New Definition of Autism Will Exclude Many, Study Suggest!! !

Post Reply New Topic

this does not look good at all...


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/healt ... gests.html

Oh no. This is bad for me! I do not like this.

under the current dsm, i have aspergers. under the new, i have mild autism. i'm not panicking. the NYT article says part of the reason the new definition SEEMS to leave people out is that they tested it on a group of people for whom they don't have enough info.

actually look at the new guidelines before you get worried.

I've read that the changes were done because too many kids are being diagnosed with autism. There is also an obesity epidemic so are they going to change that definition to make it seem better?

This makes me worried about getting tested. They would probably boil everything down to my learning disability, which is way less pronounced in my adult life but is still there. I do strongly posses a lot of the other criteria though, but the revisions kind of make me nervous. I am not a "classic case" of the spectrum. Does anyone have a link to the new revisions?


Handbook I mean.

I don't see it as making that big a difference. I do fear it will exclude some people from getting services they need, though. I don't think the definition is broken, so don't see the need to "fix" it.

If this is really being done because "too many kids are being diagnosed" that is just plain stupid. Changing definitions to make things "look better" is not a good idea. It's a head-in-the-sand approach.

~Kate

Here is the link: DSM-V Criteria For ASD

I think that the criteria are clear and reasonable. Autistic children and adults will still be diagnosed with autism. Do not be alarmed by the sensationalist media and this one study based on old data from 1993.

Very, very good point!

I generally think what kids on the spectrum need is a little bit of coaching and generally being mainstreamed at school with special ed. at times as needed. (I am not a parent.)

And for adults on the spectrum, there are very few services. I tend to have an idealized view of Britain. But here in Texas where I live, haven't heard of much.


=============

We had another discussion of this yesterday.

New Definition of Autism May Exclude Many (NYTimes Article)
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt187280.html

But, this is New York Times, and on the physical copy this is front page, top of the fold, so I think it's just fine to have a couple of discussions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/healt ... .html?_r=1

Okay, the stylized picture at the top. Susan is perhaps looking out a window. Her mother is sitting in a wheelchair behind her. They probably could have included a more human, everyday photograph. (The person who's aspie is looking out a window and this represents . . . I don't know what this is supposed to represent.)

And the 5th paragraph down, the reporter is quoting her mother talking about her, but the reporter is not quoting Susan herself ? ? ? And many people who are aspie can talk very nicely thank you very much. In fact, we can talk and talk and talk.

And the reporter missed an opportunity to tell a little bit about Susan. Maybe something as simple as a favorite TV show and then perhaps two other details about her life. Then people might be more likely to see Susan as a person and not just a label.

This article doesn't even mention the (now stereotype) that there are many famous people who were probably on the spectrum. Nor does it mention that there are many, many people who are middle function. (Our education systems and health systems seem to "need" to classify people are either high- or low-functioning. And we need to get past this.)

------------------

This article is just another example that full inclusion of human beings on the spectrum will mainly be a movement of self-advocacy. Good-hearted professionals can help out, but they can't run the show.

Reading into it, it looks like I would still be included.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/healt ... ted=1&_r=1

' . . . would sharply reduce the skyrocketing rate at which the disorder is diagnosed . . . ' (1st paragraph)

' . . . For years, many experts have privately contended that the vagueness of the current criteria for autism and related disorders like Asperger syndrome was contributing to the increase in the rate of diagnoses — which has ballooned to one child in 100, according to some estimates.' (3rd paragraph)

'The changes would narrow the diagnosis so much that it could effectively end the autism surge, said Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, director of the Child Study Center at the Yale School of Medicine and an author of the new analysis of the proposal. “We would nip it in the bud.”' [hard to tell whether he takes this view or is criticizing this view] (7th paragraph)

====================

Sure seems like it's being viewed as a "problem" that people are being diagnosed on the autism spectrum. I mean, the language is striking, "skyrocketing," "ballooned," "nip it in the bud." Wow.

I think we should take a page from the gay rights movement, and participate in pro-spectrum and pro-neurodiversity civil rights organizations. And what this has in common is the right to be different in a way which matters and the right to be authentically oneself.

Last edited by AardvarkGoodSwimmer on 20 Jan 2012, 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have a lot of thoughts about this and I'm not even sure they all agree with each other. But my first reaction is that such a line of thinking and change of definition is a confirmation of Aspergers as more of a difference than a disability. On some levels, I like this and on some levels I don't. As a member of the 130 IQ gang with the social skills of a rock and sensory issues to boot, I can't honestly say I'm "disabled" anymore than the 100 IQ dude with a great personality. As the stepfather of a kid with cerebral palsy, I know what disability looks like and I'm not it. But on the other hand, I am perfectly aware that others on the spectrum have far more severe AS symptoms than I do and are more crippled in life than I have ever been. The narrowing of the definition of autism, I fear, will ultimately lead to the elimination of the "diagnosis" of Aspergers and will result in a major step backwards for those of us whose brains are wired a little differently. The most unfortunate part of this redefinition is that I feel it is primarily money-driven. The powers that be are not happy that an increasing percentage of the public-at-large is using a diagnosis of Aspergers as a reason to dip into public funds, whether it be for pyschological services or SSI. It is a thorny issue and it is certainly not driven by a pursuit of scientific truth. It will be interesting to watch as this continues to develop but the truth of what individuals with Aspergers live with will not change as a result of money and politics.

Does this mean we will have to dress up in nothing but pink fezz and rainbow capes once per-year and go on parade? In which case, I'll let the gay rights movement keep their page o_o

Thanks. Now for a new link to the article.

I don't like this at all. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Where will I stand after the changes take place?