+- Aspies For Freedom (http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=48)
+--- Forum: Work Issues (/forumdisplay.php?fid=29)
+--- Thread: DSM-5 changes proposed (/showthread.php?tid=18226)
DSM-5 changes proposed - Smiley - 02-10-2010 06:14 PM
In case you hadn't heard, the American Psychiatric Assn is proposing elimination of Asperger's from it's next version of the DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual), and instead simply lumping us all under the umbrella of Autism Spectrum Disorders.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap_on_he_me/us_med_mental_disorders
From the article: "The draft manual, posted at http://www.DSM5.org, is up for public debate through April, and it's expected to be lively. Among the autism community especially, terminology is considered key to describing a set of poorly understood conditions. People with Asperger's syndrome, for instance, tend to function poorly socially but be high-achieving academically and verbally, while verbal problems are often a feature of other forms of autism."
What's your thoughts on this?
Donna
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - BardWolf - 02-10-2010 07:23 PM
This is may help the segregation of aspies who feel the must constantly validate themselves as autistic as well as aspies who continue to play the "I am not that guy" card and further the segregation but disassociating with severe autists.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ῦ - 02-10-2010 07:29 PM
What do you mean by the "I am not that guy" card?
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - M - 02-10-2010 08:25 PM
maybe this post should be in a different section of the forum???
I don't know whether changing the DSM will mean that it would be more difficult to find a job with Asperger's or whether it will be easier to get a disability pension with Asperger's or PDDNos.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Suedehead - 02-10-2010 08:53 PM
In Britain, Asperger Syndrome was never officially a separate condition. I was diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorders. Though my psychiatrist did specify in brackets that it was Asperger's, that was just an informal thing.
I don't like being classified as 'autistic' - not because of a prejudice that I possess, but because of the prejudices of other people, so if I told people that I was autisitic, rather than that I was an Aspie, they would make unrealistic judgements of me. I've had experience with people treating me like I'm mentally retarded when I tell them I'm autistic, and that's why I hate to be labelled with that name. The majority of neurotypicals are completely ignorant to the 'spectrum' part of autism, and think that autistic people are all Rain Man-like characters who should be pitied and patronised.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Marcia - 02-11-2010 01:44 AM
Was there a game on at Parkhead tonight? Who won? Who were they playing?
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ZodRau - 02-11-2010 03:29 AM
What do you mean by the "I am not that guy" card?
http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthread.php?tid=18106&pid=320009#pid320009
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Marcia - 02-11-2010 03:40 AM
What do you mean by the "I am not that guy" card?
http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthread.php?tid=18106&pid=320009#pid320009
Some confusion can arise from the fact that Austistic Spectrum Disorders include Asperger's and (Classic) Autism. So someone could receive a diagnosis of Autism, still consider themselves autistic (as in on the Spectrum), but feel that a diagnosis of Asperger's would be more appropriate for them. Does that make sense?
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ZodRau - 02-11-2010 04:12 AM
What do you mean by the "I am not that guy" card?
http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthread.php?tid=18106&pid=320009#pid320009
Some confusion can arise from the fact that Austistic Spectrum Disorders include Asperger's and (Classic) Autism. So someone could receive a diagnosis of Autism, still consider themselves autistic (as in on the Spectrum), but feel that a diagnosis of Asperger's would be more appropriate for them. Does that make sense?
Not really.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ῦ - 02-11-2010 04:22 AM
I spoke with Bardwolf over MSN about it - she means people who act like arses then turn around and claim they are not culpable because they have AS - in short, using it as an excuse to be a tosspot.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Suedehead - 02-11-2010 02:20 PM
They were playing Hearts - we won 2-0. Glenn Loovens and Marc Antoine Fortune scored.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Pakrat - 02-11-2010 06:15 PM
I think it would be a seriously retrograde step to remove Asperger's syndrome from the DSM V. Where would it leave those of us who are officially diagnosed with Asperger's for one thing? If they are going to remove anything, it should be PDD Nos and replace it with Atypical Autism.
Asperger's is indeed different from HFA as Asperger's does not include the same delays in language acquisition and self help skills as HFA.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ZodRau - 02-11-2010 06:54 PM
Asperger's is indeed different from HFA as Asperger's does not include the same delays in language acquisition and self help skills as HFA.
Delayed language acquisition is the only difference between so-called HFA and so-called Asperger's. I'm not sure where you are getting that those DX'd with Asperger's are better equipped with self-help skills than those DX'd with HFA.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 02-11-2010 08:01 PM
Well, for my part I think it's a really bad move and it bothers me quite a bit. Schools will probably lump students together innappropriately in special needs classrooms as a result of this. Also it really does have something to do with how people identify themselves... I mean look at the name of this forum... and the debates people have about "Aspie Elitism."
I know the previous post meant this in some kind of negative way, but seriously -- "I am not that guy."
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 02-11-2010 08:12 PM
People with Asperger's are not "severe autists." I don't know what you think would be gained by associating the two. Also I don't know what you mean by "validate themselves as autistic." I've never wanted to do that.
Actually I go out of the way to hide that anything is different about me and I've done that successfully in the army for over 16 years. I don't think "severe autists" can do things like that. I never even would have been allowed to join in the first place if I had identified myself to the recruiter as "autistic."
The trend in the DSM is overall depressing -- not just about Asperger's. Everything is moving away from specificity...
I don't know. I really wish I could just make them take back this change. It genuinely bothers me quite a bit.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Smiley - 02-11-2010 10:36 PM
I suggest that anyone who is concerned about the proposed changes to the DSM-5 categories relating to Asperger's & Autism please utilize their website (http://www.dsm5.org) to make comments. Tell them exactly why you do not want them to make the changes, how it will affect you personally, what impact you forsee it having on you, etc.
While I don't know that they'll put as much stock in the voiced opinions of regular ol' people as opposed to licensed clinicians/psychologists etc., it certainly cannot hurt to speak up!
I would like to think that they would take the views of people like us who are actually dealing with the condition on a day to day basis into account, at least on equal footing with those NTs who "study" us like interesting lab rats <VBG>
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ForgottenMist - 02-12-2010 04:24 AM
Asperger's is indeed different from HFA as Asperger's does not include the same delays in language acquisition and self help skills as HFA.
I agree. I think they should remove PDD and PDD NOS from that thingie.
Anyways if they removed Asperger's Syndrome, I rather just say I am Bipolar. I would say more, but I can tell I already dug myself in to a hole I can't get out of. >_<;
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Pakrat - 02-12-2010 06:09 PM
Actually I go out of the way to hide that anything is different about me and I've done that successfully in the army for over 16 years. I don't think "severe autists" can do things like that. I never even would have been allowed to join in the first place if I had identified myself to the recruiter as "autistic."
The trend in the DSM is overall depressing -- not just about Asperger's. Everything is moving away from specificity...
I don't know. I really wish I could just make them take back this change. It genuinely bothers me quite a bit.
Yes, me too. I fought very hard to get an official diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome and as far as I'm concerned, it is not the same as classic autism. The only way I would be happy about it is if it meant people such as us would receive more recognition and services and I don't really see that happening when we are all lumped in under one category.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - 3pnt141592653589793238462 - 02-13-2010 03:15 AM
quote from dsm5.org:
In making the recommendation to delete Asperger’s disorder, the following questions were considered:
Q.1. Have the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for Asperger Disorder worked?
