Is self-diagnosis okay/valid/a good thing?

Post Reply New Topic

What about the possibility of that person misrepresenting ASD, thereby having a political effect? It's not as bad as a doctor's mistake, but do you think that is an important possibility to consider?

You're making an alleged statement of truth here to validate your stance.

Unless you have statistical data which demonstrates normal distribution of worst-case scenario is 'shrugging and never mentioning it again', your stance has no more validity than a stance such as the person could suffer isolation which could lead to depression etc as a consequence of being viewed by those around them as a liar and the subsequent shunning from the community they face.

I think the real issue here is that people feel the need to self-diagnose. From that, we can draw the conclusion that access to professional help is not available to everyone, and so that is what we should be addressing!

There is "a standard pharmaceutical treatment of ASD?" This is the first time I ever heard this... what is the pharmaceutical treatment for ASD?

Typo. It should read "there is no standard..."

Each individual draws the line for themselves, and they have every right to do so.

Legally (in the US) people have the right to make their own medical decisions, so long as they are conscious and of sound mind.

If a person is unable to make medical decisions due to a mental problem, like psychosis or dementia, the decision is ultimately made in a courtroom.

"You" as in you yourself don't get to draw the line for other people.

I would suggest there is an element of self-diagnosis in everyone of us. Surely no one just gets to see a specialist on the off-chance that they may have some condition. The self-diagnosis may vary by degree - from a vague suspicion through to a full-blown belief, but there must be something that gets the ball rolling.

Alison

I would suggest there is an element of self-diagnosis in everyone of us. Surely no one just gets to see a specialist on the off-chance that they may have some condition. The self-diagnosis may vary by degree - from a vague suspicion through to a full-blown belief, but there must be something that gets the ball rolling.

Alison

There's a difference between suspecting you might be on the autism spectrum and self-diagnosing. Just saying.

(sorry, message double-posted)

Last edited by sonicallysensitive on 13 Dec 2014, 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

This seems loose with language. Do you mean they have the right to decide on whether or not to seek treatment from a qualified medical professional?

How is it established if the person has a mental condition?




The question remains for the undiagnosed to address - If self-diagnosis is valid, at what age does it become valid?

I'm curious to know, what is your overarching point? For what reason do you disagree with self-diagnosis?

I don't mean the reasons you can think of to counter an argument for self-diagnosis, but the one's you have in your mind prior to new information. Not that new reasons are invalid (as new information is the only way to change one's mind), but I'm lost as to where you're coming from.

For example, the primary reason I disagree with self-diagnosis is due to the lower guaranteed accuracy of the diagnosis. This is the argument that resides at the front of my mind (though as a simpler thought), and does so because I have witnessed the abuse of self-diagnosis in the past. I don't think of anything else until I consciously navigate the argument, by which I ascertain potential positives such as summing up one's difficulties and relating to others, against the fact that there is a lack of external, objective observation and clinical assessment that are regarded to be necessary components of an official diagnosis.

My main motivation to argue against is my experience with faulty self-diagnosis, especially as compared to official diagnosis. I have not encountered any information that would sway this view, for example, there are no rigorous, reliable studies that confirm a higher reliability of self-diagnosis.

Though I see positives with self-diagnosis, I cannot be anything but 100% against it (at this current time), because there is no such thing in the mind as 50/50 or 70/30. A person can't be 60% for or against something, they can think that they are but really they aren't, unless referring directly to their considerations of the positive and negative, by which that becomes a useless statement as there is no application. If I were presented with convincing arguments that would resolve my views and/or revolutionize self-diagnosis for me, I would be 100% for self-diagnosis (despite still seeing wrong). I'm only typing this to clarify my own position.

From the posts I've been reading, it seems that most people here consider a self-diagnosis "invalid".

I am currently "self-diagnosed" simply because I am yet to be diagnosed. The reason why I'm even considering seeking a formal diagnosis is because so much of "it" is "me". For the first time in my life, things are beginning to make sense (I'm 51, so suggesting I've spent a lot of years not understanding myself would be an understatement).

