Here is my original post on the ADHD fantasy, reproduced in its entirety:
From time to time I point out that the complaint known as 'Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder' does not actually exist. Invariably, I then receive a wave of letters and e-mails from parents of children who have been 'diagnosed' as suffering from 'ADHD'. These letters are all remarkably similar, and many of them are bitterly personally abusive.
In this entry, I shall take, piece by piece, such a letter, and seek to answer it point by point.
1. "Dear Mr Hitchens, I feel utterly insulted by your gratuitous claim that there is no such thing as ADHD'. You are obviously an ignorant moron. You should do some research on this, and then you would know that it was a real problem."
A. An insult can only be offered to a person, directly, and concern his personal failings or faults. It is not possible to be 'insulted' by a statement of fact, or by an argument you disagree with. If the statement isn't true, then you are well placed to prove that. If you disagree with the argument, then you can say so. To say that you have been 'insulted' is to refuse to accept that there may be some truth in what I say, possibly because you have some doubts about the matter yourself. In fact I often find that angry, personal vehemence in an argument is a sign that the person involved has serious doubts about his or her position. Let us begin as we mean to go on, and treat this as a matter of facts and logic. Also, as it so happens, I have done a great deal of research on this matter, not least as a result of dealing with several waves of correspondence on the subject. And the more research I have done, the more alarmed I have become at the great numbers of children and teenagers being drugged because they are supposed to be suffering from a complaint for which there is no established, objective test.
The question here is one of scientific fact, which - let us agree here to accept Karl Popper's view - has to be proved by experiment, and in such a way that it could later be disproved by new discoveries. Anything else is speculation, not fact or knowledge. If someone wants to say that there is something called 'ADHD', and prescribe actual drugs for it, the burden is on him to prove it by experiment, and to present a proof which could be exploded by new discoveries. I say no such proof has ever been produced. There are, it is true, some attempts to produce it. But one has been pretty thoroughly knocked down, and the other is tentative. Crucially, neither is generally used to diagnose 'ADHD', which is generally done by a subjective assessment.
I must also stress that, if you have been told that your child is suffering from a 'disorder', that does not actually mean that this must be so. Sceptics and doubters may be right. Doctors, regrettably, are often mistaken. Medical practice, even in physical medicine, undergoes fashions and fads just like every other field of human activity. Some examples: To my own knowledge, 23 years ago parents were told that the best way to avoid cot death was to lie babies face down. Five years later, the advice was the exact opposite. Putting them face down was likely to be fatal, and they must be laid on their backs. In the mid-20th century many psychiatrists believed that pre-frontal lobotomy was a miracle treatment. It is now universally decried as a barbaric and destructive operation.
Fashions in psychiatry have changed even more completely than fashions in ordinary physical medicine and surgery, during the short period of psychiatry's existence, with many of Sigmund Freud's original theories now regarded as wrong or flawed. As for neurology, the discipline which deals with the human brain, neurologists themselves admit that we know startlingly little about this complex, delicate and vulnerable organ. Undoubtedly, drugs can affect the brain. But neurologists are often extremely vague about how they operate and why they have the effects that they do have. Many drugs prescribed for neurological complaints, or for complaints which are assumed to be neurological, also have severe side-effects, and long-term consequences which are often discovered after some time. Some physical treatments for allegedly neurological complaints, such as electro-convulsive therapy, have been described to me by doctors as the medical equivalent of thumping a TV set that has gone on the blink.
In my childhood, operations for tonsillectomy were routinely given to children with nothing seriously wrong with them. Shoe shops provided machines in which you could X-ray your own feet, machines which were believed to be wholly safe and advertised as such. Most first-aid textbooks recommended treating burns by putting greasy creams on them, now acknowledged to be one of the worst things you can possibly do. When I first became a blood donor, in the 1970s, I was given iron pills by the nurse and told to take them without fail. This is now considered unnecessary, and possibly harmful. And so on. Many of us have also been misdiagnosed by doctors at one time or another. I certainly have, and once ended up in hospital being prepared for a wholly needless operation because I had been prescribed the wrong antibiotic. The mistake was discovered just before I went under the anaesthetic. It is perfectly reasonable for informed laymen to question the wisdom of doctors, and often wise to do so.
2. "You plainly have no idea of what you are talking about. If you came and spent a week at our house, then you would know that ADHD existed."