The ‘Asperger’ label has proved popular, ‘acceptable’, and has widened recognition of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in combination with good language and intelligence. In addition, the introduction of this diagnostic entity has achieved the intended aim of prompting research into possible differences between this and other subgroups of PDD, with more than 500 published articles on Asperger syndrome.
1.1. Do the DSM-IV criteria work in clinical practice?
A number of published papers have argued that the DSM-IV Asperger disorder criteria do not work in the clinic (e.g., Mayes et al., 2001; Miller & Ozonoff, 2000; Leekam, Libby, Wing, Gould & Gillberg, 2000). Specifically, key problems exist in applying the current criteria:
· Early language details are hard to establish in retrospect, especially for older children and adults; average age of first diagnosis is late (7 years according to Mandell et al. 2005; 11yrs, Howlin & Asgharian, 1999).
· The trumping rule means most/all Asperger cases should strictly be diagnosed as having ‘Autistic disorder’ (Miller & Ozonoff, 2000; Bennett et al, 2008; Williams et al, 2008), although clinicians prefer to give the more specific term (Mahoney, et al.,1998)
o Specifically, since language delay is not a necessary criterion for Autistic disorder, to meet criteria for Asperger disorder (without being trumped by Autistic disorder), a person would need to fail to meet Communication criteria for Autistic disorder. In practice, the Communication criterion (B.2.) of “marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others” is typically met by even very able individuals fitting the Asperger picture.
As a result, ‘Asperger syndrome’ is used loosely with little agreement: e.g. Williams et al (2008) survey of 466 professionals reporting on 348 relevant cases, showed 44% of children given Asperger, PDD-NOS, atypical autism, or ‘other ASD’ label actually fulfilled criteria for Autistic Disorder (overall agreement between clinician’s label and DSM-IV criteria; Kappa 0.31).
1.2. Do the DSM-IV criteria delineate a meaningful subgroup for research or practice?
In part because of the difficulty in applying the criteria (as outlined in section 1.1.), different research groups often uses different criteria, and quality of early language milestone information is variable (Eisenmajer et al., 1996; Klin et al., 2005; Woodbury-Smith, Klin, & Volkmar, 2005). Different criteria lead to different samples being identified (see Klin et al, 2005 comparison of 3 diagnostic approaches; also Kopra et al., 2008; Woodbury-Smith et al., 2005).
* Research suggests early language criteria do not demarcate a distinct subgroup with different:
o Course/outcome: Children with autism who develop fluent language have very similar trajectories and later outcomes to children with Asperger disorder (Bennett et al., 2008; Howlin, 2003; Szatmari et al., 2000) and the two conditions are indistinguishable by school-age (Macintosh & Dissanayake, 2004), adolescence (Eisenmajer, Prior, Leekam, Wing, Ong, Gould & Welham 1998; Ozonoff, South and Miller 2000) and adulthood (Howlin, 2003).
o Cause/aetiology: Autism and Asperger syndrome co-occur in the same families (Bolton et al., 1994; Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2001; Lauritsen et al., 2005; Ghaziuddin, 2005; Volkmar et al., 1998). No clear evidence to date of distinct aetiology.
o Neuro-Cognitive profile: mixed evidence, for example some authors have reported worse motor functioning in Asperger than HFA (Klin et al., 1995; Rinehart et al, 2006), while others have not found significant group differences (Jansiewicz et al., 2006; Manjiviona & Prior, 1995; Miller & Ozonoff, 2000; Thede & Coolidge, 2007). Evidence is similarly mixed for differentiation of Asperger group by lower performance than verbal IQ profile (for, Klin et al, 1995; against, Barnhill et al., 2000; Gilchrist et al., 2001; Ozonoff, South & Miller, 2000; Spek et al., 2008), better theory of mind (for, Ozonoff et al, 2000 ; against, Dahlgren & Trillingsgaard, 1996; Spek et al, in press JADD; Barbaro & Dissanayake 2007) or executive function (for, Rinehart et al, 2006; reviewed by Klin, McPartland & Volkmar, 2005 ; against, Miller & Ozonoff, 2000; Thede & Coolidge, 2007; Verte et al., 2006) . Note the risk of circularity for group differences relating to verbal ability, since early language development (grouping criterion) is generally predictive of later language abilities (Paul & Cohen, 1984; Rutter, Greenfield & Lockyer, 1967; Rutter, Mawhood & Howlin, 1992).
o Treatment needs/response: no empirical studies demonstrating the need for different treatments or different responses to the same treatment, and in clinical practice the same interventions are typically offered.
Q.2. Does the existing research literature allow us to suggest new criteria to diagnose Asperger Disorder, in contrast to Autistic Disorder/ASD?
The current clinical and research consensus appears to be that Asperger disorder is part of the autism spectrum, although with possible over-use of the term it is quite likely that other (non-ASD) types of individuals have received this label.
Research field currently reflects two views:
o That Asperger disorder is not substantially different from other forms of ‘high functioning’ autism (HFA); i.e. Asperger’s is the part of the autism spectrum with good formal language skills and good (at least Verbal) IQ. Note that ‘HFA’ is itself a vague term, with underspecification of the area of ‘high functioning’ (performance IQ, verbal IQ, adaptation, or symptom severity).
o That Asperger disorder is distinct from other subgroups within the autism spectrum (see Matson & Wilkins, 2008, review): e.g. Klin, et al. (2005) suggest the lack of differentiating findings reflects the need for a more stringent approach, with a more nuanced view of onset patterns and early language (e.g. one-sided verbosity, unusual circumscribed interests).
2.1. What are the proposed differences? How strong is the evidence?
Several recent comprehensive reviews of the topic are available (Howlin, 2003; Macintosh & Dissanayake, 2004; Matson & Wilkins, 2008; Witwer & Lecavalier, 2008). Matson & Wilkins (2008) suggest current criteria could work if refined and supplemented. However, the research literature to date is not able to provide strong, replicated support for new or modified criteria likely to distinguish a meaningfully different group with Asperger disorder versus autism with good (current) language and IQ. Witwer and Lecavalier’s (2008) perhaps more comprehensive review concludes there is little evidence that Aspergers is distinct, and that current IQ is the main differentiating factor. Bennett et al’s (2008) follow-up study suggests that language impairment at 6-8years might have greater prognostic value than early language milestones, and Szatmari et al (2009) argue (on the basis of later developmental trajectory) for a distinction between ASD with (autism) versus without (Aspergers) structural language impairment at 6-8 years.
The draft criteria for ASD proposed by the Neurodevelopmental disorders workgroup would include dimensions of severity that include current language functioning and intellectual level/disability.
Q.3. If Asperger disorder does not appear in DSM-V as a separate diagnostic category, how will continuity and clarity be maintained for those with the diagnosis?
The aim of the draft criteria is that every person who has significant impairment in social-communication and RRBI should meet appropriate diagnostic criteria. Language impairment/delay is not a necessary criterion for diagnosis of ASD, and thus anyone who shows the Asperger type pattern of good language and IQ but significantly impaired social-communication and repetitive/restricted behavior and interests, who might previously have been given the Asperger disorder diagnosis, should now meet criteria for ASD, and be described dimensionally. The workgroup aims to provide detailed symptom examples suitable for all ages and language levels, so that ASD will not be missed by clinicians in adults of average or superior IQ who are experiencing clinical levels of difficulty.
