What is diagnosis for? What does it mean?

Post Reply New Topic

A diagnosis is as important for adults as it is for children. I should know as both me and my daughters are all on the spectrum. I know what it's done to me not having a diagnosis until I was an adult (and a parent).

A diagnosis is very important as it allows you legally, reasonable adjustments in the workplace, allows you (should you so wish) to contribute to research on the condition, it allows you access to the correct mental health care etc. etc. ad infinitum.

I do actually have one of his books myself, and have referred to his research on many occasions. Which is why I was surprised to read that he had said such things.

I hasten to add, reading your comments whirlingmind--and yours Palindrome--

I am a huge fan of Tony Attwood at this point. I think he speaks clearly and compassionately about complicated subjects and does a better job of explaining these things than most sources I have encountered.

I think the "fault" -- if such there be in this situation -- lies not with Attwood, but with the confused idea about what a diagnosis is.

I thought of it as "accurately identifying the source of various symptoms" but find that in practice it has many other purposes, chiefly and problematically allowing access to financial and therapeutic support. This seems completely at odds with the goal of correctly identifying the wiring.

I suspect that a diagnosis at this stage in my life will be useful only for tuning my tactics in approaching things I find difficult, if autism is part of the reason they are difficult for e--and useful for my wife in very much the same way. It also might point me toward more effective therapy for those issues--CBT, for example.

I think there may be a slight tiff brewing here because of miscommunication--I strongly suspect that all three of us are in essential agreement about most of this and have gotten slightly hung up on some points of emphasis.

I think Tony Attwood wrote those ridiculous things because they accurately reflect the weird and somewhat contradictory duties of the clinician giving the diagnosis.

I wish I could afford to just go out and get assessed. Instead I have written to a research program at a hospital with an autism center in the hope of obtaining an assessment as part of participating in research. Unfortunately it seems I now have to call them, and phone calls are one of those areas where I have some difficulty.

Phone calls are a thing I have big problems with too. Best of luck with all of that.

I think one of the problems which is still very much prevalent among neurotypical people working with and diagnosing autism spectrum conditions, and evident in what Attwood is saying here, is the problem of seeing autism as the symptoms rather than the cause/neurology.

For example: to a neurotypical parent, their child is autistic because he rocks or stims, has difficulty understanding social situations, and focuses obsessively on a narrow interest. That is because those things are what are visible and obvious to the parent. They can't see what their child's brain looks like, so they don't think of autism as a neurological state which causes certain behaviours. They just think of it as a set of behaviours. More alarmingly, many clinicians also see it this way.

This is bad for several reasons. One is that if you believe autism is a set of behaviours rather than a physical neurological condition, you might come to the conclusion that the person can just be "told" to behave differently and if they refuse they are being difficult, disobedient, lazy etc (I'm sure many of us who weren't diagnosed until adulthood have run into that one). Another, more relevant to this thread, is that when some clinicians are diagnosing they diagnose based on the behaviours they see rather than based on whether or not the client has autistic neurology/autistic thinking patterns. This is, of course, ridiculous. It's a bit like labelling dog a cat because it managed to make a noise which sounded like "miaow". You can call it what you like, but it's still a dog, and to claim otherwise displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what autism is. On the other hand, it's not really surprising to see Attwood (who I also respect) making statements like this, because I think up until recently this muddled-up approach was pretty much the standard way to look at things - there is a big revolution going on in autism research and treatment since the last decade, especially as more autistic people themselves enter the field.

I do understand the need to make a judgement about severity, but to do so based only on the response to current circumstances without regard for the wider life experience demonstrates ignorance and unprofessionalism.

A diagnosis is treated as an expedient in eligibility for services e.g., Special Education, Speech & Language therapy, Government health/medical benefits, and Social Security/Disability benefits.

More commonly, a diagnosis (in part to the Internet) is a term (a reference point) that both raises awareness, as well as assits people involved with Autism Spectrum disorders. It's actually best to refrain from overusing a specific diagnosis in order to avoid confusion, and even apathy.