A. I did once respond to such an offer, asking the writer to name a date. I warned that I spent rather a long time in the bathroom in the morning, but promised to bring my own wine and do my own laundry and ironing. But I heard nothing more, perhaps because I added . "I can assure you that, even if I spent a year in your home, I should still not be persuaded that 'ADHD' exists." How can I be so sure? Why wouldn't I be influenced by daily contact with a badly-behaved or uncontrollable child?
First, because the fact that there are such children is not in doubt. There are many. I wouldn't have to spend a week watching them misbehave to be convinced of that. Many modern British and American children, especially young boys, cause their parents and their teachers great difficulty. They defy authority, they run wild, they break things, they yell and shout and are horrible to their brothers and sisters. But their existence does not prove that 'ADHD' exists. That is a separate issue. It just proves that in modern Western societies there are a lot of ill-behaved boys. The question is not "do children behave badly in increasing numbers, especially at school?" Everyone knows this is the case. The question is "what is causing their bad behaviour?" Is there one simple reason, that can be cured by giving them all a drug? Or are there many reasons, some of which might be curable by drugs (I am suspicious of this method under all circumstances, but don't rule out the possibility that there might be cases where drugs could help), some of which can be cured by sleep, exercise, diet, the rationing of TV watching, a different pattern of family life, a better school, and some of which have actual physical causes and may or may not be treatable?
One of the problems with the diagnosis of 'ADHD' is that it covers such an extraordinarily broad range of behaviours including -in my experience - children who may actually suffer from birth trauma or brain damage, and children who are merely wilful and obstinate, or are driven to distraction by dull schools and bad teachers. Worse, it closes the subject. If they are all suffering from a treatable physical disorder, then we need not worry about our debased family life and our useless schools. And the small minority of children who do actually have something physically wrong with them are dosed with drugs that pacify them, and their real problems are ignored and go uninvestigated This means firstly they are not treated, and secondly that medical knowledge ceases to advance. The 'diagnosis' of 'ADHD' helps none of those to whom it is applied. But it gets a lot of adults off the hook of responsibility and closes off scientific inquiry.
Even if some of these children do actually have a physical defect curable by drugs, they cannot conceivably all be the same - six or seven million children now in the USA, hundreds of thousands in Britain.
Among the 'ADHD' children are those who have been exposed to an enormous amount of TV from early infancy, or to violent computer games. There are those who suffer from an almost total absence of physical exercise, and those who have never been introduced to a routine of mealtimes and bedtimes, and so are unwilling to adapt to any environment in which there are routines and timetables. There are those who have never been taught to read, and so would find school a constant frustration. There are those whose schools are unbearably dull test-factories, in which they are compelled to spend hours at uncongenial, repetitive and maddening tasks. There are those whose diet is packed with sugar and unhealthy chemicals, and those who suffer from a grave lack of sleep. there are combinations of some or all of these factors. There are what I refer to as 'spirited ' children ( who are well described by Mary Sheedy Kurcinka in her book on this subject) who are simply very bright and rebel against being treated as normal children. Others are seeking attention because they feel neglected by absent, busy parents or are angry about divorces or separations or the unwelcome appearance of step-parents in the home. Some are just plain badly brought up.
Surely a proper, medically-defined complaint couldn't encompass so many different sorts of child, and still mean anything? Also, if it's a physical manifestation, why does it affect boys so very much more than it affects girls? No other medical complaint - except those involving reproductive organs - discriminates between the sexes in this way. Yet the very name "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" is - or appears to be - highly precise and specific. It is intended to sound scientific and exact. It cannot be both precise and vague. Yet, if it exists, it is. Year by year, especially in Britain and the USA, thousands of children damaged, disadvantaged or neglected in hundreds of different ways - or with nothing wrong with them at all - are alleged to be suffering from it, on the basis of a sketchy, subjective assessment - which I'll come to later.
This wouldn't matter so much if the 'treatment' for 'ADHD' were as vague and variable as the thing itself. But it isn't. In most cases, some of them involving very young children indeed, the medical response is a highly specific one. It is to prescribe powerful psychotropic (mind-altering) drugs - notably ones containing the chemical methylphenidate ( most commonly marketed as the pill called Ritalin). In the USA (though not, so far as I know, in Britain), it is also often 'treated' with Adderall, an actual amphetamine which I believe was once marketed as Obetrol, an appetite suppressing diet drug ( among whose users was Andy Warhol). It is a controversial substance. Look it up on Google for more information, and see if you think it is a good idea to give it to children.
