Now that Asperger's is out of the DSM...

Post Reply New Topic

How does this affect those with extremely mild AS?

I have Hans Aspergers syndrome, my mom will protect me from the mean pshychiatrists.

Yeah, but only if he had absolutely no stims, sensory problems, or routines. For the milder levels, even non-disabling traits count, as long as there is overall impairment in some other area. So, if your example case included even the tendency to tap one's foot repetitively, he'd be diagnosed.

Besides, we all know that the psychiatrists have always, and probably will quite a ways into the foreseeable future, use the DSM as a guide, not as a set-in-stone rulebook. It's why I'm diagnosed Asperger's instead of classic autism (not unusual for an Aspie, and part of why they're changing things)--because I "felt" more like an Aspie to the psychiatrist who diagnosed me, even though I fit Kanner's criteria. They're going to keep doing that. If you've got an obvious case of autism that's all there except for the tendency to stim, you can bet they're going to diagnose autism.

When a psychiatrist is faced with a child (or an adult) who's struggling in life because of autistic-like impairments, the psychiatrist doesn't think, "Well, he doesn't strictly meet Criterion X..." He thinks, "Okay, this looks like autism to me; would this person benefit from the help we can offer autistic people? Yes? Okay. Autism it is." Psychologists, especially, but also psychiatrists and counselors, are very much big-picture people. Psychology is still considered an art, even though it's becoming more and more of a science. While research psychologists will grab anything they can find to quantify their results and turn things black-and-white, clinical psychologists still depend very much on their own impressions when making a diagnosis.

I've really been giving this whole "spectrum" thing some thought. Duh, undeniably autism is a spectrum. If anyone denies that, they're ignorant!

But I was thinking... OK.. it started out Asperger's was a "mild" form of autism which is a developmental disorder. Now it's seeming like it's branching out to "mild form of Asperger's" where it's basically just the person's personality and not a developmental disorder at all. Especially not a pervasive (which means in ALL areas) developmental disorder. And of course, Asperger's can be mild or severe or in between, but for people who just have "Aspie" personalities and "mild" Asperger's, where they're are not truly developmentally delayed, but rather quirky or odd, and meet the new criteria, saying those people have the same disorder as even moderately autistic people is quite far-fetched. I am very pro-Asperger and of course I know it is a very REAL disorder, but unless it is interfering with your functioning on a daily basis, what need is there for a "diagnosis of autism" but to understand yourself better? I mean, for me personally, I couldn't get diagnosed with the old criteria, but with this new criteria I certainly could, and understanding Aspergers does help me understand myself more deeply, but I can function on a day-to-day basis. People who can function fine, just with a little quirk here and there, regardless of whether or not they've learned to "compensate" don't have a need for diagnosis other than "self-understanding", to be honest. The term "autism" is seeming to start defining people's personality rather than a true, pervasive (delayed in all areas) developmental disorder.

Guys, I couldn't really get my thoughts clear on this, so don't beat me up. I'm very critical of those who say there is no spectrum, but I feel that the spectrum might become too broad and I feel like in 20 years, autism won't really be "autism" anymore. It will be a personality thing...or it seems to be running in that direction.

Actually, if you have developmental delay, you can't be labeled Asperger's under current criteria at all.

I will probably still refer to myself as Aspie, but I probably won't say I have Asperger's Syndrome anymore either.