Aspies to be demoted to Autistics.

Post Reply New Topic

Donald:
Occasionally, he volunteered a statement or question, "I am going to stay for two days at the Child Study Home." Later he said, "Where is my mother?" "Why do you want her?" he was asked. "I want to hug her around the neck."

Barbara:
Attracted by a pen on the desk stand, she said: "Pen like yours at home." Then, seeing a pencil, she inquired: "May I take this home?"

Alfred:
"You answer my question, and I'll answer yours."

He once stopped and asked, very much perplexed, why there was "The Johns Hopkins Hospital" printed on the history sheets: "Why do they have to say it?"

John:
He saw a group photograph in the office and asked his father, "When are they coming out of the picture and coming in here?"

These seem to me to be conveying meaning in spoken language to others.

I found a source that allows cutting and pasting. Kanner did not describe the speech as having no inherent meaning so there is no contradiction of ideas in his paper. Obviously Nursery rhymes and intelligible speech have inherent meaning for those that understand the English language whether spoken or read in a book. Quoted directly from his paper below describing the use of language of the children: " In none of the eight "speaking" children has language over a period years served to convey meaning to others."[/quote]

The speech described conveys meaning to me. It seems meaningful. Just atypical. I am not going to assume that Kanner's observations of autistic speech are fully objective as they are limited by his own biases, projections, and assumptions about speech and communication.

Taken at face value, yes, that's how Kanner interprets the speech. What he described does not appear to be what he interpreted it as, however.

These are the actual changes the ASAN organization had suggested for the DSM5 quoted and linked below as compared to the last published revision of the DSM5. Not only did the ASAN organization stay close to the status quo for the DSMIV-TR existing criteria for Aspergers Syndrome, they also addressed issues that made it more difficult for some to receive a diagnosis of Asperger's under the DSMIV-TR, particularly the area where they were suggesting a diagnosis could be made from behavioral history rather than current behavioral presentation and functioning. It's interested because they did not address the concerns voiced by those associated with non-verbal children assessed with intellectual disability. Those concerns were associated with the wording of "not accounted for by a general developmental delay", and the focus away from verbal language impairments in the wording of the criteria

The DSMIV-TR rendition of Asperger's allows a person to be diagnosed with none of the communication impairments listed in Autistic Disorder, or non-verbal language impairments. So in effect it became a social interaction rather than a social communication disorder for those diagnosed as such, under the DSMIV-TR.

The DSM5 makes the non-verbal impairments previously listed in the social interaction category for both disorders a mandatory requirement, and leaves wording out that specifically describes language impairments that were included in the DSMIV-TR Autistic Disorder. As well as removing the section for developmental delays, and instead emphasizing the symptoms are not accounted for by general developmental delays.

However, the one section under social-emotional reciprocity does describe the potential of no initiation of social interaction. So while not explicitly described as an initiation of a conversation, initiation of a conversation could reasonably fall under the general umbrella of the phrase social interaction There are also previously described communication impairments in the DSMIV-TR Autistic Disorder, re-described as behavioral impairments in the RRB section per repetitive speech and ritualized verbal behavior. There were no elements of speech or verbal behavioral impairments in the DSMIV-TR RRB criteria descriptions in either disorder.

There is an overall appearance in the revised criteria that the DSM5 took the focus away from the actual impairments of verbal language, that Kanner described in his case studies that are prevalent in up to 25% of children on the spectrum that were described in the DSMIV-TR criteria of Autistic Disorder. But, some of the previously described communication impairments in the DSMIV-TR do appear to be hidden between the lines, if one looks hard enough, and potentially may be described in more detail in the diagnostic characteristics section of the DSM5.

There was also a study that identified that more individuals would lose their diagnoses without intellectual disability than with intellectual disability under the new DSM5 criteria, so the issue over that new language regarding general developmental delays in the DSM5 doesn't seem to be justified, per that research.

I don't think Asperger's ever should have been a disorder where a person could be diagnosed with neither non-verbal or verbal language impairments, so I was not able to agree with ASAN's recommendation below, as that would continue that potential from the DSMIV-TR. Putting in a requirement of symptoms from childhood, is going to be potentially difficult for some people with no medical history or caretaker history. But, a requirement of a diagnosis from past functioning instead of present functioning, doesn't seem reasonable as the impairment in functioning is what makes the symptoms working together a disorder that significantly limits and impairs life functioning, even limited to a major area of life functioning rather than everyday functioning.

The motor skills part was definitely justified as an option, however put under RRB's one could effectively be diagnosed with sensory issues and fine motor skills problems with no actual RRB's, which would take away a core component of both Kanner and Asperger's descriptions of their syndromes.

I think the wording of the criteria better reflects what the Asperger's diagnosis was in the DSMIV criteria than Autistic Disorder. But, I think it is very possible that the diagnostic characteristics that no one has seen that I know of, may not really change that much. It appears to me once one looks between the lines that the major difference may be that three social interaction elements common to both disorders in the DSMIV are now mandatory elements. I do believe the impact will be the greatest on the demographic of adults potentially seeking a diagnosis, that might otherwise have been diagnosed with the previous less restrictive criteria of Asperger's, but can't say that the new mandatory requirements of social communication are unreasonable at all.