And what about Methylphenidate? Unlike Adderall, it isn't technically an amphetamine, but it is very similar to amphetamines, which are generally strictly controlled by law in most civilised countries. It is claimed that it 'treats' 'ADHD', but there is a major problem here. First, there is no recognised objective chemical, physical or biological test for the existence of 'ADHD'. Secondly, nobody actually knows what effect methylphenidate has upon the human brain. It is said to 'aid concentration' ( as are amphetamines) and anyone who took it would certainly find it was easier to concentrate on dull, repetitive tasks and unwanted duties such as last-minute exam revision. If you worked in a call centre, you would probably find it helped you get through the day. But why? And at what cost?
One theory, unproven by research, is that 'ADHD' is caused by a dopamine imbalance in the brain. Since Methylphenidate increases dopamine levels in the brain's synapses, this would, if proven, at least justify its use in this case. But it isn't proven, a point I'll address in more detail. Another theory is that Methylphenidate affects the action of serotonin in the brain, the chemical that provides feelings of well-being. Personally, I think it's amazing that even an adult should swallow a substance about which so little is known, which affects an organ so sensitive, valuable and little understood. It is even more amazing that it should be given to children with unformed brains. Methylphenidate is sold on the black market as a stimulant, as amphetamines are, both in Britain and the USA. It has recognised side-effects, including stomach-ache, sleeplessness, headaches, dry mouth and - more rarely - palpitations and high blood pressure. Anti-Ritalin campaigners in the USA allege that it has even greater problems, and some American websites suggest that it may actually be dangerous to some users. In the US, there have allegedly been cases of cardiac arrest in children taking methylphenidate, and the US authorities have been divided about whether to place health warnings on the labels of Methylphenidate-based medications. Some experts have strongly urged that such warnings should be displayed, but so far the authorities have declined to do so.
3."The existence of ADHD has been established by science".
A.This claim is repeatedly made by campaigners for the 'treatment' of 'ADHD' with drugs. It is at the very heart of the argument. I take the view that, before you can dose someone with a powerful medication, with objective known (and unknown) physical, chemical and biological effects on the human body, you need to be able to establish a) there is an objective, measurable complaint that you are treating, b) that the drug involved has a specific application which will affect that objective and measurable complaint c) that you will be able to record that effect consistently, so as to establish that the drug involved is doing its work.
Is this the case with 'ADHD' and methylphenidate?
First, how is 'ADHD' diagnosed?
There is no generally recognised physical, chemical or biological test, let alone one that is routinely given. For a full account of how the complaint is 'diagnosed'.One pro-ADHD book in wide circulation is most illuminating. It refers to psychometric testing, tests of academic achievement, tests of intelligence, arithmetic, reading and spelling tests, tests of 'vigilance', sight and hearing. It states that blood tests and brain scans are "not done routinely" and that an "an ordinary EEG cannot determine if a child has ADHD". It does, however, claim that there are physical tests (known as QEEG) which it says give objective evidence of "the brain-inefficiencies that cause ADHD". The author says these tests cannot be used in isolation, but form part of the information that is required to determine whether the child has ADHD or not. They are not yet widely available (Note: Has anyone any experience of them being used? If so, please write and tell me about this. PH).
He also says, correctly, that many children are treated without access to this kind of evaluation. Several points here. I should like to know a great deal more about this test and wonder what would happen if it were universally used to test all those already diagnosed with 'ADHD'. Secondly, if you read the above carefully, you find that the brainwave analysis is not put forward as a test for 'ADHD' but for 'the brain inefficiencies that cause ADHD'. Note the other caveat, that the test cannot be used in isolation. There's another problem. Individuals 'diagnosed' with 'ADHD' will very likely have been taking drugs to 'treat' it which will undoubtedly have affected their brain activity- even if they are not actually taking those drugs at the time of any brainwave tests. This would be the problem of using this test on anyone who had been diagnosed with 'ADHD' . In almost all cases they would have been prescribed methylphenidate, in Britain, or amphetamines, in the USA. These drugs would have permanently altered their brain performance. One other thing, brain abnormalities don't always mean brain problems. London taxi-drivers, notoriously, have brains significantly different from the rest of us, because of the huge effort they make to memorise the London street pattern.
