Asperger's History of Overdiagnosis News Article

Post Reply New Topic

I read this article and there seemed to me to be some very illogical conclusions, twisting of facts, and misstatements. I wanted to share this article to see if others get the same idea when they read it. Please point out the parts that you agree or disagree with and why? I am very interested to hear what people who have Asperger's think. ~ from an NT mom of a 11 y.o. boy with AS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/opini ... .html?_r=2

I purposefully only gave two options for the poll question. I didn't want to give a middle ground option, as I thought that too many people would choose that option. Feel free to not vote or give a different answer in the comments.

I see I am a little slow, and someone already posted about this.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt188851.html

Yes there is another thread about this. No poll on that one, but about the poll:

Personally, I don't think it's a matter of "mostly true" or "mostly false."

Though I didn't concentrate that hard on all of the article's details, I got the overall impression that most of what he brings up is true, but totally irrelevant. Therefore I find the overall article and his arguments irrelevant and full of non-issues. The article itself though, is an issue, because it does what I think no psychiatrist should ever do. It brings totally irrelevant "issues" into the a discussion they don't even belong in, in order to further an agenda that could be harmful. Mixing these discussions of people who may or may or may not have Autism (many in the community do debate over this, but I see that debate as not having much true value other than for speculative entertainment purposes ~ it's not harmful if it is accepted for what it is, but to utilize these debates as evidence that Autism is being overdiagnose is at least misleading and at most, dangerous), clouds the real issue, which is whether or not people who actually DO have Autism and are seeking help for it, are and will continue to be able to get that help.

Whether or not Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, Warren Buffet, et. al. really have Autism or not doesn't matter. None of them, as far as we know, are seeking help, or need it for that matter. Whether or not any of these people have Autism has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not people who REALLY DO have Autism, have access to the help they truly need by virtue of a proper diagnosis.

From a medical perspective, I think that the article is absolutely bang on.

In the medical profession we have fetishized diagnosis. A physician's signature on the bottom line is the gateway to a host of consequences: eligibility for insurance benefits, eligibility for social services, and so forth.

Financial stakeholders, like government and the insurance industry want to see a level of standardization--so that people don't go "doctor shopping" to find the one who will sign the diagnosis that will get them the benefits. Meanwhile the pharmaceutical industry seeks a fairly low bar for those standards, so that physicians can sign those oh-so-important prescriptions.

Meanwhile, the article raises the absolutely crucial question: when a child or an adult is diagnosed with AS (or in the future with HFA), will that diagnosis lead to the correct kind of help?