Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Any other groups that are more accepting of self-diagnosis?

Page 5 of 11 [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1025
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

02 Dec 2014, 5:01 pm

sonicallysensitive wrote:
Instances of self-diagnosis being misdiagnosis, leading to exacerbated conditions of actual condition whereby individual sues a site designed as support of medical diagnostic labels such as autism failing to state that self-diagnosis is medically inadequate.


This seems so extremely unlikely that it isn't worth worrying about.



sonicallysensitive
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 486

02 Dec 2014, 5:07 pm

Adamantium wrote:
This seems so extremely unlikely that it isn't worth worrying about.


Yes, I agree, highly unlikely indeed.

Whether it's worth worrying about or not is a decision for Alex to make.

It's worth giving at least a few minutes thought to.



dianthus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,138

02 Dec 2014, 5:08 pm

I for one can promise and swear before God that if I die tomorrow of a brain tumor, my family is not going to sue Alex.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

02 Dec 2014, 5:09 pm

sonicallysensitive wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
What are "the potential dangers of self-diagnosis"?


Instances of self-diagnosis being misdiagnosis, leading to exacerbated conditions of actual condition whereby individual sues a site designed as support of medical diagnostic labels such as autism failing to state that self-diagnosis is medically inadequate.

Getting completely ridiculous, someone could have a brain tumor which presents itself symptomatically in a very similar manner as autism. Individual visits this site, seeks no further medical advice, and dies shortly thereafter. Individual's family sue site owner(s) for site's failure to mention issues associated with self-diagnosis.

Again, highly highly unlikely, but I'd cover my own tracks for the 1:1,000,000 possibility that could exist.

Having a disclaimer should be standard fare in this day and age.


This makes no sense. This forum is full of people having dissenting opinions on a wide variety of autism-related discussions. Why should one of these opinions be singled out for a disclaimer? Why should the opinions of any poster require the site as a whole to have a disclaimer about them? People have heatedly and sometimes angrily discussed dietary interventions, vaccines and ABA. Should all of those subjects have a disclaimer too?

The self diagnosis/professional diagnosis is looming large right now on the strength of a few heated threads. But it is actually a microscopically small part of the discussions overall.



sonicallysensitive
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 486

02 Dec 2014, 5:15 pm

Janissy wrote:
This makes no sense. This forum is full of people having dissenting opinions on a wide variety of autism-related discussions. Why should one of these opinions be singled out for a disclaimer?
It shouldn't.

But a site could.


Janissy wrote:
Why should the opinions of any poster require the site as a whole to have a disclaimer about them?
They don't


Janissy wrote:
People have heatedly and sometimes angrily discussed dietary interventions, vaccines and ABA. Should all of those subjects have a disclaimer too?
No, only one broad disclaimer stating the potential dangers of self-diagnosis as a substitute for medical diagnosis.

(note the inclusion of the word potential)


Janissy wrote:
The self diagnosis/professional diagnosis is looming large right now on the strength of a few heated threads. But it is actually a microscopically small part of the discussions overall.
Thankfully opinions with respect to diagnostic status etc are being kept to threads regarding diagnostic status.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

02 Dec 2014, 5:26 pm

sonicallysensitive wrote:
No, only one broad disclaimer stating the potential dangers of self-diagnosis as a substitute for medical diagnosis.
(note the inclusion of the word potential)


This and your lawsuit hypothetical assumes that a person who self diagnoses has declined to get an available professional assessment. In the threads discussing this, the people who self diagnosed have cited the lack of availability or the lack of affordable availability. Sometimes the assessment became available later in life and then they got it and morphed from self diagnosed to professionally diagnosed.

Your whole angle is premised on people turning down the professional assessment they would otherwise have gotten. But does that actually happen?



Norny
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488

02 Dec 2014, 5:28 pm

I still don't understand why criticism of self-diagnosis is taboo, but criticism of all other things is not.

For example:

. Criticism of professional diagnostic method and/or field professionals (i.e. Russell Barkley)
. Criticism of NTs
. Criticism of ideas relating to autism

Can anyone explain this to me?

Shouldn't we be able to discuss anything so long as there are no personal attacks?


_________________
Unapologetically, Norny. :rambo:
-chronically drunk


Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1025
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

02 Dec 2014, 5:28 pm

Re Fear of lawsuits for not having a self diagnosis disclaimer.


This is website, not a doctor.
Also, no one can be "Self diagnosed" by another, by definition.

Also:

Norny wrote:
I still don't understand why criticism of self-diagnosis is taboo, but criticism of all other things is not.