One American website actually claims that 80% of the clients who come to it for QEEG testing do not have ADHD. Some other research claims an almost perfect match between QEEG and previous, subjective diagnoses.
I'll come on to the other physico/chemical/biological test for 'ADHD' in a moment. But first it's worth mentioning that the far more usual basis for 'diagnosing' it is the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ' of the American Psychiatric Association, known as 'DSM-IV'. This a set of subjective assessments, so vague that millions of perfectly normal adults and children could be classified as suffering from 'ADHD' , and are. If they are boys, they can usually be alleged to have the 'hyperactive-impulsive' type. If they are girls, they will generally be said to have the 'inattentive' type, though it is fairly clear from the definitions of these two that they are wholly different.
In a pro-'ADHD' book, the author ( a doctor) sums up two cases, one of a boy and of a girl, referred to a doctor. In the boy's case, the seven-year-old is 'treated' for 'ADHD' (presumably drugged) because he is difficult and badly behaved, violent, rude, moody and noisy. He also takes risks, has accidents, trashes his bedroom and is hard to discipline. Though we are told these things, we learn little of the important background of his home-life, his TV watching habits, his access to violent computer games, his current diet (though an attempt has been made in the past to vary this diet), his general upbringing, his access to exercise, or sleep patterns. We do not know if he is suffering from any neurological disorder, injury or birth defect. We know nothing of his parents' behaviour except that a letter from the parents says "We have been to numerous doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists already. they all make us feel that we are the cause of his problem. We are tired of being analysed - we just want help". Does this mean that these other professionals have had the nerve to suggest that the parents' own -unspecified - actions or failures may have had some influence? Is there a parent at home? Has there been a divorce? We do not know. Does the doctor?
In the girl's case, she ends up being 'treated' for 'ADHD' (again, presumably drugged) because she is dreamy, vague, in a world of her own, forgetful and disorganised. That is to say, her behaviour is totally different form that of the boy, but she is classified as suffering from the same 'disorder' and presumably dosed with the same drug. Some of the main 'symptoms' of both occur in school - the boy is said to be 'impossible to teach', wanders round the classroom, does messy work and swears at his teachers. The girl - who absolutely does not get into trouble at school over her behaviour - still cannot concentrate or persist with homework. The two could hardly be more different. Yet the author of the pro-'ADHD' book records that he 'diagnosed' both of these children with 'ADHD' and says that both were 'greatly helped by treatment for this condition'. Well, I have little doubt that the school was greatly helped, since it sounds to me as if dull, repetitive and wearisome classes and assignments are an important part of both children's problems.
Likewise, the parents may have felt better about themselves, once assured that their children had a physical complaint that was not in any way their responsibility and could be dealt with through medication. Presumably it had the required effect, of making them more docile and willing to concentrate on dull repetitive tasks. But it would have that effect on any person who took such a drug, as the many students who take amphetamines during revision for their exams could testify. The drug's 'effectiveness' proves that it does this thing, not that there was anything wrong with the person, which the drug put right. The school, likewise, must have been glad that both these pupils now sat obediently performing their tedious tasks.
But were the children helped? Or were they adapted, by mind-altering drugs, to a society that has little time for children, gives them little physical freedom or personal attention, fills their minds and bodies with stimulants, and demands that they spend much of their lives in dull classrooms being put through repetitive exercises?
By the way, a word here on the American Psychiatric Association, and its infallibility. Until 1973, this body officially regarded homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. Then it solemnly announced that this was no longer the case. Whether you think it was absurd for it to have regarded it as such in the first place or not (which is an argument for another time), the switch surely demonstrates that this body follows intellectual fashions. Homosexuality remained the same, before 1973 and after 1973.
Now to the other physical test. I should here quote from the final statement of the panel, from the USA's National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on 'ADHD', held on November 18th 1998.
They concluded :"We do not have an independent, valid test for ADHD, and there are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction". Part of the reason for this statement was that previous PET (Positron Electronic Tomography) scans alleged to show the presence of 'ADHD' were found to be scans of brains of patients who had already been 'treated' with drugs, which had affected their brains substantially. I gather that a Dutch organisation has been told by that country's advertising regulator that it is not allowed to claim that 'ADHD' is a congenital or genetic brain disorder because there isn't enough evidence to support that claim.