There may be some individuals with subclinical features of Asperger/ASD who seek out a diagnosis of ‘Asperger Disorder’ in order to understand themselves better (perhaps following an autism diagnosis in a relative), rather than because of clinical-level impairment in everyday life. While such a use of the term may be close to Hans Asperger’s reference to a personality type, it is outside the scope of DSM, which explicitly concerns clinically-significant and impairing disorders. ‘Asperger-type’, like ‘Kanner-type’, may continue to be a useful shorthand for clinicians describing a constellation of features, or area of the multi-dimensional space defined by social/communication impairments, repetitive/restricted behaviour and interests, and IQ and language abilities.
There is good and bad here. Basically, Aspeger's is no longer a disorder for those of us less socially disabled, but if you do need help you can still get it, and even more so. Only negative thing I can see here is problem aspies being put into special ed more often.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Pakrat - 02-13-2010 01:18 PM
What about those of us who can usually carry on a conversation with one other person but become flustered/highly anxious etc when there are further people in the group?
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 02-14-2010 11:30 PM
I feel that way, too, Pakrat. The only thing I can think to say about it is that with time and practice it gets much easier to do, although the preference for one on one situations will probably always remain. Also for me it's been more than about ability. All my life I tended to have very few friends who I was most comfortable hanging out with one on one. I've actually felt sometimes that I'm better at that one on one thing than average people, albeit perpetually naive. Maybe.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 02-14-2010 11:45 PM
3pnt,
I understand that there's a carefully considered rationale behind this. But I also think it's unethical to take people who function in society, to varying degrees, and make a decision that will artificially impact on their ability to do that. They don't take people who have slightly below average IQ's and diagnose them as being on the "Mental Retardation Spectrum" or "Intellectually Disabled Spectrum" (as they want to call it now). It is also the rationale of intellectuals who have never had to live life as a person with Asperger's or consider what might be important to them.
It is simply a fact that everything I did professionally for the last 16+ years of my life would have been impossible if I had ever identified myself or been diagnosed as "Autistic."
Although contrary to popular belief very few doctors actually take the Hypocratic Oath, I still think in spirit that the field's main priority should be to do no harm. And I can't think of any benefits my son would recieve from the label "Autistic," other than it would have been that much harder to pull him away from "the special classes" and argue for his placement in honors classes.
I think it also would have been a crushing blow to his self esteem to see someone like the Autistic girl my wife worked closely with in the school system -- who was virtually non verbal and came out of the bathroom covered in her own menstrual blood laughing hysterically to herself -- as his peer. He has always had a terrible time socially (and that's really been hard enough on him), but he's also always consistently performed well above his grade level. Creating any sense of equivocal conditions between such widely different children doesn't serve any practical purpose I can think of. I really wonder why they didn't choose to remove the diagnosis of "HFA," because apparently with things like "Intellectual Disability" they were looking to destigmatize at least some people out there.
There is also a quote floating around online that essentially says we resist this change because "autistic people hate change" (or something to that effect). And that, along with the general presumption that these people can play god with my destiny or the destiny of my child, really enrages me. I think if we decided to change the name of "Psychiatrist" to "Psycho-Quack-Moron" or "On the Useless Profession Spectrum" that psychiatrists would be resistant to change, as well.
I don't mean offense to anyone with any condition out there. But it feels very personal when a committee of psychiatrists has the power to make decisions that in effect could have erased the possibility to accomplish everything I've accomplished in my adult life. I promise you no one is going to grant an "Autist" a security clearance, much less any of the bazillion other things I've gotten to do. All I can really say is thank god or whatever that I was born early enough to have just been seen as "a problem kid" than getting mired in any of this. Nevertheless, from my experience of seeing my son grow up I have no doubt whatsoever that I'd be diagnosed with Asperger's if I chose to pursue that... and probably would have involuntarily received the label if I came up in the school system we have today.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 02-14-2010 11:57 PM
Also this long standing contention that Asperger's is on a spectrum that includes Autism is simply wrong, in my opinion. It implies that if they found some way to medicate Autistic people to remove some of the problems of their condition that these Autistic people would grow into being like Asperger's people -- and I just don't believe that's true. They would become more functional, certainly, but I don't think they would suddenly show the other characteristics of Asperger's folks.
And this spectrum line of thought has also struck me as very illogical in the sense that if there's really an Autistic spectrum, then the logical conclusion would be that every human being on Earth is on that spectrum -- to varying degrees. It makes a lot more sense to me to have specific diagnoses, talk about varying degrees of severity within those diagnoses, and perhaps if there really is some benefit to be gained by doing so, maybe group clusters of them together in related "families" of conditions or some such.
The human mind and all its variations are far more complex than these people want to allow for. And I think there are many people with Asperger's who, given the necessity, could very easily sit down with a psychologist or psychiatrist and give completely "normal" responses that would result in no diagnosis at all. I know I've been in that position. If it's possible for us to get by, at least in many cases, then I think these people have no business stigmatizing us just because they like for things to neatly fit together according to whatever compulsions they feel for everything to be neat and tidy.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 02-15-2010 12:02 AM
I think for all the rationales I give here, most anyone can tell that this decision at it's core makes me just really upset and angry. Sorry to be so long-winded.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Pakrat - 02-15-2010 05:48 PM
Yes, and one of the things that made it so hard for me to obtain an official diagnosis was medical professionals saw that I could speak reasonably well one to one with them and therefore concluded my reports of social difficulties were exaggerated. There have been a lot of comments on Facebook to the effect that if Asperger's people protest against the proposed change, they are being elitist.
I don't agree - we have different support needs to say, autistic people who aren't speaking and rely totally on their families and carers for hygiene, feeding and other types of personal care. That doesn't make us superior; only different. On the "high functioning end of the spectrum", we generally cope quite well if even a little leeway is given in dealings with us.
For instance, if we can go to school and be in a quiet and orderly classroom, or be given a fair chance to get a job and then be seen as an individual and not ordered to be exactly the same as "everybody else".
In some ways, a label of "autistic" might get us better services but then again, it would likely work against getting employment, housing, and general recognition within society.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 02-16-2010 02:25 AM
Hmm. Apparently my belief is bigotry according to the front page: "The idea that Asperger's Syndrome or PDD-NOS shouldn't be part of the autistic spectrum." [...is bigotry.]
Sorry guys. I don't think that people with Asperger's or people with Autism are better or worse than each other. I just personally believe they're different.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Isabel - 02-16-2010 02:32 AM
I'm highly capable on an academic level yet I also have the language and speech problems. It's hard when people assume when you have the verbal challenges that you must also be learning disabled as well.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Isabel - 02-16-2010 02:35 AM
It also seems that plenty of people who are aspies also report having learning handicaps so the lines seem much more blurred to me than people seem to recognize.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Shrek - 02-16-2010 07:44 AM
I am with Pakrat. I had greater self help skills because I could cook at between 8 to 10. I certainly believe the language difference. I was reading at normal language level when my special education classmates were years behind.
I do admit I do not want to be associated with classmates who had LFA. No, I don't. They had extreme echolalia (mindlessly), made noises, etc. I did not.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ZodRau - 02-16-2010 08:04 AM
I do admit I do not want to be associated with classmates who had LFA. No, I don't. They had extreme echolalia (mindlessly), made noises, etc. I did not.
I've got echolalia.
Maybe what you people (who don't want to be associated with autism) need is a different diagnosis. >.>
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ZodRau - 02-22-2010 06:26 AM
quoted from another thread, but my answer belongs in this one more than that one.
