illness, disorder or disability?

Post Reply New Topic

Disorder and disability. For some it's a difference and I don't think it's black and white if autism is a difference or a disability because it's a spectrum. Maybe for the very high functioning it's a difference because they can do anything (I don't mean literally because if they could do anything, then everyone would be traveling to space including them) but they may have to work harder than most people while for others it's a disability because it puts limitations on them and they can't overcome their roadblock because of their limitation. For some it's both like Temple Grandin perhaps.

I see my learning style as a difference but I also see it as a disability because of the limitations it puts on me and the way they have their education set up and it isn't set up the way I learn so therefore it's a disability. Same goes for autism for some people.

I don't really care or have any strong opinion on the matter.

Illness is usually used about physical diseases, so I don't think it's the best fit, but if someone calls it that, I don't get upset about it.

Disability... I have social skills deficits, attention problems and can only focus on one things at a time, and when I have obsessions they are my main pursuit, but being unemployed I'm usually at home, and when I'm at home, I'm not disabled due to having AS. My family is used to me, and I can do everything that needs to be done at home. I'm less efficient than others (slower at executing some tasks), but I can still do them just fine.
If I lived on my own I'd be lonely and unhappy, but provided I had money, I could do the chores that needs doing in an apartment, including grocery shopping.
To me, a disability isn't dependent on where you are.
My asthma (and some other stuff that I'm not going into) on the other hand is an illness that acts like disability regardless of where I am due to its nature.

Tony Attwood does have a point when he says about Asperger's that, shut the door, disability gone.

Psychiatric conditions are often referred to as disorders, so that's probably the best fit, and the one I opted for in the poll.

I think it's fundamentally just a difference in neurological wiring. It can become a disorder and/or disability due to epigenetic or environmental factors or circumstances. But it's not an illness.

I didn't check anything, because I just don't know. It's definitely a difference, but for the rest, it probably depends on how high functioning you are. I've lived a reasonably normal life, I was married for thirteen years and raised a fine daughter, always got a job when I needed to earn money (though they weren't the best, highest salaried jobs, and the longest I ever held one was about two years). If it weren't for my inheritance from my parents, I'd have been "Working Poor". Because of what I now know is called "Executive Function" (lack of), I'm a terrible (or worse) housekeeper, and frequently in some kind of trouble like getting utilities turned off or late with taxes, which is not what you'd call a "successful life", but probably the majority of NTs are similar. I've never been in jail. So I surely haven't "functioned" as highly as I might have done, but better than many NTs. I had my "quirks" of course, and little social life, but then I don't really _want_ a lot of social life--just a few good friends. I'd still rather be myself than "myself minus Asperger's" -- I don't really know who that person might be. For the low functioning, it might be disorder, illness (disease) or disability. I just don't know.

It's a disability by definition, and a disorder just because that's what we call things that aren't illnesses that cause disability.

But it's not quite so simple when you look at it more closely.

There are people with autistic traits who are not disabled, and not diagnosable with autism because they are not disabled. These people regardless have a lot in common with autistic people, perhaps more than they have in common with neurotypicals. The recent statement by Seinfeld about being somewhere on the spectrum probably refers to a non-disabled person with autistic traits, which is why it annoyed so many parents whose young children are autistic and disabled. It also reflects that there is very little awareness of the fact that non-disabled people can and do have autistic traits--things like unusually sensitive sensory systems or social skills on the low end of typical. If we knew that, then many of the people like Seinfeld, who see autistic traits in themselves even though they are not disabled, could understand their kinship to full-blown autistics and perhaps even become translators that can link us better to the world around us.