In fairness, the pro-'ADHD' advocates continue to search for a physical test, and so must be sincere in their belief that this is a physical complaint. But the fact that the complaint is still 'diagnosed' by the million, without such a test, suggests that their sincerity is based upon an overpowering faith. What is the source of this faith?I'll come that later.
4. "Mr Hitchens, you keep very bad company. Much of the opposition to ADHD comes from Scientologists, and their anti-psychiatry campaign. Surely any campaign associated with these weird people and their peculiar beliefs must be wrong." .
A.As anyone who looks me up will know, I am not a Scientologist, but an Anglican Christian who regards Scientology as unpleasant drivel, and wouldn't dream of having anything to do with this movement or its front organisations. I am certainly sceptical about many of the claims of psychiatry, as many thinking people are, including some psychiatrists. But that doesn't make me a follower of L.Ron Hubbard. The fact that Scientologists ( who have money and celebrities to deploy in their campaigns) argue against this doesn't necessarily make 'ADHD' true. That must be decided on objective medical and scientific grounds. My doubts about this issue began long before I was aware that Scientology was opposed to it.
5. "Mr Hitchens, you should know that ADHD has been recognised by doctors for many years, and is not, as you seem to suggest, a recent invention"
A. This is indeed one of the most interesting things about 'ADHD'. It has taken many forms, since Dr George Still examined 20 children in 1902 and concluded that their impaired concentration, and 'overactivity' were not due to their upbringing. He did not name their complaint, but later 'ADHD' advocates claim him as a pioneer, presumably in the search for a respectable medical and scientific pedigree for their cause. Subsequent researchers have disagreed over whether Still's diagnosis was the same as what is now called 'ADHD'.
Interestingly, the next major discussion of such a complaint took place after a large number of children tragically suffered physical damage after an epidemic of encephalitis, in the USA in 1917 and 1918 ( a secondary effect of the Spanish influenza pandemic). My inquiries and correspondence suggest that quite a few children now being included in the blanket definition 'ADHD' have in fact suffered some physical ailment, injury, birth defect or disease. If this is so, surely they should be considered entirely separately from children in which there is no such history? How can any complaint embrace so many wholly different cases? Some parents will say that they need to get their child 'labelled' with a recognised complaint to obtain the attention of the authorities, and this may well be true in our bureaucratic world. But should it be so? And is it right? What if the label is the wrong one, and the child is then condemned to treatment that is wrong and even damaging?
It has undergone many changes in its name, and in its nature. In the 1950s, the term 'hyperkinetic-impulse disorder' was used. In the 1960s it was 'minimal brain dysfunction'. In any case, its supposed incidence was small and the matter was unimportant. then, in the USA in the 1970s and 1980s, the term 'Attention Deficit Disorder' began to be used, and 'impaired concentration' rather than 'hyperactivity ' was seen as its defining feature. Only in the late 1980s was 'ADHD' introduced, and its supposed symptoms were not finalised until 1994.
In my view, this history cannot be understood without looking at other major events going in the world at the same time. It was during the post-1960s cultural revolution in Western countries that several things began to affect childhood. Some of them are direct results of that cultural revolution. Others are independent of it, but happened at the same time. They seem to me to provide an alternative explanation of the astonishing growth in the numbers of troublesome children.Some of these features are common to Britain and the USA (where 'ADHD' is most commonly diagnosed). Some are specific to only one. Remember that 'ADHD' is far more commonly diagnosed in boys than in girls, and that its symptoms in girls are almost always different.
Let me list them:
1.The introduction of no-fault divorce in the 1960s and the exponential growth in the numbers of broken families, step-parents etc.
2. The growing popularity in Western countries of 'child-centred' forms of education, which have come to involve repetitive tasks, frequent testing and the suppression of competition, which gave boys an outlet for their instincts.
3. The disappearance from elementary and primary schools of male teachers, who are far better at controlling boys than female teachers, coupled with the abolition of corporal punishment and other effective sanctions.
4.The abolition of school sports and other physical exercise, accompanied by the sale of playing fields.