The main objection I've seen to the DSM V changes from those with an Asperger's DX is that they will cease being so spectacularly special and get lumped in with plain old Autists...as if they're lesser beings.
Well...they're not. We're not. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses. I was 'blessed' with the ability to somewhat communicate if I have to. And with a talent for art. Leave me alone to doodle, paint, sculpt, and make pottery and I'm fine, but send me out into the world, into environments not of my choosing, to be on time, to keep track of things I have no interest in, to interact with other people...and I'm a wreck. Disabled.
No, really - I am. I've been drawing social security disability since I was 27. But did I mention I make beautiful pottery?
Personally, I think it's long overdue for Autism to NOT be considered an abnormality to be treated at all costs, but rather a difference to be understood - it's strengths to be encouraged - it's weaknesses to be accepted and ameliorated if absolutely necessary, but by humane methods. Methods which will only come into being through changing focus from a cure approach to an understanding approach.
I see in the changes proposed for the DSM V an expansion of the Autistic Community, perceived and actual. An inclusiveness that strengthens the argument for Neurodiversity.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Genesis - 02-22-2010 06:45 AM
This can't be happening, please let it be just a hoax please *pinches self* it isn't...
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ZodRau - 02-22-2010 07:45 AM
that should have gone...
it's strengths to be encouraged - it's weaknesses to be accepted (and ameliorated if absolutely necessary)
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 02-22-2010 06:21 PM
I don't think people in the real world will ever really accept our weaknesses. We have to compensate for them or avoid them by doing things like working for ourselves.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Genesis - 02-22-2010 09:41 PM
If only there was aspie-autie jobs that were easy to get to...
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - buckthesystem - 02-22-2010 09:46 PM
Mysterywalker ... welcome ... if belatedly. Now to business ...
You are talking bollocks. Is that plain enough for you?
Taking your rationale of separating your son from the girl coming out of the toilet covered in her own menstrual blood ... the average Joe could say that they would not like their average Jr being classed in the same group as an autist ... i.e. 'human'.
Where then? Parents having to cope alone with their autistic children in fear because the thick end of the population decides that autistic foetuses should be euthanased before thirteen weeks, or after they have been diagnosed. And don't bother telling me that this is an over the top proposition. Ask the Jews about that. Ask the gays about that. Ask the Hutus about that.
I have to say that I can't imagine why anybody anywhere would have given someone with your predeliction for being so annyoed and utterly unbalanced a gun or any place in the forces And that it only underlines why the world is in such a pitiable state.
Furthermore, understand that if you are autistic and your son is autistic then likely his son will be autistic (oh and by the way it IS genetic / hereditary), and your refusal to acknowledge the status of autism in all its variety is only going to be handed on to your grandson in his time by your failure to fight for a better and more equitable world culture in your time. I hope you're proud of that. I certainly wouldn't be.
Now, if you are going to deny autism in yourself, why not just sod the blazes off, cos clearly you don't need a site like this, you are part of the master race which has been able to transcend its human frailty. I'd love to watch you fall from that state of grace with a good hard thump. Unfortunately, you are demanding the same thing for your son and his grandson.
<Shakes head> And then autists wonder why some idiot NT social workers autimatically believe that autists don't have the capacity to be parents. Lordy lordy.
Note to the howlers ... I WILL NOT retract or edit. This guy is hugely offensive and contributing to your repression and mine.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - featherways - 02-22-2010 09:57 PM
I'm perfectly happy for it to be all one spectrum rather than lots of different bits. Same principle as people who are partially sighted versus completely blind. Both are registered blind, because the difference is one of degree.
What people traditionally thought of as 'classic autism' was very often a combination of low IQ , lack of language, acquired brain injury , epilepsy or ADHD etc. In other words, it wasn't the autism that was causing the differences between them and people at the higher end, it was other co-existing stuff. I suspect a fair number of people with a low IQ and no language were incorrectly labelled as 'autistic', since often the parents say that they are actually very good at picking up and using social signals, and very sociable by nature, without the usual obsessions. In other words, it's been a diagnostic mess for ages.
Pure Autism causes social communication problems and a huge need for routine and an amazing ability to concentrate on fine detail in things for ages/months/years/a lifetime. We share that in common with all on the autism spectrum. I think if we start from that, and then add in the other diagnoses as appropriate (as one evaluation instead of 10 different ones), we'll have a much better idea of just how difficult life is for someone.
In my case, ok I can talk (often mostly to get myself into social trouble!) and have a high IQ (on some things, and very low on others), but I'm also face blind, dyspraxic, have very major sensory issues, & only 'see' words if I can draw or imagine a picture representing them. It all adds up to quite a level of disability that isn't reflected in the word 'mild'. Mild it ain't.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 02-22-2010 10:30 PM
I don't understand why you're so obviously angry, buckthesystem. I personally think that Asperger's and Autism are not the same thing, although I understand that clearly almost no one agrees with me on that. My opinion isn't intended as an attack on anyone.
I also think people who are capable of functioning in society need different services than people who aren't. It doesn't help anyone to have someone who's challenges are mainly in the area of appropriate socialization sitting in the same classroom with a nonverbal child trapped in a cycle of near constant self stemming. I don't deny that either is human or hate either of them.
Can't you disagree with me without presuming that I must be full of hate? I don't even understand where that's coming from.
I don't doubt that there's a risk of Autistic people being aborted due to prenatal testing.
I am not utterly imbalanced. I've managed quite well as a soldier for over 16 years including 5 deployments to war zones where in no case did I flip out or do anything to support the notion that giving me a gun was a bad idea. I don't understand why your first post to me would drop to the level of making personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion. Nor do I understand why you presume that my entire lineage down through the ages is doomed to be hopelessly warped on the basis of a few posts I made here.
You're using the word "Autistic" as if it means the same thing as "Asperger's." Some people may believe that, but obviously I'm not one of them. I don't claim to be Autistic. I'm not trying to insult anyone.
"Now, if you are going to deny autism in yourself, why not just sod the blazes off, cos clearly you don't need a site like this, you are part of the master race which has been able to transcend its human frailty. I'd love to watch you fall from that state of grace with a good hard thump. Unfortunately, you are demanding the same thing for your son and his grandson."
Why? I don't hope anything bad happens to you. Both my son and I have Asperger's.
"Note to the howlers ... I WILL NOT retract or edit. This guy is hugely offensive and contributing to your repression and mine."
I don't care whether you edit your post or not, but I hope you would engage me in a bit more of a civilized discussion in the future. You're making all kinds of weird assumptions that I'm basically evil because... what? I guess because you are convinced my opinion is wrong. If I thought the world was flat would you assume I was evil, too? I really just don't get it.
Setting aside whatever specifics of my beliefs that you disagree with and focusing solely on the question of whether the proposed changes to the DSM are a good idea -- if you look at national media coverage on the subject or even this particular thread, clearly I'm not the only person with Asperger's who thinks they aren't a good idea.
- Kory
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - buckthesystem - 02-23-2010 08:33 PM
Well, if you can’t understand that an attack on someone else with autism who happens to be more severely affected than you or your son is an attack on the rest of us, then you have a lot of learning to do. If you feel the need to dissociate yourself from other autists because of their levels of autism to maintain your own dignity and to ensure you get better treatment than them, then you need some support to understand that an attack on one of us is an attack on us all in many ways.
