Now I really am puzzled by your reponse. I've killed a lot of trees defining shame in the language of affect theory, within which much of the behavior of ADD/ADHD children seems to fit. What is your definition of shame?
Within affect theory, shame affect is the analogic amplification of an impediment to the positive affects of interest-excitement or enjoyment-joy (contentment). It produces a specific group of physiological responses in the organism, and, later, a quartet of psychological responses I have characterized as the compass of shame. I've never thought the affect system waited until birth to activate, and since the qualities of stimulus increase and stimulus decrease (postulated by Tomkins as innate triggers for the two positive affects) can be produced by plenty of internal, biological mechanisms, I don't see any reason to shelve my theory that in ADD/ADHD there is something wrong with the maintenance of the affect that is treated by the brain as an impediment to its flow, causing something to happen even in utero. Nowhere in affect theory is the statement that affect need involve another person---but perhaps I jump ahead too fast and anticipate that you conflate the adult forms of shame as emotion/script with the innate affect shame-humiliation. I suspect that we differ more in our definition of terms than in what we observe.
Finally, since affect theory is predicated on the understanding that the face is the display board for the affect system, I wouldn't accept the studies at which you hint as refuting my thesis until I saw both full motion pictures of the face of the fetus and thermocouple readings from the skin of the face before and during the activity in question. So much of the experimentation and observations that have lead to modern developmental theory has to be redone with attention to the face.