Sorry to demonstrate my ignorance - but what are tx's? I'm probably demonstrating my aspie ignorance - tx=thankyou's? tx = credits or GP brownie points as assessed within the nhs quota/target system.....?? or Tick boxes? Wish I understood but am probably just demonstrating ignorance or a perceptual gap someplace! In any event I wonder WHY GPs are in favor of mass inclusion. Is it to reduce stigma, is it to increase the opportunity to pick up on family links between conditions, improve stats for research and hence optimise chances of tracking and developing strategies for intervention - or is it because early recognition allows acknowledgment of difficulties, which in and of itself may increase understanding and acceptance both for individuals, families and local communities (which may in and of itself serve to reduce the adverse experiences of many individuals who have specific difficulties of this type).

This post was last modified: 10-30-2010 12:42 AM by vicstuff.

Mass diagnosis means a bigger number for aut15m 5p3ak5 to scare people with (autism rates are 1 in 30... Happy halloweeeen). But there will always be problems wherever the normal/autism line is put. Maybe there should be an autisticness number instead of a line. But there'll be problems with that too (the normal/autism line again).

Hmmm - hence the case for mass diagnosis - and the neurodiversity goal. I think the "line" is a VERY valid concept. Aside from the fact that qualitative variations are also key and critical. One of the things that is putting me off diagnosis at the moment. Really dont think that it will help much and moreover that other peoples preconceptions are likely to create as many if not more problems than are potentially resolved through any possible (or remote) benefits of "recognition".

Love the 1/i 5/s 3/e - ...keyboard probs? (had similar and had to get an external keyboard for my laptop...cheapie solution when stuck.) Amazing that they market laptops so readily but fail to ensure or to point out at the time of purchase that the keyboards will not cope with normal use. Was told that they were supposed to be SECONDARY to having a standalone PC(!) ..after the event, of course. But then, to stretch a point in lateral thinking maybe us late diagnosed aspies are struggling just like the laptop keyboards - trying to function in a usage setting that we were never intended to fulfil - hence in need of adaptive aids/strategies (!) Just like the PC salesmen, we need to earn a crust and are tempted to try to slot into round holes even when we are square in shape. Perhaps we need to remarket ourselves(!)

Vicstuff,
Thank you for your very insightful replies!!  You really are hitting into the center heart of what I had tried discussing.

Yes, as a society there has been just a ton of intervention through the words of, "do no harm."  Hmm...  I am in the US but I see these issues are apparently international.

Tx = treatment (usually as in, professional or medical treatment.)  
Are you using the abbreviation, GP, for general practicioner?  If so, I think it is more the "specialists" that are in favor of mass dx, much more so that the GPs who barely chance to profit other than possible coinciding research benefits as you mention.  Yet again, I am in the US where the dollar does the talking.

I agree with you RandomGirl on this, with the - /ahem/ "epidemic," and also on not including aut15m 5p3ak5 in any more search engine's numbers.   Yes, an autisiticness number on a sliding scale that would also take into consideration the qualitative variations as Vicstuff mentions would be super.  I know someone who is working on just such a model...anyways...

Vicstuff, back to your first reply in this string and relating it to your most recent...  why struggle?  Just adapt and re-market.  Personally, it's exciting to me that certain shared traits are, well, "better than average."  I've learned over time to not be "shy" or "humble" on every occasion because some circumstances absolutely require and necessitate establishing competence first, and answering questions later.  

Regarding societal integration and mainstream acceptance of individual differences...
Ho = intervention tx on "dis-ease" of the individual - even at an assumption of "no effect" this has already been tested finding ill effects... So in the realm of "do no harm," does this then leave enough room for H1 = profit for many, but not much for the individual...  In the meantime among politics and profits, research concepts in neuroplasticity, development, and neurodiversity are going far beyond what was originally assumed...and a good amount of this research is funded in different ways for different purposes...very interesting when these pointed tips start to meet around the same edge!

I would like to stress that this is only my opinion and open too change after discussion and I am not widely read on these matters.

Any screening of a foetus for possible spectrum range and subsequent abortion if not found to "meet the specs" would lead to a devasting loss in human biodiversity not too mention the positive and healthy affects on culture and society.

I have heard that potatoes and wheat are currently limited too a few strains that are prefered for various reasons (ease of growing, hardiness, cost effective) and that scientests are building a "seed bank" of different strains as they realise the danger of these plants been limited to a few variations and succeptible to disease/climate change/other enviromental factors.

Why would we put the human race in a similar position? Sure some people may experience suffering fitting the social norm due to their brain wiring because they experience life on a different level. But you have to consider that they may go on to do great things or perceive things in a way that people like me or you may never be able to.

I'm not a pro lifer per say and understand why a single mother who may not be able to look after a unborn child and abort it out of kindness. But screening for certain characteristics scares me because it could be a slippery slope to someone else deciding they can build a "master race".

Diversity is a strength, with all it's highs and lows(as perceived by each person). If you sit 20 people in a theatre to watch a play and ask each person to tell you about the themes/messages after it's finished the responses would be varied and similar and uniquely interesting.

Again this is just my opinon and open to change/discussion.

I absolutely agree! I would never want to "stamp out" the diversity of the gene pool in this context and am convinced that many of the most original thinkers who have made quite remarkable contributions to society are not in fact neurotypical. I also suspect that we are not dealing with a unique diagnostic category where aspergers is concerned.