That argument is so full of holes that it is unreal. There are not necessarily any difficulties with the two types you describe being in the same room. After all, one can’t talk to the others, and the other probably doesn’t want to. However, that slightly flip and ironic point aside, you will achieve no sort of equality for any autist if you split us up as a group to be dealt with. What we need is a common approach which starts with a uniform assessment of the needs of each. What you are proposing is that your son gets pulled out from assoiating with that child simply on the basis that they have apparently conflicting needs, which they don’t. If the two things can be managed sufficiently well to allow both to learn to the best of their abilities, then they should be able and allowed to.
The trouble is that the education and general culture system all too frequently says ... ‘ah, autist ... in that room there with all the others .. ah, normal, you go over there and join society”. Or to put it another way ... “ah, normal ... gun, ammo, uniform, training, usefulness, over there ... ah, autist ... oh for goodness sakes don’t insult us by thinking you can be a soldier!”
Well, if you don’t understand, and I have already told you, then telling you again aint gonna help. But denigrating a young girl because of her traits and the way it affects her, and demanding that your son is kept away from her is, in my opinion, very very close to hate. Viz:
Now if that isn’t denying her the dignity of humanity, decrying her for what she is, and placing her below your son, I don’t know what it is. Furthermore, if it did affect his poor wee fragile humility and dignity, it is surely your job as a parent to teach him that her status is no reflection on him, but that his ability to be compassionate and supportive will reflect upon him very well. Furthermore, it may actually help him with his socialisation. Seems to me the parenting aint that good here.
Oh for crying out loud! You were the one who suggested it, by saying that if you had been diagnosed, or had claimed to be autistic, you wouldn’t have been allowed access to such things. You made it the topic of discussion.
As for your lineage being hopelessly warped ... well, now, you see, that IS offensive. It seems to me that you are describing anybody with autism or Asperger’s as hopelessly warped and that such a status is a ‘doom’. You see, what I was saying was that by your daft attitudes you are entrapping your son and his progeny in the same dark place you seem to think we all are. I didn’t say he or his were doomed. I didn’t say he or his were hopelessly warped.
YOU said all of those things. Seems to me the truth is outing itself here.
I suspect you need to do a little research with your eyes and ears open. Seems to me that you have decided autistic is a bad thing, and so you are denying it in yourself and your son. I have never been on the Autism Speaks site, but from what I hear on here, that is the sort of approach they might be likely to take. It doesn’t exist as an unalterable fact. It is something that can be cured. Drivel. It can be ameliorated at most.
I say again, if you want not to be autistic, then there is really very little point in you being here. You’re not going to get much agreement about that. Furthermore, it is rather against the values of this site to deny autism by use of calculated ambivalence. There have been many discussions here about not accepting elitism. And you ARE elitist. If we take your general tenor and combine it with your separationist stance, it is way too easy to feel insulted.
In fact what you are saying is that the whole impetus of this site is wrong because it combines two things as being the same, or at least closely related. Such ‘sedition’ seems contrary to your presence. In fact it comes a lot close to the sort of thing that gets people banned because they just want to stir up trouble. Are you a troll?
And I don’t hope anyhting bad happens to you. The metaphor refers to you having to swallow some of the BS you punt. I know that irony is not an autistic trait (apparently), and even less an American trait (apparently), but I should have thought that the fall from grace metaphor was pretty well understood in the world.
Well, I base my arguments on experience and what is said. I never called you evil. Wide of the mark to the point of ...oh dear, the howlers don’t let me use that word! ... but not evil. I rarely believe in the concept of evil, as it happens. As to the what ... well, I think I’ve covered that above. And the world is flat. At least it is in a two dimensional monochromatic view, which is pretty much where I think you are. You have said not one thing to convince me otherwise.
Hmm, well, mebbe, but you should look at some of the other threads which have covered this topic in the past. I think you might get a bit more of a rounded picture.
[quote=mysterywalker]And this spectrum line of thought has also struck me as very illogical in the sense that if there's really an Autistic spectrum, then the logical conclusion would be that every human being on Earth is on that spectrum -- to varying degrees. It makes a lot more sense to me to have specific diagnoses, talk about varying degrees of severity within those diagnoses, and perhaps if there really is some benefit to be gained by doing so, maybe group clusters of them together in related "families" of conditions or some such.
Well, we can agree on most of that at least. If you look at the other threads you will see much in common with my thinking.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 02-23-2010 10:50 PM
Well, the thing is that it’s not an attack on anyone. Maybe I chose my example poorly or used wording that didn’t accurately reflect my intentions. A girl with that ones particular needs would benefit from services that are very different from those that my son would require. Therefore I don’t see the advantage to either of them in treating the condition as identical in the school system.
She needs help in understanding external reality as such and his difficulties are primarily in the area of appropriate socialization and gross motor skills. It is possible that from a scientific perspective a common cause is involved, which may be why psychiatrists want to abolish the distinction. However, I think that would be a bad idea because the needs involved are different.
I don’t know what else I could say to stress that I’m not in any way attempting to diminish the humanity or dignity of anyone with any particular diagnosis. At present someone with a diagnosis of “high functioning autism” probably does belong in the same classroom as my son, because semantics aside it seems pretty arbitrary who they diagnose with HFA and who they diagnose with Asperger’s. Those are probably the same things in my opinion. But the solution seems to me to standardize the distinctions between those and “classic autism,” rather than abolishing the distinctions altogether. Most people who deal with children in school environments on a daily basis are not clinicians and I don’t necessarily trust them to draw or infer subtle distinctions.
No, the problem is not with them being in the same room. It’s with them potentially receiving identical services.
Yes, the system tends to draw very sharp distinctions. If I knew of some way to make the system stop drawing sharp distinctions along the lines of “autistic” versus “normal” then I would make that happen. But I don’t know of any way to do that. So in my opinion the best way to set any child up for success is to push them toward mainstreaming as much as possible for that individual child.
I don’t demand that my son be kept away from anyone. I expect him to develop a realistic appraisal of his own strengths and weaknesses and I don’t want the educational system to introduce artificial biases that would skew his perspective. Maybe if it was a clear-cut physical difference, then it would seem less hateful to you. For instance, someone confined to a wheelchair should work on strengthening their arms rather than being placed on a track team in the interest of equality or false notions of sensitivity.
No one benefits when you stare something in the face and willfully pretend that it’s something other than what it is. This example with the particular girl is getting sort of out of control. But really, it doesn’t help anyone to have someone who reads above their grade level studying English literature next to someone who’s unable at their present stage of development to understand that they’re being told to read something. Who do you think would benefit in the situation? Does it somehow ennoble that girl to place her in a setting where the expectations of the class are beyond her ability to function or does it somehow benefit my son to place him in a setting where the expectations of the class are far below his ability to function? What practical advantage do you see in this scenario?
It’s like taking the kid in the wheelchair and telling him “walk” over and over again. Or like putting my son in a chair and telling him he doesn’t have to walk.
And yes, if I had been officially diagnosed they would take my job away. I am aware of a case now where that’s happening to a junior soldier. I disagree with it, but my disagreement doesn’t help him any.
The “hopelessly warped” thing – what I meant was that you seem to think I’m giving my son a terrible upbringing and in turn he’ll give his son a terrible upbringing and so on and so on. I didn’t say anything about people with Autism or Asperger’s being warped or doomed. I don’t think you’re trapped in a terrible dark place. I was responding as an individual to insults you specifically made about me and my outlook. The point actually had nothing to do specifically with Asperger’s or Autism or any large group of people at all.
