Am I the only that was diagnosed as a child?

Post Reply New Topic

My parents knew there was someting not right from the time I was 4, but took me around to lots of doctors for years. I finally got a diagnosis at age 8.

I was diagnosed as a child. Really as a child, not stretching the definition like anbuend.

Yes and No.

AS was not in the DSM when I was a child. I was diagnosed with OCD and generalized anxiety disorder at the age of five. AS was later added as an adult.

I'm not stretching the definition. That's really how I think of childhood. It's also the legal definition of childhood in many places (including the UN Declaration of Rights of the Child, which would have been really important in that several of those rights were denied me after puberty because I had the legal status of child and thus no recourse). Adolescence is a phenomenon only described in some cultures that goes from part of childhood through part of adulthood, it's not always considered just some totally separate thing from either. Not everyone uses the same definition of child (and all definition are arbitrary -- my definition is under the age of majority where I live, which is 18 ) and it's perfectly valid to use a different definition without getting accused of stretching it. People still called me a child when I was diagnosed by a child psychiatrist because I was a child. Nobody ever said I wasn't a child until I was an adult. These are valid developmental (between infancy and adulthood) and legal (under the age of majority) definitions of childhood, just as the "between birth and puberty" definition is. I dislike the "puberty" definition because that suggests that some 5-year-olds aren't children and some people are always children, plus how exactly do you know when a person entered puberty? But at least I don't run around telling people who use different definitions than mine that they're just wrong. I looked it up in various places and my definitions of childhood are perfectly valid from several different points of view and definitions. Not everyone uses language the same way, it doesn't mean they're stretching anything. One reason I feel so strongly about my use being valid is that rights were denied me as a legal child from the time of diagnosis onwards in ways they could not so easily have been denied an adult. Then when I reached legal adulthood my neuropsychologist told me I was still a child and subject to the same lack of rights to trick me into obeying him. "Child" had a real and concrete impact on my life right up until the age of 18, so I refuse to pretend that my childhood (and accompanying lack of rights) ended any sooner than it did. Perhaps it's easier to ignore your child status as a teenager when it's not being used in that fashion. (Also of note is that once the hospital that diagnosed me saw me for long enough they put me in the child rather than adolescent unit.)

How you're treated and what you are aren't the same. I go by the Biblical definition-- old enough that God (the only one whose opinion matters) views you as accountable for your own actions. Whether or not people treat you like a child is completely irrelevant. What people say doesn't matter. What society believes and decides is worthless.

13, almost 14 .........but I was referred by my middle school to "services for autistic-like children".....seriously!! ...the doctor who diagnosed me was actually a well known expert on AS.....regardless of the sketchy referral....... I was identified by school psyches as having "autistic tendencies" (along with my diagnosed LD) throughout elementary school........

Hmm, I probably don't share your religion (so don't see why I should share your concept of adulthood), but I don't view myself as having been at a level of understanding of the world where I could be accountable for my actions at the time I was diagnosed. I was (as someone I know described it) like a "leaf in the wind" without any understanding or ability to steer myself in any direction at all (or even understand the idea of doing so). I could react to things but had a lot of trouble acting without just reacting to some event or pressure. I wasn't even aware of the difference between dreams and reality at the point when I was diagnosed, or of a whole lot of other things that people assumed I was aware of because I could produce certain reactions to things and they assumed the rest. Looking back I'm always astonished at the difference between how most people were at my age and how I was in that respect, and very few people noticed this fully at the time. (I think a lot of it was my ability to parrot words without comprehension.) Until I realized that, it always confused me how people always treated me as if I understood things that I had no understanding of until any time between 18-30 but that most people understand by sometime between 3-12. I don't know if there's a particular word for what all those things were, but I'm always discovering new ones the older I get, and they're always things that "everyone knows" at a very young age. I only know a small number of online autistic people who had the lag time that I did (or more of course) in that respect, it seems to not be common especially from comments I'm always hearing on this board when people talk about what autistic people can and can't understand as if it's a uniform thing.

I really was a legal adult (or nearly so) before I had enough comprehension to be accountable or even understand the concept of accountability. And it's not that I wasn't raised being taught it, it just didn't penetrate my mind. It penetrated both my brothers (raised the same as I was, one of them autistic) just fine. I would assume that any god that was all-knowing would understand that kind of thing differs from person to person.

By the way I'm explaining this just to explain how things were, not to argue for the sake of it or anything. Now that I know your definition of adulthood it's not one I share at all. But I'm just continually amazed at these situations that crop up over and over again where I'm going "You mean I was supposed to know/be able to do this that young!?! Are you kidding?"

