asperger's is not a mental illness

Post Reply New Topic

Nope. My diagnosis letter says Aspergers Syndrome not "disorder"

This change sucks and would frankly exclude me from it.

You seem to think DSM is a bible or tablet of stone and a supreme source of authority - it is not!!

I have a question for you.

-You've stated that you feel Asperger's is not a disorder:



-You were diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV. You appear to find peace in that diagnosis.

-You express concern that the change of the spectrum of pervasive development disorders to one single autistic spectrum disorder, might result in your exclusion from the autistic spectrum (which is debatable).

-If you, and other Aspergers and high-functioning autistics would be excluded from the DSM-V because of the new criteria, you would cease to be considered 'disordered'.

-You have stated that you do not consider your Asperger syndrome to be a disorder, and it may be inferred that this means you can function adequately in society.

Question: why do you not welcome the revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, when your possible exclusion means that society acknowledges that you do NOT have a disorder?
In this scenario, Asperger syndrome does NOT exist, therefore you canNOT have Asperger syndrome, and you do NOT have a disorder. In my perception, it seems that the DSM revision gets you what you want: you will now be a normal person.

I'm not under the DSM, but ICD, so the change would not have anything to say for me. But if ICD, in its next revision, do the same changes as in DSM, I would still be a part of the autism spectrum disorders. And I welcome such a change.

That said, both the DSM and ICD are authorities in the way that they are two of the main classifications which administer the heritage of the word autism; which serve to classificate the disorders according to its etymology which named it as disorders. What it feels like, what each of us define it as and so on has much to say and is an important message to the society since it would influence the attitudes in the society toward us. It will also help us where we may be troubled and it may help society to learn about our strengths. But the DSM and ICD will always be what define us, and we can not go away from that. If we do not fit into an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in DSM or ICD, using its name would only lead to confusion and a diagnosis which instead of unite us divide us. Further, gastrointenstinal disorders and so can be added to it since its integrity is not there when moved away from its classification and its etymology.

Amen to this.

I don't see Aspergers as a mental illness rather a different form of thought in how things are done and so forth.

Would you call being gay a disorder? In most cases, the person was simply born with the wiring in the brain crossed over to be attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite. AS is merely another few wires crossed to generally increase brain ability at the cost of social aptitude.

The problem is, social aptitude is really the only thing most inhabitants of this world care about. Dum-dums...

I dont think there are many "normal" people - not if you look close.

I think DSM will be blown out of the water soon as we understand the brain. From my perspective I was diagnosed with something that they did not understand and now think does not exist. If you read DSM EVERYBODY has some "disorder" at certain times in their lives - but they are not always chronic. I would not want DSM to define me, not least when its authors cant agree and little understand. I will still be an aspie when they take it out of their little book - which incidentally keeps many in good work.

You know what? I quite agree with what you said about the DSM not being the final authority on the subject. There's quite some content in the DSM that I take issue with, although not so much when it comes to autism. I see it more as a guideline than anything else, but every individual has their own peculiarities you can't define with a manual. And that's where the usefulness of any such diagnostic guide ends.

'Autistic' for me is little more than a descriptor. The complex of traits that make me fit that descriptor are mine and mine alone, and 'autism' is a sometimes useful term for specialists, psychologists, teachers, parents, to draw the link with others who have in the past been described as 'autistic' due to similar symptoms they acquired through probably similar causes which yet remain unknown.
I don't know about you, but I take an indecent pleasure in the vagueness of it all.
At the end of the day, what I'm trying to say is, I'm autistic, and that's OK. I don't know any better that, for me, autism is a brain disorder, and that's OK too. Like Callista says, 'disability is just one possible part of the experience of human life'. Bearing the label of 'disorder' does not detract from the value of that life.

And mine says, "Aspergers Disorder."



....which is good because if you are not/were never "impaired," you did not have "Aspergers" to begin with.



It's referred to as a disorder in the DSM-IV, the ICD-10 and Gillberg's criteria, which are the three most popular guidelines used to diagnose "Aspergers." And they all require "impairment."

The term was invented in reference to people who had specific impairments in everyday life. If you are not "impaired," you do not have Aspergers.

