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

Post Reply New Topic

Thank-you, narny, for taking the time to respond to my comment, and for the much appreciate welcome.

I created a thread detailing potential dangers of self-diagnosis.

Making it personal is diverting from the nature of the debate. To ask me as an individual what my motivation is diverts from the issue.

As do posts such as 'we shouldn't be talking about that anyway - let's just work for better representation' - as this could be given in response to every post everywhere on this forum.

It's diversionary sidestepping.


As of my thread mentioned above.


I'm not posting here to defend myself as an individual, but rather, to discuss issues - one of them being the age at which 'self-diagnosis' becomes reliable.


Again - If self-diagnosis is valid, at what age does it become valid?


(PS Norny that question is meant for the undiagnosed who agree in the validity of self-diagnosis, and not specifically a question I'm asking you)

I actually believe Seinfeld had an epiphany while seeing a play, saw himself as being on the Spectrum in a broad sense as a result (equivalent to being within the Broad Autism Phenotype), shared his experience casually with an interviewer--resulting in a big hullabaloo of publicity.

Seinfeld, I believe, yielded to the uproar, and disavowed anything "autistic" about himself during another interview a few days later, thus taking away the opportunity for positive publicity for people with ASDs.

Seinfeld's revelation did not rise to the level even of self-diagnosis. It was a casual impression caused by a moment of identification.

Exactly my point. If even the very egregious Seinfeld disclosure yielded little (if any) harm to the autism community, why would other, much better researched self-diagnosis disclosures rattle our society? Unless the next celebrity to disclose artfully is, say Prince William, I believe that Seinfeld disproved the idea that self diagnoses, however badly determined, are dangerous to anyone. Absent an individual with injurious intentions, they are, at worst, public mistakes.

Yes, and this includes being free to diagnose one's self in order to make that decision.

You used this example:



Yes, this is a possibility, and there are thousands of other such possibilities that you could speculate on endlessly. But the fact remains that the individual has a legal right to do so.

In reality, even when a patient recognizes that they may have appendicitis, it's not unusual for surgeons to find that an appendix has already perforated when they begin to remove it. It is rare for a person to die from a ruptured appendix. It takes a few days for peritonitis and sepsis to set in. In the meantime the pain, vomiting and other symptoms will become severe enough for the person to know very well that it's not just a "sore stomach."

It's far more common for a person to have complications from a ruptured appendix, due to a doctor missing the diagnosis (rather than because the patient thought they just had a "sore stomach"). Did you know that misdiagnosed appendicitis is one of the most common reasons for a malpractice suit? It's actually not very easy for doctors to diagnose.

Hence some doctors will be more proactive in ruling out appendicitis - by sending the patient in for what might be unnecessary surgery to remove the appendix - to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit. This could delay getting a correct diagnosis if the patient is actually suffering from another condition.

The individual who is suspected of having appendicitis is free to decide that they do not have it, and likewise the person who suspects they have appendicitis is free to decide that they have it in spite of being told by a doctor that they do not. In both cases, this freedom enables the person to protect themselves from the potential complications and dangers of a being misdiagnosed by a medical professional.

The freedom we are talking about here is the patient's freedom to decide whether or not they agree with a professional diagnosis, up to and including deciding that they have a different condition. This freedom is allowed for the patient's own protection and benefit. Part of why this freedom is allowed is because of the potential for medical misdiagnosis and malpractice.

This freedom also includes being able to seek further tests and evaluation, seek a second opinion elsewhere, refuse a suggested treatment, seek alternative treatments, use self-care or any available over-the-counter remedies, or to refuse any treatment at all. The patient is free to object to treatment due to religious reasons. The patient is also free to refuse to be seen by a doctor at all. These are legal rights.

So if you want to ask where the line is drawn? the line is ultimately drawn in laws that protect the freedom of patients to make their own medical decisions. And the line is drawn in legal precedents that further establish those rights.




A medical professional has to testify in court and provide documentation that the patient does not have the capacity to make their own decisions. Simply diagnosing a patient with a mental or psychiatric condition does not demonstrate a lack of capacity.

This page explains this in far greater detail than I can do so myself:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181079/

^This.

I voted yes.

I was surprised to see 72% yes.

As I've been transparent about, I don't have an official diagnosis. I don't require one for anything in my life & don't really want one for the potential stigma (even if only self imposed) nor any potential issues it could create in my life and future career.

