Question for those against the DSM v merging of the autism s

Post Reply New Topic

Okay so I asked this to one person in another thread but it got me wondering what others though so here are my questions

What is it about the new criteria vs the old that you don't like?

What is it about the old criteria that you prefer over the new?

Is there a specific section you take issue with?

What do YOU feel sets Aspergers apart from Autism and other spectrum disorders?

Is there anything you like about the new criteria?

What would you suggest they do differently in the merging to make it more accurate if you feel it is to narrow?

For those who agree feel free to answer these question but instead of saying why you like and agree with it

I disagree with the requirement for "Daily impairment" to recieve an ASD dx. It is possible to get a PDD-NOS/AS dx (from some practioners) without meeting the envisioned standard for impairment. My problem is that if the ASD dx is narrowly construed, as I'm sure some jurisdictions would prefer, then what about Aspies who don't have "Daily impairments" that meet that doctor's idea of "impairment".

There are clear AS signs (special interest) that do not in themselves cause impairment. Should be simply re-classify them to some other category that won't get the same supports? This not an academic question anymore, due to the number of people who are now recieving supports, particularly in the primary and secondary education system.

I've taken a long hard look at the new criteria, and although I'm not a diagnostician, I'll probably be one of the milder aspies who'd be excluded from the group. The government did it this way to lessen their expenditures. Right now the statistics of 1:88 diagnosed is too high. If they can bring that to 1:100 or 1:120 they'll save scads of money. The first section of DSM-V states a person must meet all the criteria of parts A,B & C to qualify. To me it's still worded vaguely and open to interpretation; but in general, I don't have those severe kinds of communication miscues that others on the spectrum do. Probably, when April or May rolls around, I may not be a member of WP anymore.

RR62, I would'nt put the slightest amount of importance what the DSM-5 says in that regard. You'll go to sleeep an Aspie, and you'll wake up an Aspie.

I think the argument is that if those symptoms don't cause impairment, you don't need any supports. So why would you need a diagnosis?

In my opinion, this is problematic because autistic traits can have a different impact depending on the setting you're in. If you're higher functioning, you can often find certain settings where you won't need any special supports. But if your circumstances change, you'll need help again. It's like claiming that my friend with CP who can only walk short distances wouldn't have a physical disability if she became agoraphobic. She'd still walk awkwardly, in a way that would clearly indicate to a knowledgeable person that she'd have trouble if she walked further than the space in her own home.

Many high functioning autistics do a lot better in university than in either K-12 or a typical work environment. In some cases this can mean having no significant impairment for the period of time that they are full-time students. But if they don't get help for the future, they could become stuck in the university environment as a perpetual student, or else face a crash when they graduate and can't get a steady job due to their autistic traits.

There's a similar issue with learning disabilities. Technically, to have a learning disability, you have to be two grades behind on an academic area. But what if you see a kid who was doing fine until grade 3, and at grade 3 suddenly stopped progressing in reading skills (incidentally, grade 3 has a shift from 'learning to read' to 'reading to learn', so many kids with mild dyslexia first show issues in grade 3). Should we really wait two years before we help that kid, and leave them to struggle alone and fail until then? The failure to intervene could cause permanent damage to their psychological well-being.

I am surprised anyone would think that special interests don't cause impairments. What happens when one devotes all their time to the special interest that it crowds out everything else, including things that one should be doing? That sort of thing is clearly an impairment and has been an issue for me on many occasions.

The DSM-IV-TR even says the special interest causes considerable disability.

Whilst there's a chance it might not (such as everything falling into place), it'll most likely impair you to some extent.

The only difference I see is that you need 3 of 3 compared to 2 of 4 in the social domain (an extra one in repetitive behaviors, but they did add sensory problems). Though I'm in the HFA/AS group, so I've always needed clinical impairment.

That sounds like almost an addiction. Even if it's an Autism addiction, it is preventing you from doing regular things?

Here's from criteria for Autism:
(C) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns

This is very confusing, yet some interests almost sound like addictions. They would define addictive behavior yet they may be special interests to us.
How does one tell what is an addiction and a special interest that one obsesses over? Can they be one and the same?

Assumingly the doctor uses ASD criteria and we all have different special interests. Yet if they get to the point where they are interfering with daily live things we should do?

Here's the wiki addiction definition which could be better, they are focusing on substance abuse when addiction can have many forms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

I would not call it an addiction, but I can't elaborate onwhy right now and I am not even sure why.

I don't have the ability right now to expand on this, but I think what you have written is interesting and I do want to get back to it and respond more thoroughly. You've given me something interesting to think about.

It's not an addiction as an addiction can actually be fixed.

You can't fix an AS interest.

I think the extra term Aspergers created a huge wave of education and awareness. This is over the entire spectrum. It was an unintended consequence but was very beneficial and empowering for a lot of people.

I think the merging of diagnosis has a hidden agenda of reversing that education and empowerment. The real reason suits the professionals to maintain control and has nothing to do with scientific method or good medicine.

I do not believe this has any relationship to the reasoning behind the change in DSM-5.

I do believe that and so do many

Yeah, I felt totally empowered when I found out I had AS. Like, Superman finding out he's...Superman.

(Actually, I did feel positive though, finally knowing what was causing my problems.)

It is very confusing. If someone is smoking or drinking, doing drugs, doing online gaming, gambling, yeah an addiction. But when it comes to other things, I cannot tell. It's all the same to me.

I do think aspies are more prone to having addictions because we tend to get obsessed. But what is the difference between an aspie doing it and an NT? I cannot tell the difference because they look the same.