I think it's been firmly established that it isn't taboo.



Last edited by Adamantium on 02 Dec 2014, 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Amity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,714
Location: Meandering

02 Dec 2014, 5:32 pm

Adamantium wrote:
Re Fear of lawsuits for not having a self diagnosis disclaimer.


This is website, not a doctor.
Also, no one can be "Self diagnosed" by another, by definition.


:lol: :lol: :lol:



dianthus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,138

02 Dec 2014, 5:38 pm

Norny wrote:
Shouldn't we be able to discuss anything so long as there are no personal attacks?


Able to, allowed to, yes.

But should you discuss "anything" in any thread or on any occasion that you feel like it? Or are there some kind of guidelines you might follow on when it makes sense to discuss things and when not to?



Norny
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488

02 Dec 2014, 5:43 pm

dianthus wrote:
Norny wrote:
Shouldn't we be able to discuss anything so long as there are no personal attacks?


Able to, allowed to, yes.

But should you discuss "anything" in any thread or on any occasion that you feel like it? Or are there some kind of guidelines you might follow on when it makes sense to discuss things and when not to?


I don't think that people are upset because there are a few posts in other threads, I think that it concerns the main thread where the topic is strictly about criticism of self-diagnosis.

This thread is a tangent from the main thread to begin with, as are the other ones, so it would seem that they are connected to me.

I can't help but feel those against self-diagnosed in the main thread are receiving the raw end of the bargain, simply because they are against it. I know there are a few rough posts but there seems to be a general idea of polarization that everybody against it is evil and those that don't criticize it are caring etc.


_________________
Unapologetically, Norny. :rambo:
-chronically drunk


dianthus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,138

02 Dec 2014, 5:44 pm

Janissy wrote:
Your whole angle is premised on people turning down the professional assessment they would otherwise have gotten. But does that actually happen?


It doesn't make any difference to the argument either way, in that an individual has the legal right to decide not to seek professional assessment or treatment for themselves, or to turn it down when it is advised or offered, so long as they are of sound mind.

If a medical establishment advises treatment, and a patient refuses that treatment, the establishment may ask the person to sign a disclaimer because it could be held liable for releasing the patient.

But no one can be held liable simply because a patient decides not to seek treatment.



dianthus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,138

02 Dec 2014, 5:46 pm

Norny wrote:
I can't help but feel those against self-diagnosed in the main thread are receiving the raw end of the bargain, simply because they are against it. I know there are a few rough posts but there seems to be a general idea of polarization that everybody against it is evil and those that don't criticize it are caring etc.


They are free to express their opinions, just like others are free to express their opinions about their opinions, and vice versa, ad infinitum, so what exactly do you think they should be getting out of the "bargain" that they aren't getting?



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

02 Dec 2014, 5:50 pm

dianthus wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Your whole angle is premised on people turning down the professional assessment they would otherwise have gotten. But does that actually happen?


It doesn't make any difference to the argument either way, in that an individual has the legal right to decide not to seek professional assessment or treatment for themselves, or to turn it down when it is advised or offered, so long as they are of sound mind.

If a medical establishment advises treatment, and a patient refuses that treatment, the establishment may ask the person to sign a disclaimer because it could be held liable for releasing the patient.

But no one can be held liable simply because a patient decides not to seek treatment.


That's true.

A lawsuit is just not going to happen for the reason you said. (Wish I'd thought of saying it :P ).



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

02 Dec 2014, 6:01 pm

Fnord wrote:
Does anyone know of another science forum or discussion group that is more compassionate to the self-proclaimed scientist?

Does anyone know of another medical forum or discussion group that is more compassionate to the self-proclaimed surgeon?

Does anyone know of another religious forum or discussion group that is more compassionate to the self-proclaimed prophet?


I've known some self-proclaimed prophets. I don't believe a thing that comes out of their mouth without first checking it.



NiceCupOfTea
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 644

02 Dec 2014, 6:03 pm

I think I know where Norny is coming from. I would say the use of the word 'evil' is too strong, but it does feel like this site has become more cliqueish than I've ever known it so far (which is not very long, admittedly).

It almost feels like now you have to have the 'right' opinions to fit in with the majority. No, you won't be banned for expressing the 'wrong' opinion, but you will be subtly ridiculed or made to feel like a pedantic fusspot.

I'm probably, as ever, being oversensitive. And I'm not really complaining; I've made my bed and have to lie in it, fair enough. It does seem like on literally every site I go to, though, there's a minority who "get" me and - horror - even like me, but the majority just don't seem to know how to react to me... :?