Diagnosing - undiagnosing - diagnosing again

Post Reply New Topic

Recently, there's been some talk about kids who "lose" their diagnosis at some point. Apparently the majority of these kids keep having minor troubles such as learning difficulties, motor skill trouble or social awkwardness, but not enough of the triad of impairments to warrant a full diagnosis.

As a lot of people have mentioned, the question is really whether these kids are cured of autism or they are just compensating. My therapist cited a Swedish study that said the same thing, but in that study no participant was older than mid-thirties.

Personally, I think I would have been diagnosed as a child if I'd been brought to the notice of a diagnostician who understood high functioning autism in girls. It's very likely I'd have lost such a diagnosis as a young adult. I think people overestimate my social skills due to my verbal abilities. However, in my thirties I took on more responsibilities and had more health troubles, and my functioning went downhill a lot.

The only person I know that I can compare myself with IRL is someone who was a lot more successful in life than me, but who never took on the kind of challenges I did. So who's better functioning? It seems very situation dependent.

Which brings me to my point: what are the diagnosers going to to when the "cured" start having breakdowns and burnouts? Rediagnose them? Diagnose them with depression or anxiety? What kind of therapy will they use to treat these problems?

If someone only has autism under stress, there really is no point in losing the diagnoses IMO. I have asked the same question on Reddit as well. What if someone recovers from it and then they hit hard times and their symptoms come back, should they get rediagnosed with it again? It just doesn't make sense.

I feel that a "cure" for autism is impossible, but that many people with autism compensate well enough for them to not seem autistic in most situations.

I, myself, have my good days and my bad days.

I would rather be diagnosed so I could show the world all my good days instead of being undiagnosed so I would show the world all my bad days.

I agree with you all. I though about this because I kept seeing threads where someone would mention bringing up ASD with a therapist, and the therapist saying something along the lines of "you're probably on the spectrum, but as long as you are not seeking support, a diagnosis is not useful for you".

To this I would say "Circumstances change". What do you do when you end up in an old people's home, and you can't have a single room? In hospital? Sorry for being so morbid, I guess I'm having my mid life crisis, bang on time.

Sorry for the late reply. My job is going better than it was, but it is at times both mentally and physically exhausting, so when I come home, forming sentences can be a challenge.

Also, the scientific description of "cured" is seriously weak. What are they saying, that if you can't see it it's not there? Particularly as the "cured" still have troubles that the majority of neurotypical kids don't have?

How do the studies differ between compensating for a problem and not having it at all?

For ex. my husband recently ran into an autistic guy at work. The guy is classic; lack of eye contact, monotone voice, executive functioning problems (they work really closely, so it's obvious to my husband who knows what to look for). Husband says "He talks like you do when you're tired". Years and years of singing lessons helped me to speak more clearly. Increase stress levels and it all goes away.

I didn't feel that it was autistic, to be a 'respecter of persons', ie. rank.

You can create and test an objective data set, for yourself. If you were so inclined, you can find most any lab test or piece of equipment, etc, that the doctor uses.

The interpretation, prognosis, and the best course of treatment are a matter of opinion. If you need a white lab coat and stethoscope and fancy paper, framed, on the wall, in order for your choices to count, then, go buy yourself the color of authority, and do anything you want.

I feel that the doctor is akin to a golf caddie or some native guide. He should generally have expertise and be reliable, but you wouldn't suspend all personal judgment.

If you need a testimonial, say, for legal purposes, it is common practice to get whatever testimonial you want.

In other words, what would you like the doctor to do for you, how much do you want it to cost, and which one is willing to do that. In other words, he is a resource or utility (hopefully a good one). But, not in moral authority.