I've read a few books about AS & many websites. I know that my lifetime's experiences match with the diagnosis completely and I don't need a psychiatrist to tell me that. I also don't need anyone here on the forum's acceptance nor approval of what I know to be true for myself. I also believe it would be a waste of public medical resources to seek such a diagnosis considering the fact that it wouldn't benefit me one iota - especially since I've gotten myself to such a high functioning level that ASD symptoms & traits no longer greatly impact my quality of life.

Also, I think self diagnosis is perfectly acceptable for those who cannot access a psychiatrist due to geographic proximity or the monetary costs involved.

I accept my own self diagnosis, and I accept others' as I believe they know about themselves what I've come to learn about myself. I see thorough self diagnosis as not much different than an official expert's diagnosis. In fact, in some ways I see it as better as people like me are likely to read a LOT to confirm their suspicions whereas a psychiatrist may have but a couple hours of conversation with a patient in order to form their opinion. YMMV & that's just fine.

Interesting. I always assumed that "I am an Aspie" means that "I have Aspergers" not simply "I have Asperger traits". If it really is the latter, then almost everyone I work with now and almost everyone I have worked within in the past is an Aspie.

As background, I work in software development. And pretty much everyone - from the engineers, to the testers, to the technical writers, to the business analysts, to the project managers - exhibits some form of Asperger traits. While I am not an expert (by any stretch of the imagination), I suspect that most of them would not qualify for a diagnosis (and, likewise, would not self-diagnose themselves as having Aspergers).

I couldn't have written it better!

The poll results are refreshing from my perspective. Goldfish, I hear you: being on the spectrum is a "whole of life" set of experiences, from your perspective, and it's a perspective I share, though the "ASD's" obviously don't, can't or won't. (ASD's in this context = Anti-Self-Diagnosis)

You would impose stigma on yourself if you got an official diagnosis...but not for a self-diagnosis?

Most of the people I know have some autistic traits, but most also have plenty of neurotypical traits.
They wouldn't be diagnosed with autism due to having too many neurotypical traits of social cognition shown through behavior like normal eye contact, normal social orienting, making social inferences, responding to social cues, applying social context, etc.

Probably a lot more so in the past than now.. but mainly I'd probably just create anxiety for myself about all the what-if's that could happen in my life & career should I have an official file somewhere with that diagnosis on it. Probably completely ridiculous and unrealistic that it would ever be discovered… and somewhat improbable that I'll rise to any level of career where someone might try to do some research on me or dig up any dirt - but I figure better safe than sorry & I don't have to worry about it ever being an issue if I never have it written up on paper.

A question within the context of this thread. I believe you should never ask a question unless you can deal with the answer.

My GP, a very intelligent and switched on lady, agreed with my self-diagnosis. She is quite knowledgeable in this area, and commented that I would gain nothing by seeing an specialist, stating "There is nothing they can do about it, so why incur the costs".

So bearing in mind the definition of an "expert" being ex - a has-been, and spert - a drip under pressure, what benefit has any older aspie gained from being diagnosed as such by an expert? And equally if relatives, friends, whatever, and you yourself have strong suspicions of having Asperger's but the expert says "no", what then? Would you go paging through the pages of the DSM V looking for something that fits, or just forget about it?

Alison

An alternative to saying that one has autism without diagnosis is to not say that one has autism without diagnosis.
One can say that one has autistic traits or is BAP, as neither of these are medical diagnoses.
Some BAP people I know have quite strong autistic traits in certain areas, stronger in those areas than many diagnosed people, and they know about their traits, but they don't say that they have autism or are autistic without diagnosis.

Of course the diagnosing clinicians can't do anything about it; that's the same for everyone who gets diagnosed with ASD. The main benefits of professional diagnosis come from sources other than the diagnosing clinician. It is possible, however, to learn something about oneself from the tests they administer during the assessment.


What? That's not the definition of "expert."


How old is "older"? I'm almost 34, and I need a diagnosis for social services benefits and accommodations. I'm also interested in the diagnostic process for reasons of intellectual curiosity.



If the expert performed satisfactorily, I wouldn't forget about it entirely, but I would no longer seek to be diagnosed and would mostly stop thinking about having Asperger's. The strength of the suspicions of friends, family, and myself wouldn't matter much.

Why would anyone go paging through the DSM looking for a disorder to identify with? Especially these "older aspies" you allude to, who apparently have so few problems in life that they cannot profit from a professional diagnosis? You aren't the first poster to touch on this subject, but no one has been explicit about this and I don't understand: if someone isn't impaired enough to benefit from a professional diagnosis, what is the point of a self-diagnosis?