I'm a Christian, but with a lot of my theology ripped from Judaism, so just look up bar/bat mitzvahs (which, incidentally, refers to adults rather than a coming-of-age ceremony-- you don't have a bar mitzvah, you become one). Anyway, I'm sure God understands if you can't be held accountable even though you're older than most people have to be. I just go with 12/13 (which is when what I might call my conscience and might call my sixth sense kicked in, despite the fact that I was an arrogant, immature, quick-tempered... all the nouns I could use here are censored on WP, but one possibility starts with B-- and thinking about this, I get the feeling you would only consider people adults who are responsible and mature and don't, say, screw up everything so spectacularly you would hardly believe it and antagonize more people than they can even remember all the names of... but then, you'd have to consider some people well over 18 children), because apparently it's enough of a general rule that God said it should be used as a rule.

So use yours, but then none of the things I believe about adults can be considered "true" of what you consider adults, nor vice versa. So your definition is fine, but if you try to make statements about adults, it will be odd because you'll be referring to something totally different from what I mean.

I was misdiagnosed with mental retardation as a child and other things. I am smart. Corect diagnsois as a adult. Autistic disorder.

I was tested at age 14 in 1988 (Autism)
Retested in 2009 (Asperger's) but that one was deleted.
Retested in 2010 (Autism)

Some forms of Judaism have entire categories of people who cannot be considered accountable due to cognitive impairment. There's varying degrees (which can be called different things) and also sometimes it's considered temporary while other times it's considered permanent. These can to varying degrees release people from obligations to follow various parts of Jewish law. It's all rather complicated. (I'm not Jewish, I just know a large number of Jewish people and have discussed this with some of them.) I'm also fairly certain that I saw a documentary of a Jewish man who was being Bar Mitzvahed quite late because of some issue like this (can't remember details, I know it was a big deal that he was allowed to be Bar Mitzvahed at all).

Now I feel like I'm contributing to major thread drift, but I find different religious approaches to disability fascinating.

I agree that they're interesting, although what you just said is new to me. As I have to frequently remind people, I'm goy. (Which in a very roundabout way reminds me that I haven't cleaned the wax out of my menorah. ) I think it's really interesting how Christians who are about equally pious can have different ideas of how God thinks about disability-- many thinking God will cure it if you pray hard enough, others thinking that certain subtle tricks of phrasing in the New Testament indicate that God doesn't think there's any need to cure it. (An odd thing to think, given that the New Testament is full of Jesus healing people with disabilities.)

I saw someone recount the story where Jesus first forgave the sins of a paralyzed man and then healed him. It was in Ragged Edge, I think, and the writer claimed that that meant that the forgiving of sins was all the man wanted and it would have been fine without Jesus healing him, but he did that for show. I suppose I'm getting onto a topic completely unrelated to the rest of the thread, but this doesn't make sense to me; I don't see any reason why it would be bad in the abstract for someone to want to be paralyzed (though I certainly can't understand such a desire and do not have such a desire myself-- in fact, I desire the opposite), but that man couldn't do anything. Don't you have an obligation to be productive? (Not necessarily in standard ways. Raising children, educating people, translating between body languages, helping people understand that they're valuable as people, saving lives, giving advice... but something, anything.) I mean, there's nothing wrong with requiring a lot of help from the society (since most people require at least some), but there's a difference between being dependent and being interdependent. And even if both mean you need people to take care of you, doesn't the former imply being a drain on resources, while the latter implies being a net neutral or a net benefit? I mean, of course it's not justified to kill dependent people or anything (dependent not including people who pay it forward, either), but don't you have an obligation to not be one?

But that sounds very complicated. (The documentary you refer to.) Because on the one hand, it's an important cultural thing, and denying it to someone means more than just a simple statement of abilities... but on the other hand, maybe someone truly can't be held accountable. You can't lie or go through an empty ritual... but even though there SHOULDN'T be shame in that, I think surely there would be. And of course, it could also be a way to deny someone rights for stupid reasons... sounds so complicated.

Wow, a lot of youngin's here. I guess I am too but the town I grew up in was so far underground is was disconnected from the rest of society. Aka. it was a hole. Still a hole. I still live here. Oh well, at least we have managed to resurface just in time to know what Asperger's and HFA is.

Also, I would add that I don't think you reach adulthood until your 20's. Scientific studies have shown that it takes that long for the brain to mature.
I have no links but I suppose you can google it.
There's no way someone in adolescence can be refereed to as an adult. I don't care what God or religion tells you.

Look up shoteh. Be aware that different people might translate it differently ("mental handicap", "psychosis", etc.) but that it doesn't actually translate to a specific diagnosis. It just means that a person can't understand/do certain things cognitively for some reason that isn't specified. Some people only know about one meaning, but there's usually several.

Aroung age nine or so.

Diagnosed very young. Too young to remember. I only found out about it as an adult, when I started digging up the past.