I still, however, am absolutely convinced that there is a strong argument for research and development with regard to endocrinological functions during pregnancy which, I believe, may have a radical impact on the development of the foetus in utero - in particular, with regard to the development of neurological functions. The basic links are well recognised in medicine, with an existing awareness that both maternal levels of thyroxin and levels within the newborn can radically affect development, which can result in growth problems, and intellectual "cretinism" (in old fashioned terminology - however repugnant). One typical feature in the newborn is an enlargement of the tongue, which affects the capacity to feed (and later, to talk)...which can be one element of dyspraxia, affecting the ability to speak also.

It is the tennet of my argument, that endocrinology is one of the least well practised areas of medicine. The question here, is what is a "healthy pregnancy". If results are evaluated simply in terms of life, death and physiological factors only, then the qualititative differences between those with difficulties such as dyspraxia, dyslexia, aspergers, autism, and probably also a host of psychological and psychiatric diagnostic categories will never be "linked in". It may be that the concept that there are "genetic factors" involved in many of these syndromes would be modified to recognition perhaps that the genetic factor may in fact be a propensity to differential endocrine functions - or, that a genetic factor may, in fact, be less extreme in expression if maternal levels of thyroid and other hormones are monitored and kept at optimum levels.

Now to me, that kind of research would be valuable: it would quite simply mean the equivalent of having a well nourished foetus developing in the womb. Thyroid function is essential to every aspect of functioning. I suspect that when it is not optimal throughout pregnancy the "fine tuning" of development goes slightly askew.

At the current time, there is a VAST difference in the clinical criteria generally adopted for the treatment of thyroid problems in the UK - and those being adopted in the United States, in Denmark and in Sweden. The result is that routinely people in the UK who have symptoms and experience difficulties that are related to thyroid problems are told that their test results are "normal" - when in fact they are far from "normal". The result is that in later years many people struggle with severe symptoms, losing as much as a decade of quality of life before their thryoid levels fall to the level where they are finally diagnosed and treated. If medicine is so unable to deal with and treat adults (who can talk, complain and tell medics about their symptoms) - then how likely is it that they will diagnose it early enough to ensure that levels are sufficient to ensure quality of life for mothers and for the unborn child?

One danger that hasn't been mentioned in this thread so far is that people don't take it seriously. They assume that so many children have been labelled as Asperger that it's nothing more than an eccentricity in personality.

I agree that this is one danger. Another is that in many situations if you mention "Aspergers" people (including teachers) FAIL to spot the very real ABILITIES that many people with Aspergers may have and assume general learning difficulties. Problem with all "labels" I guess. But this is an essential area to consider in deciding whether to "disclose" or seek diagnosis in the first instance. Other  peoples misperceptions can be damaging insofar as they may change responses and limit opportunities even with the best of intentions.

To use a physical analogy - someone may be registered blind: more often than not they will actually HAVE some element of vision, but the "normal" population hears "blind" and assumes "totally blind" without properly understanding the fact that in any "disability" there is an enormous range of individual ability and that they will need to ask questions if they want to really understand and respond appropriately to individual needs. Further, there are many documented cases of people thinking that someone is actually "malingering" and pretending to be blind because they observe that they respond to certain visual elements in everyday life. Not a good recipe for effective communication, given that people are often not straight forward enough in their communications to ask and clarify if there is something they do not understand so the scope for misunderstanding is much increased.

This is one of the reasons why I am delaying seeking formal diagnosis for the time being. I actually tested it out recently with a tutor on a local community education course......just out of curiosity mentioning privately that I was in the process of seeking diagnosis. The tutor does not know me well. A few weeks later she mentioned that she did not think... or that she had no evidence... that I had the capability to teach myself new skills. This was a fascinating insight - I haven't yet bothered to correct her as I would need to take her on one side and privately challenge her assumptions. It is specially amusing as I am educated to MSc level with distinctions at dissertation level and elsewhere. I would have been unable to achieve as much as I have done had I not developed particular strategies to overcome some of my personal limitations and been capable of independent learning. I have also taught others - often in subjects that required that I learn creative skills in particular areas in order to teach them to people with disabilities.

It has taught me to be VERY wary of seeking formal diagnosis. Once diagnosed the "label" is on ones medical record. And one is then subject to other peoples misconceptions - which in the medical field is especially problematic. Most medics know a LOT less about learning difficulties than I do. I worked in the dyslexia field for a decade at one stage. So it is easy for me to forget quite how badly informed many people are, even professionals who really should be more aware because they work with people. Misconceptions are rife and potentially a very real problem.

Ideally, mass DX --> mass awareness (an "awakening" of autism, particularly in the unDX adults) --> autistic culture similar to deaf culture.  

I have had some experience with deaf culture, and I think that is the best possible thing autistics could experience, a home culture.  We all feel so displaced, but from where?  We don't even know, because it is something that is in its infancy.  If we had access to a culture of our own, then there would be more advocacy from within.  Without diagnosed autists, autistic culture suffers, advocacy suffers.  There needs to be somebody to oppose things like prenanatal screening, and to oppose selective abortion.  It is deaf culture that ultimately changed society's perspective on deaf people, not their parents, not the researchers, the deaf themselves.  If you called someone deaf and dumb, you'd get quite a reaction!  Yet it is rare that the average person would bat an eye at the term "idiot savant."  

I understand a deaf person's desire for a deaf child.  I love having an aspie kid, I relate to him in a way that is so special, that's just ours.  I'm a little sad at the idea of not having an aspie daughter one day, but sadly I probably can't have more kids.