The concept of "autistic culture"--a new, still rather nebulous group of concepts that are shared by people on the spectrum--can mean that "autistic" is a cultural identity as well as a diagnosis. A person can be "culturally autistic" even after they no longer qualify for an autism diagnosis, usually because they've aged out of the disability part of it. (Kids with mild autism can grow up to be non-disabled, so that's the biggest group, but conceivably, it could happen to an adult too.) Some people with disorders very closely related to autism, like Fragile X and NVLD, also fit in with autistics better than any other group and have access to that same body of ideas that we can call the beginnings of autistic culture.

disability

It's really a matter of perception in terms of how much the person internalizes social stigma of the autism label?
The NT world obviously sees autism as a disability. Also just flick open a copy of the DSMV or ICD10 and they describe autism as a developmental disorder. No amount of sugar coating or ego boosting is going to change these perceptions.

The issue of illness is a little more vague. A number of people with autism have seizures which are an illness. However people with autism who have had successful and/or happy lives might not agree with the perception of illness.

Ask yourself this though: Why do we feel sugar-coating or ego-boosting is necessary when we talk about autism as a disability? We take it for granted that disability is a bad thing, but we should be questioning that idea. We don't think it's particularly bad when our skills are lower than someone else's without causing disability; for example, we don't really need to sugar-coat the fact that most people are not as good at math as professional mathematicians, or that most people are not as good at basketball as professional basketball players. So why is it that when disability is involved, we feel we have to be nice about it, tiptoe around it as though mentioning the fact of disability were an insult to the disabled? That's something we learned from a world that devalues disabled people and stigmatizes disability, and we really ought to be questioning it.

When I say that autism is a difference, I am NOT trying to sugar coat it or boost anyone's ego, or downplay how disabling it can be.

What I am saying is that I think the underlying brain differences that make a person autistic, don't necessarily have to be disabling to the point of clinical impairment. To some extent, it depends on the social model of disability...in other words, if society is inclusive of the difference, some people may not have an obvious impairment. I do think there is still some impairment involved, but it doesn't necessarily have to be severe enough to be disabling.

I'm not saying that the severity of disability depends only on societal factors. Some people with autism may be clinically disabled by it no matter what circumstances they are in. And there's nothing wrong with that. It isn't something that needs to be sugar coated.

I also think that in some cases, autistic impairments may be exacerbated by environmental factors, other neuropsychological comorbids, or physical health issues. In ideal circumstance, the autism in and of itself may not have been clinically disabling...but combined with other things piling up on a person, it becomes more severe.

As neuroscience figures out more and more what makes a brain autistic, I believe it will be seen that there is a segment of the population who are currently not considered to be autistic, but actually do have autistic brains. And other people who currently are considered autistic, may be discovered to have something else that produces similar traits and impairments (for instance, a corpus callosum abnormality).

This is what will happen as we learn more about autistic brain functions, not just behaviors.
Autism will be defined by what goes on in the brain in conjunction with behaviors, and not defined by level of disability in society, since that is not fundamental core of autism.

Just my take on it. Of the three I think 'Disorder' is most correct. I go with that because the research is heavily leaning towards one or more specific groups of genes that are abnormal/damaged. The mind has a surprising ability to patch things thru and work around problems however. So I think of certain gene groups as incorrect (as vs the standard model) and therefore 'disordered'. But the end result varies greatly depending on the amount of damage in the first place and the brains success at adaptation. It is not always a noticeable disability. 'Illness' doesn't seem to describe it at all.

None of the above.

It can be a disability for some. But it isn't itself a disability or a disorder and it certainly isn't an illness.

Which one isn't a core of autism?

I don't think autism is any of the above. It depends on individual perspective. It is not the same for everyone. To me, that label is not an excuse, it is an explanation, a tool pointing to understanding issues.

Disability.

I am not such a fan of "disorder" when applied to a condition where a common symptom is being methodically ordered But then OCD is a disorder because you're ordered to the point that it becomes crippling. I have no problem with it being described as a disorder, but I feel disability is fairer.

this poll only offers options which assume that ASDs are negative.

i do not agree with that; there are negative sides to having an ASD, sure, but there are also positives that balance the scale.

autism/aspergers is a different way of being, not a broken one.