This is where you say things like “the truth is outing itself here” and I just feel confused and how completely sideways the whole discussion has gone from anything I said or intended.
I don’t believe that Autism or Asperger’s can be cured. In fact I think that whole notion is pretty creepy as if to say that a person could be cured of being himself. All I think we can do is to build up our clusters of coping strategies to get by in the real world. And when we have enough of them in place, then we get the opportunity to bring our strong points to bear in order to be successful. I don’t even think we disagree on that. It just seems like you’ve convinced yourself of the premise that we’re automatically in opposition or something.
Research… well, I just ordered some books by Temple Grandin based on discussions on this site. That’s something, I guess. I have certainly researched this stuff throughout my life, albeit haphazardly. I don’t claim to be some kind of professional specialist.
“If [I] want to not be autistic….” Is not what any of this is about. I have my opinions about what’s true and what isn’t. I believe that I have Asperger’s and that that particular condition is not identical to Autism. Of course the psychiatric community can “prove” me wrong tomorrow by eliminating the distinction altogether. And then I guess I would be autistic by definition.
I guess I do disagree in some ways with some of the beliefs held by the majority of those who are active on this site. I don’t intend anything hateful by that, nor is it intended as trolling. Is this some kind of political party where if I join then I’m obliged to wholeheartedly endorse an entire package deal of concepts? I’m only trying to have discussions and hopefully some of them will be helpful in some way. If you’re confident in what you believe in, then I’m not sure how my existence and *slightly* differing beliefs should represent a threat.
I think that in the context of having normal conversations that I can present opinions that are sometimes in opposition to other people’s without becoming “the enemy.” But I guess if I’m wrong then I’ll be banned. I promise I’m not trying to hurt or offend anyone.
Okay, “evil” was a simplification and paraphrase of your value judgments directed toward me. I suppose what you most literally implied is that I’m hateful and bigoted, neither of which I believe to be true.
If there are any particular threads you’ve participated in that you feel it would be beneficial for me to read, then please point me toward them and I’ll check them out. Otherwise I guess I’ll continue my current haphazard approach to being involved in this forum.
As to the real point of this particular thread, I do get that many people, including some who have Asperger’s, think that the proposed DSM change is a good idea. But so far there are only two practical reasons I can see being cited. One is that they believe the classification is more factually accurate. I don’t find that particular line of thought persuasive because I care most about the practical impact on people with Asperger’s living their lives on a daily basis. The argument is kind of like pointing out that a tomato is a fruit – but it has no practical impact on how you make a salad.
The other seems to be a belief that this will result in the availability of services for people with Asperger’s that are apparently not available at present. But I don’t see that at all. What’s important is that people get the services they need. And if you erase practical and useful distinctions between conditions, then of course this could result in a broader range of services – but services that are likely inappropriate or unneeded.
Anyway, these are just my opinions as one guy. I hope that you can see that even though I could be completely wrong, my opinions are absolutely not intended to hurt anyone.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Pakrat - 02-27-2010 02:32 PM
I believe even kids on the so-called higher end of the spectrum might not cope in a regular classroom without assistance. If that assistance is not going to be given, they might be better off in special education or being home schooled. Surely somebody could have explained to your son that the girl who came out of the toilets didn't understand her behaviour was inappropriate and didn't understand what was happening to her.
She might never be able to understand or it might just take longer than usual. It doesn't help her or anybody else to treat her as if she is some kind of monster and should be kept away so she doesn't "contaminate" others.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 03-01-2010 07:00 PM
I wish I had never mentioned that particular girl, because it just makes me appear mean and doesn't even make the point I was trying to make. Temple Grandin goes pretty in depth about her upbringing in the 50s and 60s in the book "Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships." The gist of it is that she credits having been subjected to the same expectations as everyone else largely with who making her who she is today. Anyway, I think she makes the point I was trying to make better than I could here.
Also in a way that was a hypothetical situation. The thing with the girl was real, but happened while my wife was working in a special ed class. My son wasn't in that classroom. He's actually 16 now... almost 17... and most of the potential school system fights that I bring up here are just principles I believe in now, because the actual fights have mostly all happened.
I don't think there's anything monstrous or demeaning in trying to work at a particular individual's functional level. I mean would you put a 3rd grader in a 6th grade classrom or vice versa? I'm sure that if he wasn't embarrassed, then the 6th grader would be delighted, because he could sit in the back and basically read, draw, or do whatever he felt like. But it would be really hard and unfair for the 3rd grader... I imagine most of them would shut down and simply ignore the unrealistic expectations of their environment... especially if they were autistic.
But honestly at this point I don't know why I bother to have an opinion. We're all simply "Autistic" now... or will be in 2013. It's not like my opinion is going to be considered by any decision maker.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ZodRau - 03-01-2010 11:28 PM
emphasis mine.
-----begin sarcasm-----
Oh! Poor us! Not so special anymore are we?
-----end sarcasm-------
Still, 1 out of 150 isn't so bad is it?
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 03-02-2010 12:09 AM
The source of my disappointment... in the sentence you emphasize... is that in the entire process the desires of the individuals the diagnoses apply to aren't being considered. Maybe the majority of us would support the change, but except for isolated rants we'll never know.
If the goal is to eliminate any opinion that could be interpreted as elitist, perhaps the DSM 6 should be written to reflect the single diagnosis of "Unspecified Atypical Disorder" for not just all of us, but anyone with any diagnosable condition.
What I've genuinely come to conclude in my adult life is that the sad truth is nobody's special... which is a logical end result of all that "everyone's special in their own special way" drivel that's come to permeate all society... not just us, not just "NTs," but everyone.
I'm sorry so many people feel that my opinion is hateful. I'm certainly capable of being hateful, but it really frustrates me when people read hate into opinions I hold that just feel like they're logical. I might have a warped sense of logic, especially from your point of view, but I'd feel a lot better if you took it at that instead of deciding you know what motivates me.
What I think is virtually everyone on this board should be described as having "Asperger's." I doubt there are many "classic autists" engaging in these conversations. HFA is, ijust n my personal opinion, without question the same thing as Asperger's. The language delay criteria is mostly irrelevant and largely ignored at random as a factor in diagnosis, anyway. I think that there's a distinct enough difference between the needs of someone with "Classic Autism" or "Low Functioning Autism" that it would be beneficial to consider that a completely different diagnosis from HFA or Asperger's. This is my considered opinion. It could be flat out ignorant and incorrect, but I don't hold to this opinion because I wish anything bad for anyone. Nor is it that as an autistic person I automatically resist change, as the psychiatrists have been suggesting.
The problem -- in my singular and possibly foolish opinion -- with viewing things from a spectrum or continuum perspective is that every human being on Earth could logically be placed on any spectrum or continuum that could be conceived.
I guess free thinking is a fine thing, as long as we can all agree on exactly the right free thoughts to have.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ZodRau - 03-02-2010 01:17 AM
You're a flat-earther, aren't you?
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Marcia - 03-02-2010 02:05 AM
Let's have less of the snarky comments. Everyone is entitled to have a opinion and to express it here. If you don't agree, then say so civilly.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ZodRau - 03-02-2010 02:26 AM
Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion, but as for entitlement to express it here, that's not entirely true is it?