5.The growing danger on the roads, leading to children no longer walking or bicycling to school, so depriving them of a key form of exercise.
6.The arrival in almost all homes of colour TV, broadcast 24 hours a day and including a growing number of channels aimed at children. The installation in the majority of children's bedrooms of a TV set which the child controls.
7.The invention, and rapid spread of computer games.
8.The rapid increase in the numbers of mothers going out of the home to work, further reducing adult supervision, example and restraint in the lives of the young.
9.The increase in the use of highly-processed fast foods in the home, many aimed specifically at children, and rich in sugar, chemicals and other unhealthy ingredients.
10.The almost total collapse, influenced by many of the factors above, of the idea that children should have fixed bedtimes and should sleep for far longer than adults.
The above, it seems to me, add up to a huge and radical social change in the nature of childhood in our societies, which
is bound to have a significant effect on the behaviour of children, and has done so. It seems to me to offer, at the very least, a good alternative explanation of why so many millions of children are now being classified as 'disordered'.
6. "But my child has regular bedtimes, doesn't eat fast food, attends a good school where there is plenty of sport, and gets lots of exercise. We have a happy, stable marriage and ration his TV and computer games to a minimum. His brothers and sisters are models of good behaviour. But he's still impossible."
A. I believe you. The fact that there is a social explanation for a great deal of 'ADHD' doesn't mean that there is a social explanation for all of this difficult behaviour. Thomas Edison was regarded as a nightmare by his teachers long before 'ADHD' had been thought of and -fortunately for all of us - was not drugged, or we would be short of many inventions.
Of course, not all children classified as having 'ADHD' are suffering from neglect or over-stimulation or bad diet or lack of exercise. On the contrary, an easy, blanket explanation ('ADHD') is being used to cover many entirely different things - the physically damaged, the badly brought up, and the highly-charged hard bargains who have nothing wrong with them but just can't sit still, are naturally noisy and troublesome, and who are in many cases encompassed by the definition of 'Spirited Child' given in Mary Sheedy Kurcinka's excellent book on the subject.
In my view many of these are just very bright individuals who find being a child constraining and hard, but who certainly don't need drugs, whatever else they do need. Many of these definitions - 'autism', 'Asperger's' and so forth, turn out to be surprisingly vague when examined, covering enormously varied types of behaviour which doctors barely understand and for which they offer no solution. And then there is the question of whether the current huge increase in 'autism' may have a physical cause. The MMR controversy (which I won't go into here, having examined it at length many times in the Mail on Sunday) is just an example of how some doctors suspect that this may be so.
There's one other important variable here which I didn't mention above, because it is so sensitive. But I cannot help thinking it's important.
In recent years, both in the USA and Britain, parents whose children have been 'diagnosed' with 'ADHD' can in some cases apply for state benefits. In Britain, the relevant payments are known as Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and other benefits, which in some cases can add up to quite large sums of money and allowances. They can pick up a disability living allowance of up to £5,350 a year, a carer's allowance of up to £2,376 a year and a disabled child tax credit of £2,300 a year. No official statistics are available on how many of the 320,000 families prescribed Ritalin in Britain are collecting any or all of this, but the rapid increase in 'ADHD' diagnoses in the USA, now more than four million, certainly followed the introduction of comparable benefits there.
People in this position might conceivably not welcome criticisms of the 'ADHD' cause. Similarly, nor might parents who felt that the 'diagnosis' exonerated them from any part in their child's trouble, or those for whom such a 'diagnosis' provided a key for help from the education and health authorities. Others with an interest might be hard-pressed doctors and social workers, who find in ;'ADHD' a clear and simple answer, easily dealt with, for ,many of the problems that come their way.
And then of course there are the big drug companies, who do not do badly out of the large number of prescriptions written for drugs to treat 'ADHD'. And there are the doctors who might just possibly receive perks, invitations to enjoyable conferences in agreeable places, from those drug companies.
Some of these motives for believing in ADHD are reasonable and defensible. Some of them less so. All are understandable. But what's mine for attacking this belief? What do I gain? Nothing, as it happens.It would be much easier- and less time-consuming - if I never wrote about it. Other conservative columnists don't. There's no shortage of other subjects I could write about that wouldn't attract the waves of bitter letters I receive. I just think it's wrong, that's all.
If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.