ASAN is at least equally represented by adult females; per that demographic; I think all the concerns that ASAN brought up are perhaps the most relevant to the concerns of that specific demographic. Asperger's in general has been a diagnosis biased against females, per general perception, from the time of Han's Aspergers that hasn't come close to completely going away.

The changes that ASAN suggested would have definitely helped the potential concerns of that demographic, I think. But, the demographic is identified in government CDC statistics as 2 percent of the spectrum, in 8 year old females, which in itself is a self-fulfilling prophecy of bias against the demographic and concerns that have been addressed specific to that demographic. I suppose the only solution there is better educated clinicians per that identified smaller demographic on the spectrum. And more research to determine what the differences are in presentation, that have been identified in the clinical environment. One reason I think that the future sub-clinical use of the term Asperger's will still be important.

ASAN's recommendation:

http://autisticadvocacy.org/wp-content/ ... _final.pdf



https://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news ... -disorders

Last published revision from the DSM5 for Autism Spectrum Disorder:

I agree. Kanner identified in his paper that some of the children gained a better ability to communicate as they grew older, as I identified in one of my previous posts.

A healthy reply is "Who cares?"

But... well since people want welfare checks, I suppose it matters to some.


Worst part is, when people hear "autistic", they are going to picture some incoherent kid who can hardly function and wears a diaper at age 7. Mainstreamer NTs gotta mainstream.

for many people it is not a matter of wanting welfare, as NEEDING welfare! some people, no matter how much you might exhort them to "jerk themselves up by their own bootstraps," just can't do that even if you pointed a gun at them.

Is it really taking PDD-NOS with it :)? Because almost 90% of the people i've ever told that i have pdd-nos had no idea what i was talking about anyway, but when i say autism its super clear, i'll be very glad if pdd-nos is also just refered to as autism, its so insanely complex anyway :/

Tell me about it. I tried hard - almost too hard - to support myself and live on my own, and I can't even hold a job long enough to pull it off.

Seeking disability was such a last resort, considered after debating whether suicide would be appropriate once I have nowhere left to go.

you are fortunate in that you managed to negotiate the bureaucracy in order to get your benefits. i never could figure that stuff out.

Aghogday Wrote:
It wasn't taken just at face value by Kanner at the time of the case study, as Kanner was in a position to interview others that interacted with the children to find their determination on whether or not the language conveyed meaning to them. And, it is noteworthy again, that Kanner recognized that some of the children gained a better ability to communicate as they grew older, in his paper; that language described as conveying some meaning to others as communication, including Kanner, later in childhood, was also described in the text of some of the childhood case studies, as well as in the adult outcomes reported by others. Some of the communication remained limited, but never the less, some of the communication improved as the children grew older

These are the same general type of outcomes reported in some children today; once who were considered more severely impacted by associated symptoms, that are eventually considered less severely impacted by symptoms.

There is continuing research ongoing as to what functional or non-functional language is in individuals diagnosed with Autism. Neither Kanner or others that attempted to interact with the children at the time of the case studies are the final interpreters or deciders on that general issue; that is at least, in part, a subjective issue for those actually involved in the communication. It's not just an issue of what was said in words. It is also an issue of how it was said and presented in real life that cannot be reported fully in a text report. None of us are privy to that from the past, in these case studies, except those that were directly involved at that time.

I'm still negotiating the bureaucracy. Right now I get the insufficient state benefits and am still trying to get the full benefits.

I also had assistance with navigating every step of the way.

out of curiosity, who assisted you? an organization or a person?

DSHS assisted me. An advocate who works for DSHS helped me assemble my paperwork.

The part that fell apart and didn't work well was actually the one step I didn't have assistance with - the function report.

No idea why anyone would "want" welfare/disability (even though you can get such with Aspeger's just as you can with Autistic Disorder nowadays).

Yes! Let's live on below minimum wage. Which is probably ok if you're a humble person who doesn't like buying material things (like me), but for most? It doesn't make sense that you'd want it.

I don't want it, but I am at a point where I have little other choice.

I just came across information that apparently the final revision of the DSM5 is different than the last publicly released revision, as "diagnostic history", yesterday, was described in the New York Times as added in as part of the parameters for a diagnosis, and Catherine Lord provided some interesting quotes that warrants further details before anyone attempts to determine exactly what she means by them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/healt ... d=all&_r=0

Catherine Lord is an interesting wordsmith. Essentially everyone gets in means most everyone will get in, but does not guarantee that everyone WILL get in, or quantify who essentially everyone is in the context of their diagnostic history. She could mean those are included who were earlier diagnosed with all the new current mandatory requirements of behavioral impairments in the historical diagnostic record and can be administratively placed under the new diagnostic label with or without a current re-assessment. However, it's not likely that the DSM5 could force this administrative work on private professionals without a fee paid by someone, if that is what is meant by her quotes.

Her recent study indicated that only 10 percent would lose a diagnosis if re-assessed based on clinical records, so technically her quote would be in the ball park of essentially everyone gets in, if her research results reflect the larger world of clinical records; which at this point is speculative at best.

These are questions that need to be answered by the APA, to get the details and further explanation, because "essentially everyone gets in", could mean a number of things, specific to a further context of what is meant by diagnostic history, as that was not included in her actual quote, in the article.

There is also the potential that there were other changes, as well.