The discussions about the most frequently diagnosed childhood psychiatric category –Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) – positions on the crossroad of the approach that seeks it within neurobiological functions of organism, and the approach that seeks it through superstructures such as Big Pharma. ADHD is postulated as a discursive category, and an epistemic object within the scope of my study. I look at this experience through the acts of the psychiatrist, who is the ultimate agent of the judgement. I concentrate on the clinical judgement experience’s itself in Turkey. The data sets were collected between 2017-2019. The psychiatrists’ acts were defined as their own anonymous statements (10 in-dept interviews), their scientific endeavors (1 diagnosis and treatment guideline, Journal articles in the Turkish Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health: 2002-2019; and congress presentations as Turkish Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Congress’ abstract books: 2012-2019), communication with general public (5 books, and 34 YouTube videos). The aim of the study is mapping social and moral context in which clinical judgements shape by scrutinizing the discursive and rhetorical details of these acts. The data sets except for interviews were scanned with content analysis, and ADHD-related content and interviews were analyzed with critical discourse analysis. As a conclusion, the social imaginary where psychiatrists belong to is a crucial component of their clinical judgement and decision-making process. The dominance of biomedical approach is observed at all the stage of knowledge production. From this point of view, clinical judgement process is objective and measurable. In comparison with ‘a biomedical practitioner’ is represented in fundamental argumentation about ADHD, I have met ‘a humanistic practitioner’ in the depths of language and meaning as well as in-depth interviews.