Death of the Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

This is being overstated - they're explicitly not using the DSM-5 to guide which research they provide grants to. In other words, it'll make it easier to do research that doesn't fall neatly along DSM diagnostic categories than is currently the case. However, this won't have any serious impact on current clinical usage of the DSM.

.

Inside a system like physicalism we have today a fair amount of predicability of what is possible with it at not. It is a system which has been widely used since Aristotle, and its limits was already tested by Einstein, Bohr and Heisenberg to name a few. But this knowledge would never fit with a system which reject physicalism, and would not so give in example a dualist any more clues about autism spectrum disorders than he knows today. In 10-20 years I think absolutely there will be generated more information and new understandings of the autism spectrum, but I also think that there will be as little agreement as today meaning the impact each view has on the nosology would be limited. With this in mind there can absolutely be a possibility that different classifications arrive representing the different traditions of mind, making it even harder for the clinicians to decide on labels and treatments.




Some of the problem has been that the different clinicians has had different opinions of what the cluster of observed symptoms called Asperger was all about. This made big differences in the clinical practice from place to place; an Asperger one place was an infantile autist another place and vice versa. In addition did it make it impossible to research. If one diagnosed with Asperger in reality was having infantile autism or if one diagnosed with infantile autism in reality was having Asperger because of differences in clinical practice, to research in example Asperger would lead to an unknown research group which could consist of both Asperger and infantile autism. In that regard I agree that the system was chaotic, but DSM-5 is an attempt to do something with that. The DSM-III had very specific diagnostic labels with a comprehensive list of criteria, the result was that it did not work in clinical practice. The solution to this was with DSM-IV to cut each diagnosis into smaller labels with fewer and more general criteria. This worked better in clinical practice, but the generality of the criteria made the problem with a consistent clinical practice arise. This lead to the dimensional approach in DSM-5; a way to both have few and general criteria and at the same time prevent a clinical chaos.

Name doesnt really matter. They could call it, Fish joe spicy joe diease.

Its still what it is.

But yeah ive always called it Autism. But Autism, aspergers whatever. It is what it is, nomatter what they choose to call it.

I thought the dsm-v was being rolled out in 2017. Whoever wrote that idea of having aspergers removed need a pipe bomb to the face. Dsm-V will fail hard because they have removed too many specifics. DSM-VI will bring back a lot of old disorders. I better be retested for it. Damn psychiatrists are going bourgeois on us.

Doesn't this strike you as overreaction? "I don't like your professional work, so you should be murdered with an IED!"



What does this even mean?

No. It's not just that, they are putting two different natured people under a category a person with aspergers has as much to do with autism as the Soviet Union had to do with America.
Bourgeois means they are capitalists dogs who don't care about the right thing and they diagnose for the pure reason for money. Under capitalism mental health services is purely profit driven, many people are purposely misdiagnosed and given wrong medications. Only a communist mental health system would work. They are arbitrarily merging autism and aspergers so they can discredit people with aspergers.

And this still somehow justifies discussion of throwing IEDs at people?



Why on Earth would anyone want to "discredit" people diagnosed with AS? How on Earth would this change do the discrediting? The intention for this change is to better serve people who fall into every part of the spectrum.

Hmmm.

So, before they said, "you have Aspergers Disorder. It's a kind of autism. It is defined by these symptoms and you meet them in this way. You'll see that there is a connection between these symptoms and those seen in other kinds of autism. It's a spectrum and people exhibit the traits in different ways."

Now they say, "You have Autistic Spectrum Disorder. You are mostly at the mild end of severity with a couple of exceptions. You'll find that the traits that produce your symptoms are exhibited in different ways across the spectrum. This is the way your symptoms fit the disorder."

I really don't see much of a difference except that the new one pointlessly cuts you off from access to the helpful body of work that has developed around the Aspergers label. I might not have found GRASP, for example or Tony Attwood's books and interviews, which have been very helpful to me as a person with "the autism formerly described as Aspergers" or as the father to a boy with the same diagnosis. Also, I might have been confused by a search for materials on autism in my local bookstore or online because of the large amount of material that was about people who are very much more outwardly affected than me or my son. When my son was diagnosed I might have just rejected the diagnosis (as I almost did the Aspergers diagnosis) and written off the developmental pediatrician as a quack and then never learned enough about autism to recognize it in myself.

So I think there is something being lost, at least in the short term--but to discredit people? I don't see that at all.

In theory it sounds nice but in reality someone with aspergers will be treated differently by bad psychiatrists under dsm V than what they would do under dsm v. In a perfect world I would not get descriminated because of the category Austistic spectrum disorder but bad people do exist and by separating it, people with aspergers will not suffer. It's like merging cluster b personality disorders together. I believe aspergers is a mix of autism and a personality disorder cluster a. In the end a lot of children with aspergers wil be treated like they have severe autism due to the new criteria.

You are honestly that nieve to believe that everything must be made for the good of people. Anti-aspergers is becoming as big as anti-semitism was. This groups people with aspergers with severely autistic, people always assume the worst. I might of well say goodbye to being a scriptwriter will be crushed. People will misuse because there are bad people in a perfect world it would be fine but the world is imperfect.

I didn't say that everything must be made for the good of people. However, I don't see the particular kind of prejudice that you seem to believe is driving this particular decision.

You're not going to be grouped with "severely autistic" people no matter what your diagnostic label. What is wrong with having a diagnostic label in common with someone who does have severe autism?

Oh, and you can compare "anti-Asperger's" sentiments to anti-Semitism when they send pogroms against us. There are prejudices against disabled people and they are very real, but they're not specific to autistic people.

The School Shootings, Norway massacre and Boston Bombings reporters partially blames aspergers. If I am diagnosed something in common with those people, I will not be taken serious. The status quo reacts differently between people with aspergers and autism. When the general population thinks of aspergers they think of a quiet genius but when they think of autism, they think ret*d.

So... the problem isn't the perception of autism being viewed negatively, the problem is someone viewing you that way?

I have been viewed that way, and while it was unpleasant, I didn't have any labels at all at the time. The last time someone called me "ret*d" was only a year or two ago, and that was after she found out I was diagnosed with AS. Much of what I see seems to indicate that most people don't see AS as "quiet genius," that seems to be more an Aspie supremacy thing among Aspies.

As for those incidents you bring up, that's not like being subjected to a pogrom.

95% of Aspies bemoaning the death of their "formal" diagnosis this week are only annoyed they are now put under the same category as Rainman in the eyes of mainstream society.

When the general population thinks of aspergers, what they think is "what?"; and, ironically, according to some of the theories who try to differentiate autism from aspergers, the "quiet genius" (or the "quiet" in general) will be more typically df autism than of aspergers (at least, some authors consider that the difference between the two is that autistics tend to be quiet and reclusive, while aspies are more of the type of, at the first change, begin an endless talk about their special interest).

That is my experience. When telling someone I have asperger syndrome they answer with "what? what is that?", and then I tell them it is autism and get the answer that they understand.