That being said, although I agree that self-diagnosis is not a replacement for getting a formal diagnosis and the help needed to cope with life (on this planet), I must say that telling another person that their "self-diagnosis" (part of a process of understanding oneself) is "invalid" can be very hurtful.

Maybe we could be a little more inclusive? We're all just trying to make our way through this maze the best we can.

Shimmermtl

Welcome to WP!

I think that when people refer to self-diagnosis as invalid, they mean it in a sense that:

. You should not declare to others that you have a disorder, as that is what official diagnosis entails; you can specify as self-diagnosed, but not, in this context, 'I am autistic' or 'I have autism'. This is not targeted at any specific individual, but the general population. You could self-diagnose correctly, but another may not. There is no reason to trust every person's self diagnosis.

. A self-diagnosis cannot be used to obtain support/benefits

I don't think anybody intends for 'invalid' to relegate the undiagnosed on this website, though I am very aware of the offense it has caused. It's difficult to circumvent any damage when posters interpret terms differently, such as the case always is in our imperfect world.

When I think of self-diagnosis being invalid, I don't dismiss the self-diagnosis of any individual, I am only cautious of the general concept. Here's an analogy:

A person could create their own IQ test, and it could be as accurate as the tests used by professionals, yet it still would not be valid as it would have not undergone the validation processes that the official tests had. Nobody would take that IQ test over an official test. The work of the person is not necessarily invalid, nor anything specific about that person, only the process, in terms of how it can be used.



I've seen this sentiment brought up or alluded to by many older posters here. I can only speak for myself, and I can't claim to relate to it and understand the frustration (as I'm 19 etc.), but undermining the struggles and desires of people in your position is not at all an intention. It's linked with the inevitable issue of terminology described above. I suppose the only thing that we can do is be kind to each other, really.



I don't think that people will stop using the term invalid if they use it in a way not intended to dismiss the emotions of others, as that would prevent honest expression of opinion. As the main audience of this website is autistic (and those with like traits), I think it may be difficult for many to factor in such social values (as has been previously said). I suppose all that can be done is a person explain how they define a term to anybody that has a problem with it, and apologize if deep offense (even if unintentionally) was caused as to reach mutual understanding.

I'm not naturally inclined to create emotional allowances in the heat of debate (unless there is a personal attack, directly or indirectly). I suppose that is due to my ego and unrelenting desire for arduous discussion; if I don't feel I have done anything wrong, I don't feel obligated to apologize etc. On topic of apology, I have apologized via PM to a poster that I may have offended by speaking in ways perceived as exclusive. I know that my posts can be perceived as arrogant/aggressive/negative, but my intentions are never to harm without good reason. I think the same would be true of most, if not all other members posting in this thread.

I hope that you can enjoy your time here.

If the individual's misrepresentation provides a political effect which is generally in harmony with the autism community, where is the harm? Again, it is the individual who would suffer any mistaken self diagnosis (if at all), not the individual's political effect of disclosing wrongly. Heck, the same thing can be said about legitimate cheerleaders for things ASD who are NTs.

On the other hand, if the individual's political effect is generally dissonant with the community, any such effect will likely be short-lived because the community will correct the individual's repugnant statements and other actions with its own truthful statements. Elected officials and other politicians tend to seek the advice of mainstream groups that have tracks records instead of mavericks with something to prove. News media especially do so. In my political career, I have seen a handful of such individuals gain and lose attention within weeks when their intentions are to shift away from canonical opinions.

Speaking for myself, I have only ever stated that I "have been screened, not diagnosed, as having Asperger's Syndrome" (AS) because that is the truth. I have also stated that "it is very likely that I have AS." And, finally, in casual conversational contexts, I have stated that "I am an Aspie" based on the word's definition of "[h]aving or displaying characteristics of Asperger’s syndrome" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... lish/Aspie. My statements are always truthful (painfully so).

I can't speak for others others, of course, but I believe that an individual who discloses an incorrect self diagnosis is just that, mistaken. No harm, no foul. Even Jerry Seinfeld got a pass from most commentators for his botched joke or botched disclosure (take your pick). He wasn't hauled off to jail, summoned to congressional hearings or told his application for membership with the American Psychiatric Association would be declined for his actions. He was simply wrong.

Why do others wish to make it more than that?