Impairment vs disability?

Post Reply New Topic

DSM 5 ASD criteria includes the following:

D. Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.


How does that equate with some people on the spectrum saying they're not disabled?

It really depends upon the individual person.

If a person, say, is "impaired" in a significant skill, having to do with "executive function"----but is able to hold down a job despite this---the person is not usually seen as being "disabled."

However, if a person presents him/herself well (superficially)---yet, despite many attempts, has failed to hold down a job as an adult---that person is usually seen as being "disabled."

If a person is able to support him/herself, the person might have obvious "impairments," yet is usually not seen as being "disabled."

If a person has less obvious impairments----yet has difficulty in support his/herself---then the person is usually considered "disabled."

All this is very subjective, of course.

That's a reasonable explanation .

Are you not on the spectrum if you can do most of the things that aspies are noted for. Phenomenal memory abilities. Long hyperfocus. Making stuff that that is too complex and detailed for the average person. Not just one, but two, three, or even a baker's dozen? Perfect test scores? Not an Aspie because you aren't impaired enough?

If people need your skills and abilities most people are quite accommodating. That's what name tags at club meetings are for. So you don't have to remember faces.

It depends on the individual person.

If you have these abilities, yet have trouble relating to your peers, you are usually seen, subjectively, as being "impaired" in an "Aspergian" sense.

If possessing these abilities prevent you from, say, performing "activities of daily living" (ADL skills), then a person would usually be seen as being "disabled."

If you're lucky enough to possess these abilities, yet be able to relate to your peers and keep a job, then (in the absence of childhood autism manifestations, or the ability to maintain fairly good functionality even in stressful situations), you are not considered Aspergian or autistic.

So if you were a paraplegic but could hold down a job you wouldn't be disabled?

You would be purely physically disabled. You can't do your ADL's.

So a paraplegic who could hold down a job would still be disabled, but a person with ASD who could hold down a job wouldn't be?

Right.

Because the person is not physically disabled.

Being a paraplegic impairs you in many ways. And disables you in many ways. For physical (and perhaps other) reasons.

But even if you could be seen to be 'socially disabled' with ASD you wouldn't be disabled if you could hold down a job ?

It depends. But, usually, not.

It's more likely you will be seen as being "impaired," rather than "disabled."

Impairment is a value assessment between two things in regard to a particular condition.

Example 1: a person who is 5'7" tall is "impaired" when compared to a person who is 6'7" when basketball performance is considered. When longevity is considered the taller person is "impaired".

Example 2: A person who is less skilled at social banter may be considered "impaired" compared with someone verbose in regard to dating. When consideration is given to the awkwardness and even pain encountered with the break up of casual encounters, the person who too easily jumps into relationships might be considered "impaired".

It might be wise to avoid reflexively taking what so-called experts declare as true.

Just for the record, I never claimed to be an expert.

I'm talking about people's SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS.

In order to determine if someone is "impaired" or "disabled," I'd have to observe a person over a good amount of time.

Autism, especially when it comes to those who are "high functioning," is a very subjective diagnosis.

Classic autism, with intellectual challenges, is much more objective. Though not perfectly objective like something like tuberculosis is.

The definition of "disabled" is vague and subjective

Connotation

Some people with ASD diagnosis, rightly or wrongly, claim, misdiagnosis

Different definitions

You can reconcile the two by recognizing two things:

1. Any diagnosis tends to be categorical by nature (having a condition or not), but this is based mostly on historic approaches to abnormal psychology and the laws that surround it more than the conditions themselves.

2. Just as you indicated in the phrase "on the spectrum", everything that we know about autism thus far indicates that it is a condition with multiple continuous axes, so it will never fit cleanly into categorical criteria.

Hence, in my opinion, there will always be a gray zone. Deciding where in the gray to drop the categorical line seems more to me about how society deals with disability and benefits, and less about whether an individual experiences complications of autism.

Here's a question:

Can someone assign 'impairment' to you, without your consent?

What if what they consider as 'impairment' is just the way I like it? I have a problem with 'normies' saying that because I don't have a ton of friends, or because I speak bluntly that I am socially impaired. What if I say, 'screw their notion of impairment?'

I have three friends, well four actually. But, I see two of them on a regular basis and two I interact on FB with regularly. I have acquaintances. But, I have four true friends. If they die before me, I'm not going to feel the need to go replace them. I'm more like, "I had four friends and it was nice." Not, I need to go find four replacements to fill my quota.

I, for one feel I should have to agree to something before it's an actual documented impairment.