigation.

Its objection was to presenting an established neurodevelopmental condition as a possible myth in order to launch that discussion.

Channel 4 replied on 10 August. It said its remit includes stimulating public debate and challenging conventional understandings. It confirmed that the title was posed as a question intentionally because the programme seeks to “encourage debate.”

This response was deeply disappointing.

It treats the objection as though people with ADHD and those advocating for them simply do not want debate. That entirely misses the point.

Debate can be healthy. The problem is the way Channel 4 has chosen to manufacture that debate.

Adding a question mark does not remove the impact of the word “myth.” Nor does saying that the title is not a definitive statement undo the doubt it creates.

To be fair, Channel 4 did respond to some specific points. It identified the professionals involved in overseeing a child’s break from ADHD medication during filming, and it cited newer NHS data to defend one of its prescribing statistics.

Those answers should be acknowledged.

What its response did not meaningfully acknowledge was the central concern: the foreseeable effect of inviting millions of people to question whether ADHD is genuine.

There was no apology for the promotional framing, no indication that the title would be reconsidered and no recognition that harm can occur before the documentary has even aired. ADHD UK also reports that it was offered no preview or right of reply, and received no commitment that support would be signposted during the programme.

That is not an adequate response to the concerns being raised.

 

ADHD stigma has real consequences

In my work as a psychologist, I regularly encounter the effects of ADHD stigma.

I work with people who have spent years being described as lazy, careless, unreliable, undisciplined or simply not trying hard enough.

Some have experienced discriminatory or deeply insensitive treatment in the workplace. Others face disbelief within their families and relationships.

Comments such as “everyone is a bit ADHD these days” or “it’s just an excuse” remain remarkably common.

These attitudes affect whether people seek an assessment, disclose a diagnosis or ask for reasonable support. They influence whether children grow up understanding their difficulties or believing there is something fundamentally wrong with their character.

Receiving an ADHD diagnosis does not absolve somebody of responsibility for their behaviour. It can, however, give them a framework for understanding themselves, accessing appropriate support and developing strategies that work for their brain.

Questioning whether their condition is genuine reinforces the very shame and misunderstanding many have spent years trying to overcome.

 

Matt Haig is right to challenge the title

Author Matt Haig, who has spoken openly about his ADHD diagnosis, was among those who challenged Channel 4’s announcement.

He wrote that the title “causes real damage” and referred to evidence from family, twin and neuroimaging research. He also described the clarity that receiving an ADHD diagnosis gave him after being labelled as having special needs at school without being told why.

His response brings the human consequences back into view.

This is not simply an intellectual debate among broadcasters, clinicians and commentators. It concerns real people who often lived with these difficulties for decades before finally having language to understand them.

 

Ethical communication matters

As a psychologist, I think carefully about how I communicate psychological ideas.

I could probably attract more attention by using frightening headlines, oversimplifying research or deliberately provoking outrage. Emotionally charged and threatening information captures attention quickly.

But attracting attention is not the only consideration.

I have a professional and ethical responsibility to consider the effect of what I put into the world. I want my work to increase understanding, reduce shame and help people make sense of their experiences—not exploit vulnerability or controversy to generate clicks.

A major public-service broadcaster should apply the same principle.

Channel 4 could have promoted a rigorous investigation into rising ADHD referrals, assessment standards, medication and the effects of modern environments.

It could have encouraged curiosity without questioning whether ADHD itself is genuine.

Instead, it chose The Great ADHD Myth?

 

People with ADHD deserve better

I will reserve judgement on the documentary itself until it has been broadcast. I sincerely hope its contents are more balanced and scientifically responsible than its marketing suggests.

But the effect of its promotional framing is already being felt.

People with ADHD are once again being asked to defend the legitimacy of their condition. Advocates and professionals are having to correct misconceptions before the programme has even aired. Meanwhile, those who already dismiss ADHD have been given a national headline that appears to validate their prejudice.

There is room for debate about diagnosis, treatment, environmental influences and the way society responds to human differences.

There should not be a need to debate whether an established neurodevelopmental condition is “genuine” simply to sell a television programme.

People with ADHD deserve thoughtful journalism. They deserve evidence rather than insinuation, curiosity rather than clickbait, and public conversations that increase understanding instead of deepening stigma.

They deserve better than this.