Anyway. I've done with civility. In my opinion, this is a classic example of thinking one can have their cake and eat it too. If you're not on the Autism Spectrum - If you don't believe it exists...shove off.
To quote from the about:
"It was called Aspies for freedom as the founders were all aspies, though the group is for anyone with autism, asperger's or any spectrum condition. We know that autism is not a disease, and we oppose any attempts to "cure" someone of an autism spectrum condition, or any attempts to make them 'normal' against their will. We are part of building the autism culture. We aim to strengthen autism rights, oppose all forms of discrimination against aspies and auties, and work to bring the community together both online and offline."
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 03-02-2010 03:50 AM
Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion, but as for entitlement to express it here, that's not entirely true is it?
Anyway. I've done with civility. In my opinion, this is a classic example of thinking one can have their cake and eat it too. If you're not on the Autism Spectrum - If you don't believe it exists...shove off.
To quote from the about:
"It was called Aspies for freedom as the founders were all aspies, though the group is for anyone with autism, asperger's or any spectrum condition. We know that autism is not a disease, and we oppose any attempts to "cure" someone of an autism spectrum condition, or any attempts to make them 'normal' against their will. We are part of building the autism culture. We aim to strengthen autism rights, oppose all forms of discrimination against aspies and auties, and work to bring the community together both online and offline."
ZodRau, we probably have more points in common as people than points of difference. Maybe not, but I would guess so. Obviously I hold a minority opinion as far as this particular thread goes. All I was trying to say in recent posts is "no offense."
I acknowledge that I'm "on the spectrum" and "the spectrum exists"... but those are recently constructed manmade concepts... meaning that I don't believe they objectively exist. I mean yes, psychiatrists have certain criteria they consider to be true at this point in time. Whatever it actually means to be what most of us here are -- I know for a fact that I'm that. And "we" were that 8000 years ago and will be that 8000 years from now and the terminology and theory will continue to describe something in subjective terms that has an objective existence.
From some of the things I've read on here I have actually been kind of paranoid that I could end up banned. I guess I've been trusting that since I don't intend to be deliberately mean or bigoted here, then it won't come to that. If this was actually intended as a kind of church where everyone shares a common "doctrine," then I apologize for violating the sanctum.
I do believe completely in the spirit of the quote you posted. I disagree in some small way with the wording, which indeed is inconsistent with itself... otherwise why say "...aspies and auties"? But I find this understandable, because it reflects the clinicians who one day act as though autism and Asperger's are identical and then the next make distinctions between them... and these distinctions are usually not consistent with their own diagnostic criteria. So in that sense the DSM change is a good thing in that at least it moves toward consistency.
Also I kind of like snarky comments, like generically speaking. But maybe you can relate to feeling frustrated when you intend one thing and then get faulted for intending something else?
Anyway, I hope that you would discuss something with me on a different thread, because maybe you'll find me a more reasonable guy in whatever context that would be...
Eh, well.
And no, I don't think the Earth is flat. But I do believe in some odd things sometimes. They seem to work for me most of the time.
- Kory
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - buckthesystem - 03-02-2010 09:54 PM
Jeepers!
Mystery if you think you're gonna get banned for what you've said before, both me and Zod would have been banned donkeys ages ago! The point of this forum (the philosophy one) is that strong opinions are expected. I'd rather have an argument than all round happiness any day! I'll wait for heaven for that!
I'm a bit confused though. I seem to remember you saying in the past that autist and aspies were different things (I'm on my IPOD so it's difficult to cross check) but now you seem to be saying that there is a spectrum and that we all exist on it.
Do a search for 'sphectrum' in here and youvshould find some of my ideas on this. You should also find some of my ideas about the DSM V there too.
If I get the chance I'll try to find the links, but it is difficult on this sort of platform.
And for heavens sakes, feel free to disagree. This is NO sanctum. But there is, as both Zod and I have said, little to be gained by being here if you disagree with the absolute fundamentals. Unless of course you want to change them.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - buckthesystem - 03-02-2010 10:06 PM
http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthread.php?tid=17416
http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthread.php?tid=17234
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - Thomas the Solitary - 03-02-2010 11:00 PM
Thought I'd post this here.
it's a radio program in the states called "This American Life". It's damn good (no, it's not run by the government. Run by NPR)
Anyway. It is very good.
http://thisamericanlife.org/
(direct link to mp3 podcast of the show)
http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/204.mp3
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 03-02-2010 11:32 PM
Mystery if you think you're gonna get banned for what you've said before, both me and Zod would have been banned donkeys ages ago! The point of this forum (the philosophy one) is that strong opinions are expected. I'd rather have an argument than all round happiness any day! I'll wait for heaven for that!
I'm a bit confused though. I seem to remember you saying in the past that autist and aspies were different things (I'm on my IPOD so it's difficult to cross check) but now you seem to be saying that there is a spectrum and that we all exist on it.
Do a search for 'sphectrum' in here and youvshould find some of my ideas on this. You should also find some of my ideas about the DSM V there too.
If I get the chance I'll try to find the links, but it is difficult on this sort of platform.
And for heavens sakes, feel free to disagree. This is NO sanctum. But there is, as both Zod and I have said, little to be gained by being here if you disagree with the absolute fundamentals. Unless of course you want to change them.
The thing is that I personally believe the spectrum point of view is not the best way to consider the issue. However, I do have to acknowledge that this is how psychiatrists look at it. So as far as I'm concerned the spectrum "exists" as a concept that's being used today -- you know, criteria within certain (rather subjective) ranges. I can't pretend the psychiatric community does not actively use the autistic spectrum concept.
One big point of contention I have with the spectrum concept is that if you carry it to it's logical conclusion, then every human being on Earth could properly be labeled as "on the spectrum" because we all manifest "autistic" characteristics to some degree, however intense or however slight. I think diagnostic criteria lose most of their usefulness when they become too all-inclusive. For instance, whatever diagnostic value there is in having a condition called "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" would be mostly destroyed by creating a all-encompassing "Fatigue Spectrum Disorder" that included anyone with any level of fatigue beyond the average.
I also believe that certain "autistic" people, primarily those that have been diagnosed with HFA should more properly be diagnosed with Asperger's, because they're functionally equivalent. The sole distinguishing diagnostic criteria I'm aware of is whether or not there was an early language delay -- but in practice I can tell you psychiatrists ignore it at will. If they observed the criteria, then my son would have "HFA" and I would have "Asperger's"... which makes pretty much no sense to me considering that these things are hereditary. And looking at him at 16 years old, it's like looking into a mirror of my younger self in many ways. The language delay or lack of it shouldn't be the determining factor of anything -- it all evens out later.
I basically think there should be two different diagnoses for what's now usually called "ASD" and in the future (according to the DSM) will only be called "ASD. That is, I think there should be "Autistic" and "Asperger's," with a recognition that yes, each individual case varies. I know some people think this is an exclusionary point of view. Mostly I base it on my own experience and things I've read.
The ASD point of view kind of makes it seem like with the right amount of services someone with "Classic Autism" would progress and become someone with "HFA," but I don't think that's the case, personally. Someone with classic autism could, at least in theory, progress indefinitely toward higher levels of functioning. But what I doubt is that one day they would suddenly demonstrate all or most of the criteria used to diagnose HFA or Asperger's. I just think they're distinct enough conditions to maintain and even strengthen the distinction.
