New Definition of Autism Will Exclude Many, Study Suggest!! !

Post Reply New Topic

No, we wear blue fezz and orange capes!

That article is very sensationalist. I looked at another article, and it was also very sensationalist, leaving out part of the proposed diagnostic criteria (a part that made the difference between me being included or excluded). Thank you, btbnnyr, for providing the link with the full criteria.

I would be included, but I feel a little stereotyped. I don't have much trouble with changing routines, although I did when I was much younger. I also never had restrictive "special interests;" I have always been fascinated by many things, including biology, anthropology, writing, foreign languages--most academic things, anyway. I don't understand why people are expected to choose one career path or interest! I'm more of a "sensory problems" Aspie.
But in spite of this, I meet all three social ones, and I think those are more important than the "repetitive behaviors" ones. I would prefer if it made only one of the "repetitive behaviors" ones required, although I technically meet both. I don't like the way it forces us to be a certain way--that's just like Neurotypicals, isn't it?

What I'm most worried about is that many people who improve in their social skills and self-restraint as they age could seem to "grow out" of autism, giving the illusion that autism can be somehow "cured." The diagnostic criteria doesn't seem to apply as much to adults as it does to children, which I find somewhat annoying. It bugs me when people only focus on the autistic children and not the adolescents and adult.

The criteria also doesn't seem to allow for much self-awareness in the patients, either; for example, if an older (not child, but not necessarily "elderly") autistic person were exhibiting repetitive behaviors that bothered others and were asked to stop, he could probably stop after exerting some effort. Autism is not OCD--they coincide very often, but I'm sure that most autistic people don't have nearly as much trouble stopping their ritualistic behaviors as people with OCD do. But it bothers me that the criteria are built this way; does that mean that the man is temporarily no longer autistic? And what about when he's alone, and he resumes the behaviors--does that mean he suddenly becomes autistic again?

This brings me to another question--how many of the professionals who designed these criteria have actually spent prolonged time with individual autistic people? And how many of those ones have spent time with autistic adults and teenagers? I don't think professionals who have no experience with us as people should be redesigning the criteria for our diagnoses.

And this...

I agree with that very much. I don't think they should change it in response to more people being diagnosed with autism--as if that were a bad thing in the first place!

It's clear to me that this criteria still has a lot of revision to undergo before it is ready to be used.

Blue and orange? Together? Blegh. Even I know that's fashion-backward--and I've been wearing the same pair of pants for a month! (Side note: does anyone else think I should take a culture of my pants and see what's growing on them?)

I suspect.......


Well, I will let you guy's read it for yourselves and decide......


http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/P ... x?rid=489#


TheSunAlsoRises

I encourage everyone to read the "Rationale" section of the DSM-V link. It provides an explanation of why the triad of impairments became a dyad of impairments, mentions the lack of an emphasis on language delay in the criteria, mentions that there will be clinical descriptions of the criteria for different chronological ages, and explains why two of four restricted and repetitive behavior criteria are required. It makes sense to me, and I don't consider the DSM-V to be redefining autism to be excluding autistic people from being diagnosed. The definition of autism is only being clarified as a single neurological condition that cannot be reliably split into multiple diagnoses.

What? You're saying rainbow and pink is attractive?

I once wore an outfit consisting of a rainbow patterned button up shirt and bright pink shorts, with scale-patterned spandex leggings underneath the shorts.

I thought I looked quite nice.

I think I just got blinded by the brightness.

I think blue and orange look good together. Besides that, it also reminds me of comic book colors.

I like to make a big first impression.

No, but I think they're suggesting that people are being too liberal with the asperger's/autism diagnosis, kinda like how they are with ADD/ADHD. "oh no, my 5 year old child doesn't want to sit and listen to me read the grapes of wrath. He doesn't want to sit still. He draws on the walls sometimes and makes messes. he doesn't clean up after himself, and he's hyper. HELP ME, DOCTOR!! !!" Then the doctor says "ah, your son has ADD. Here, have a pill." That doesn't solve the problem(and there isn't a problem in the first place, kids aren't going to act like little adults, no matter how much mommy and daddy want and expect them to. Drugging them up isn't a good idea.

Now I can't say much for the rate at which autism/asperger's is being diagnosed since I don't really know, but I'm guessing it's somewhat similar, and that's probably why they're doing it. Either that, or they want to cut off people's benefits to save money. I can't really say. I hope they have good intentions behind this, but who knows? Either way, this has zero effect on me because I'm undiagnosed at the age of 25, and I have no health insurance... So the chances of me getting a diagnosis are next to nothing anyway.

i do not care what i am called. not many people in my real life know i have asperger syndrome, and those that do do not care.
i am not defined by my AS, and i will not suddenly become nameless and disappear if i am not labelled as a person with asperger syndrome.

3 people in my current life know i have AS, and they interrogated me about it for a while because they were interested to find out what it is like, but that was years ago, and it is not a theme that is pervasive in my friendships with those 3 people.

i am sure that they will not consider that i have lost my identity simply because i am no longer definable as AS under the new criteria.

as for all the other people i know, they just think i am a very peculiar and unique personality (for better or for worse), and they have no idea that i have autism. they just see me as extremely eccentric in a way that most of them like.

whatever.
my life will not change because i am no longer called "AS". i will always be me, and no one will see any difference in me when i am no longer defined as "AS".

Deleted- (double-posted)

Last edited by TalusJumper on 27 Jan 2012, 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hey! watch your step there, friend. I'm a woman who likes women and I don't dress up in pink fezz (whatever that means), or rainbow capes and I don't like parades.

I agree with AardvarkGoodSwimmer that we need a pro-neurodiversity movement. Gay people and ethnic minorities have done a lot to pave the way toward this new civil rights concept for the neuro-atypical.

I think all through the 1980s gay rights activists raised money and organized volunteers to provide direct care to AIDs patients, organized community switchboards to connect people with local resources, and engaged in a number of other activities.

I would dearly love for us to start and run spectrum-friendly business. And we also have neurotypical people working with us, sure, that diversity would make for a better business, and we would treat all co-workers respectfully.

PS Even though I happen to be straight myself, I do like seeing colorful clothes and parades! Nothing much to do with sexual orientation, just personal preference, and either way is fine. Although a once a year Autism Spectrum parade, festival, afternoon seminars, evening music may not be such a bad idea afterall. Just some of us will attend and some won't

Last edited by AardvarkGoodSwimmer on 21 Jan 2012, 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Especially that part at the end, little bit sounds like they're trying to clean up a definition for the sake of theoretical neatness and 'perfection' (?) .