Yes, it is now considered to be the same thing as what's termed (colloquially) 'high functioning autism', but pre-1994, this was the bucket that kids like my girls would have fallen in (or they wouldn't have been dx'd with anything so specific). This is not a new catergory, but a disorder that was given to the HFA kids back in the day when only the most severely affected kids were diagnosed as 'autistic'.
It is on the spectrum, but so is AS, and it's its own seperate little catergory. Seems to me that this should have it's own category, too. The symptoms, early signs, impairments and aptitudes describe my daughters to a tee, as well as the lack of repetetive, self stimulatory behavior.
No one would meet my girls and think 'autism', except for an expert in the field. I think it's useful to make distinctions like these, because it gives a more accurate picture on how the child's disorder should be treated. For example, I was very concerned with my school placement, as my daughters were not placed in the autism class, but in a generic, developmental pre-school. I was concerned because I thought they needed intenstive educational therapies for their autism, but that's actually not the case, and I now agree that their current placement is correct, and their limited language therapy and the emphasis on social skills is the correct approach.
It also gives a more refined prognosis. It's nice to know that the girls will likely eventually speak fluently (they're getting there) and that there's reason to be optimistic about their future prospects. The prognosis that goes with the generic DX of autism isn't very uplifting, after all.
The more articles I read like this, the more I'm convinced that the autism "epidemic" is purely a byproduct of an increasingly inclusive criteria for autism.
_________________
Father of twin, HF autistic daughters (four years old) and a six year old son.
07 Mar 2007, 11:19 am