But... yeah... matter of opinion and stuff.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ZodRau - 03-25-2010 04:51 AM
Occasionally I'll do a google news search on Asperger's. Today I found this article: First Person: Asperger’s is a label worth keeping.
what follows is my response via e-mail:
Greetings,
I am 43 years old, an autist diagnosed with Asperger's.
Your description of your 8 year old struck a chord with me, as I've got that "10 yard stare and almost never make eye-contact" too. I never knew the names of all my classmates. In fact, at that age, aside from the bully's name (Bart) I only knew the name of the one other kid in my class. He was friendly to me and his name was Brian. Repetition of syllables and phrases is familiar to me as well. Echolalia. It's not uncommon amongst autists.
I don't know about the colors of technology, but I do know that sounds are colored shapes in my mind's eye. That's synesthesia.
FYI: The wikipedia article on it states, "Autism and epilepsy occur with synesthesia more often than chance predicts. Daniel Tammet, the savant who set a European record for reciting the digits of pi, has all three conditions indicating that they might share an underlying genetic cause. Synesthesia has so far been linked to a region on chromosome 2 that is associated with autism and epilepsy."
The problem as I see it is that the word 'autistic' has become entrenched in the U.S lexicon as being sybonymous with 'retarded' (sort of like 'chaos' is mistakenly labelled 'anarchy'), and so anyone who exhibits an average or above average intelligence and has a good grasp of language could not be autistic. This is simply not true. Mental retardation is not exclusive to autism. There does seem to be a higher incidence of it amongst autists, but there is also a higher incidence of savantism amongst autists. (I theorize that there is an element of savantism in ALL autists, but that it only is apparent in those of us who are capable of some degree of communication with others)
And then we've got the aspies. Autists who are capable of communicating with NTs on at least a basic level, verbally. Much more socially acceptable. That's a little joke. I've rarely been accepted socially. We're aspies because we've learned to fear the way others will treat us if we behave differently. And so, with varying degrees of success, we've hidden our true selves from the NT world.
This resistance to the coming changes in the DSM seems to boil down to fear of how others with perceive aspies. And this fear I liken to that of african-americans who used skin-lightening chemicals so they wouldn't be so black. Well, I'm tired of being an 'uncle tom'. I've been one most of my life and it has caused me immesurable internal stress and turmoil. If I feel like stimming in public, I'm going to stim in public. If I feel like repeating a word or a phrase over and over until it stops making sense even to me, I'll do it.
I am what I am.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ForgottenMist - 03-25-2010 06:14 AM
DSM-V can rot and take a dive into the Miami River.
I don't want to be Autistic! I had enough of that label when I was younger. It was a burden and a hindrance.
Funny thing, a therapist told me when I was a teen that I had both High Functioning Autism and Asperger's.
She said, "Oh, you don't communicate enough to have Asperger's."
That ticked me off to no end. I was sick of her and those doctors. They weren't doing anything. They thought everything was in my head anyways. That is why I don't trust mental health care people anymore, they play too much. >_<;
I am so glad I am an adult now and got relabeled. No one seemed to notice but my great aunt that I had Developmental Delay (unrelated to ASD). Everyone thought it was Autism. >_<; At least I have doctors now that know what the hell they are talking about.
I will be very crushed if they remove Asperger's Syndrome. There is an obvious difference. If APA plans what they are planning on doing, I am just going to label myself as mentally ill/developmentally delayed.
I said this many times before, you do not get SSI or SSA with Autism or Asperger's Syndrome alone anymore. You do when your under 18, but once you turn 18 or 19... you have to have a mental illness to get SSI or SSA. They don't recognize it by itself. Unless you have other medical problems/issues.
Well enough of my rant.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - ZodRau - 03-25-2010 07:08 AM
This is not correct. SSI and SSDI are granted based on the disability, not the diagnosis. And also, if I'm honest, which I am, SSDI is more likely to be granted if one has hired the services of a lawyer who specializes in social security disability claims.
Granted, when I secured SSDI 16 years ago, it was based on disability supposedly associated with mental illness. But truly, all of my issues stem from being an autist.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - adonfire - 03-25-2010 11:05 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap_on_he_me/us_med_mental_disorders
From the article: "The draft manual, posted at http://www.DSM5.org, is up for public debate through April, and it's expected to be lively. Among the autism community especially, terminology is considered key to describing a set of poorly understood conditions. People with Asperger's syndrome, for instance, tend to function poorly socially but be high-achieving academically and verbally, while verbal problems are often a feature of other forms of autism."
What's your thoughts on this?
Donna
Wel...it sucks, unless...
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - adonfire - 03-25-2010 11:07 AM
I don't want to be Autistic! I had enough of that label when I was younger. It was a burden and a hindrance.
Funny thing, a therapist told me when I was a teen that I had both High Functioning Autism and Asperger's.
She said, "Oh, you don't communicate enough to have Asperger's."
That ticked me off to no end. I was sick of her and those doctors. They weren't doing anything. They thought everything was in my head anyways. That is why I don't trust mental health care people anymore, they play too much. >_<;
I am so glad I am an adult now and got relabeled. No one seemed to notice but my great aunt that I had Developmental Delay (unrelated to ASD). Everyone thought it was Autism. >_<; At least I have doctors now that know what the hell they are talking about.
I will be very crushed if they remove Asperger's Syndrome. There is an obvious difference. If APA plans what they are planning on doing, I am just going to label myself as mentally ill/developmentally delayed.
I said this many times before, you do not get SSI or SSA with Autism or Asperger's Syndrome alone anymore. You do when your under 18, but once you turn 18 or 19... you have to have a mental illness to get SSI or SSA. They don't recognize it by itself. Unless you have other medical problems/issues.
Well enough of my rant.
...you mean to say that I don't get diagnosed with autism if I'm older than 18 by 2012?
Anyway, I and you have something in common.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - adonfire - 03-25-2010 11:13 AM
I have AS, not HFA.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - adonfire - 03-25-2010 11:28 AM
I've done anti-autistic things, aka, things your regular autistic person would never do.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - johnH - 03-25-2010 12:56 PM
We should all be simply classified as a different culture.
I think that would be best. and in some sense actually more accurate.
To me some of that news actually mean’s better treatment in society
.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - adonfire - 03-25-2010 03:30 PM
I deserve a better rumor among my friends, not be labelled with something worse than AS.
My friends don't like autism that much, but they accept AS.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 03-26-2010 09:37 PM
"AS" means "Autistic Spectrum" to me. The terminology really shouldn't be as confusing as it is.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - adonfire - 03-27-2010 12:28 AM
I don't agree.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - mysterywalker - 03-27-2010 02:30 AM
You feel the terminology should be made more confusing?
I presume you intend AS as "Asperger's Syndrome." It's not like you're alone in using it that way. But it's also not like I'm alone in interpreting it as "Autistic Spectrum," either.
RE: DSM-5 changes proposed - jpa69 - 04-16-2010 01:38 PM
I think this would be a good thing, right now there is some discrimination towards people with Aspergers in educational support.
I think it will help ignorant clinicians too and improve understanding that every individual affected by autism is a unique and special person.
Late speech development is not the only difference and there are many people who are diagnosed with AS in later years on anecdotal evidence from parents who would not have even understood the very subtle elements of speech delay such as the use of prepositions.
Having one label or another is not so important, it is just a means of giving you a key to get the services you are entitled to. It should not define you unless you want it to.