This.......the condition is technically called Asperger's Disorder but referred to colloquially as Asperger's Syndrome. Also it's under the category of Pervasive Developmental Disorders soon to be replaced by Autism Spectrum Disorders.

let google decide for you..............what does auto suggest with the lead word aspergers............syndrome, test, in adults, diagnosis are my results,

Thats not authoritative but nevertheless the argument or conversation is you posting the counter and that is about it.

The number of "disorders" has ballooned to cover most aspects of human behavior. I also dislike how it is revised so slowly and errors are not quickly removed. It is a guide not a manual IMO. Calling it a manual is rather arrogant - they dont know how the brain works thus it is not a manual. It gets treated as an authority in the realm of a dynamic and misunderstood subject - how much authority is in that.

If you like x files (still?) then maybe thinking of it as a conspiracy to keep people on drugs and in therapy chairs might help. Its social control! Personally, i think its ignorance that will get away from with improved neuroscience.

The term was "invented" from Hans Asperger noticing "little professors" - that was my understanding anyway.

Sooo......

We shouldn't go by the DSM-IV, the ICD-10, or Gillberg's criteria, nor should we go by Hans Asperger's original papers, but we should trust a friggen' GOOGLE SEARCH???? Mind officially blown.

I'm done with this conversation.



EXACTLY.

Thank you.

**gracefully bows out**

I specifically qualified what i was writing!! ! I did not say that you are to trust that, but I am saying if you are just to say the opposite then I'm not going to invest large volumes of time.

I was saying im done with it because of your argument style - which you again resorted to - hence my zero motivation to engage with you.

DSM is not the final word and its classifications are based on a very limited understanding of the brain. Call it "disordered" if you want but its highly connected and hence so many inventors are "aspies" or does that not exist because the bible got changed?

This conversation is indeed painful, I'm reminded of the need to have more regard for NT's emotions at times.

The disagreement over the right name for diagnosis have existed since Hans Asperger and Leo Kanners work; it is a normal scientifically diagreement which exist for all kind of topic. Further, a mental disorder relies on so much more than brain research, so an understanding of brain would not be much more than that; AN understanding of the brain. It would not blow out the water of the DSM or ICD, because the mind-body problem still is a big schism in cognitive science and it results in a wide different and conflicting view of the brain's working. Finding one way the brain work would be in conflict with another way the brain work from another perspective on the mind-body problem. Personal I believe in the theories of externalism which dismiss the theories of localization in brain. An understanding of the brain in which only describe it neurological would therefore not make any difference to me and all the others proponents of externalism.

When I agreed to be diagnosed with F84.5 Asperger syndrome I understood it as a 'collection' of symptoms which had been observed together in so many patients that it could be called empirical, not a condition in which the cause was known. Further I understood it clearly, as a result of it being the result of an empirical research, as a condition which had its own scientific name; Asperger syndrom. A change in name, to Autism spectrum disorder (or for that part any other name), would not do anything with the observed symptoms; they will still be they same, and so the changes of a diagnostic manual would not influence me much as long as the empirical observed symptoms which defined me in the first place still is included.

The medical science defined my condition, in which I agreed through signing a medical document. The pervasive developmental disorders are therefore something I regard as medical conditions defined by its diagnostic manual since that is the only thing I have signed upon on. People who define themself as someone with a condition with the same name as the medical conditions but which not follow the medical classifications do I not feel to be in the same social group with.

It get treated as an authority because it is the inventor of the medical conditions known as pervasive developmental disorders. The understanding of the eventually mechanisms of it does not belong to it; it would require a completely different methodical research approach than it was designed for, and it would move away from a descriptive classification to discourse analysis or even a deconstruction if done so.

Social control issues relies not on the medical classification but the laws of the nation. In my country involuntarily commitment is the only way to gain a social control over someone in the medical system, and a pervasive developmental disorder diagnosis in itself would not be a good enough basis for that.

I only put the xfiles line in to amuse myself. However, a lot of drugs are being sold.

I disagree regarding brain research but I do respect your view and how you stated it.

My views on the brain are in my book. I can show you if you want.

I believe AS is BDNF rising too fast too quick in infancy. I believe that rise causes plasticity to differ - wired in a food the brain is leveled. I also believe epigentetics has a large role and that a good caveman diet goes a long way...............there is a chain of events involved imo and a number of issues go together to form Aspergers Syndrome.