Discussion:
Asperger's Syndrome abolished
(too old to reply)
d***@fsmail.net
2012-12-02 17:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Apparently AS is to be merged with autism in DSM-5:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/02/aspergers-syndrome-dropped-psychiatric-dsm

Dolphinius
(Male, age 40 +/- a few months, UK, self-diagnosed AS)
Aquarian Monkey
2013-01-30 18:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@fsmail.net
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/02/aspergers-syndrome-dropped-psychiatric-dsm
Dolphinius
(Male, age 40 +/- a few months, UK, self-diagnosed AS)
Yes. I am not sure how people think that will be helpful. So many people say it is the same thing, but I fail to see it. I already think we are calling multiple distinct conditions "autism." I fail to see how lumping the few distinctions that have been made back into the same pot as progress.
Autindividual
2013-01-30 20:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aquarian Monkey
Yes. I am not sure how people think that will be helpful. So many
people say it is the same thing, but I fail to see it. I already think
we are calling multiple distinct conditions "autism." I fail to see
how lumping the few distinctions that have been made back into the
same pot as progress.
This doesn't surprise me in the least, in fact, it's a natural outcome,
since this is ALL about Manipulation and Corecing Conformity, and
providing Billing Codes along the way. It's the same with the autism
'spectrum', it's No spectrum at all, but rather a Collection of specific
behavior characteristics being Targeted to bring about Conformity. And I
rather like the simple general term of Autism, because it Literally means
Self-Being, and that's what I'm into, being myself! I've currently
finished demo recording my fourth song on my second album, my sixteenth
original song to date, and practically all of them contain very positive
references in one form or another, to the autistic perspective.
Bob Badour
2013-02-01 05:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aquarian Monkey
Post by d***@fsmail.net
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/02/aspergers-syndrome-dropped-psychiatric-dsm
Dolphinius
(Male, age 40 +/- a few months, UK, self-diagnosed AS)
Yes. I am not sure how people think that will be helpful. So many people say it is the same thing, but I fail to see it. I already think we are calling multiple distinct conditions "autism." I fail to see how lumping the few distinctions that have been made back into the same pot as progress.
I don't think it matters much one way or the other.

I think a pretense of distinction when folks really have no idea what's
going on is counter-factual. Thus, removing the distinction and
acknowledging that all folks really understand is a cluster of symptoms
does strike me as progress; albeit a small progress. That doesn't stop
anyone from self-identifying any way they choose.

Once the causes and specific differences become better understood, I
think it makes sense to form distinctions based on known mechanisms of
action rather than arbitrary rules. Even then, I don't see how that
stops anyone from self-identifying however they choose.

Chihuahua's are the same species as Great Danes, and Papillons are the
same species as Irish Wolf Hounds. I don't think it diminishes them or
their unique characteristics to call them all dogs. Yet, they are far
more different from one another than Aspies from Auties. As are women
from men, and we characterize both of those as human.

Granted, breed standards are nothing but a set of arbitrary rules. I
don't think they improve either the species or the breeds much, and
sometimes cause breeders to make rather questionable husbandry choices.
I suppose one could say the same thing about health care practitioners
and questionable diagnostic choices.
Aquarian Monkey
2013-02-17 15:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Badour
I think a pretense of distinction when folks really have no idea what's
going on is counter-factual. Thus, removing the distinction and
acknowledging that all folks really understand is a cluster of symptoms
does strike me as progress; albeit a small progress.
I would agree with what you are saying insofar as superficial distinctions with no underlying validity are pointless. Where I differ is that I don't think anyone is saying "since we are unable to discriminate between subtypes, let's just lump them together until we can." What I have heard them say is that they aren't really that different, so why not lump them together. They are different. Even if we don't understand how or why.

I see it is a step back because I think nearly *everything* related to research is being held up because they lump unlike groups together and treat them as if they are homogenous. Maybe ABA does help some subtypes of autism, but harms a few. Wouldn't it be good to tease out those few so that we know not to go that route? Maybe environment plays a primary role in some subtypes of autism, but not all. Wouldn't it be good to identify those subtypes and learn how to reliably detect them so that environmental modifications can be made, and conversely prevent "the rest" from throwing their money down the drain by buying supplements and exerting unnecessary effort in managing the environment? What if vaccines *do* cause autism in....I don't know, pick a number...say...4.5% of autistics? Shouldn't we figure out how to identify people in that group so they avoid vaccinations? And then clearly communicate to the rest of the population that if you do not have this specific issue, you are safe to have vaccines?

It's not a step forward. It's a step back.

At any rate, at this point I think D would be moved to Social Communication Disorder if I brought her to a brand new professional for a diagnosis today. It's stupid. She has mild autism. I know it. The only reason I am not freaking out is because her school district is giving her support without any proof of her diagnosis to begin with. Remember we moved? I asked for an evaluation and they said it was unnecessary...what services did I want...and they gave them to her. I asked them if they wanted a report from her doctor and they said it wasn't necessary. But I can't help but think of all the kids just like D who are probably going to either not get services or have to fight for them. I will tell you what, if she didn't have the support she has now, she wouldn't be doing as well.
Phil W Lee
2013-02-18 00:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aquarian Monkey
Post by Bob Badour
I think a pretense of distinction when folks really have no idea what's
going on is counter-factual. Thus, removing the distinction and
acknowledging that all folks really understand is a cluster of symptoms
does strike me as progress; albeit a small progress.
I would agree with what you are saying insofar as superficial distinctions with no underlying validity are pointless. Where I differ is that I don't think anyone is saying "since we are unable to discriminate between subtypes, let's just lump them together until we can." What I have heard them say is that they aren't really that different, so why not lump them together. They are different. Even if we don't understand how or why.
I see it is a step back because I think nearly *everything* related to research is being held up because they lump unlike groups together and treat them as if they are homogenous. Maybe ABA does help some subtypes of autism, but harms a few. Wouldn't it be good to tease out those few so that we know not to go that route? Maybe environment plays a primary role in some subtypes of autism, but not all. Wouldn't it be good to identify those subtypes and learn how to reliably detect them so that environmental modifications can be made, and conversely prevent "the rest" from throwing their money down the drain by buying supplements and exerting unnecessary effort in managing the environment? What if vaccines *do* cause autism in....I don't know, pick a number...say...4.5% of autistics? Shouldn't we figure out how to identify people in that group so they avoid vaccinations? And then clearly communicate to the rest of the population that if you do not have this specific issue, you are safe
to have vaccines?
It's not a step forward. It's a step back.
At any rate, at this point I think D would be moved to Social Communication Disorder if I brought her to a brand new professional for a diagnosis today. It's stupid. She has mild autism. I know it. The only reason I am not freaking out is because her school district is giving her support without any proof of her diagnosis to begin with. Remember we moved? I asked for an evaluation and they said it was unnecessary...what services did I want...and they gave them to her. I asked them if they wanted a report from her doctor and they said it wasn't necessary. But I can't help but think of all the kids just like D who are probably going to either not get services or have to fight for them. I will tell you what, if she didn't have the support she has now, she wouldn't be doing as well.
I think the change could be good or bad - we just don't know yet.
I don't think the existing subtypes were accurate or useful, and by
eliminating them, they give the chance (which may or may not be
followed up) to replace them with more accurate subdivisions.

In particular, I'm not at all sure that the distinction between low
and high functioning was either consistently applied or necessarily
useful - does it measure the extent of the autism, or the underlying
IQ? It is entirely possible that a person with fairly extreme autism
but high IQ may be able to cope with adopting strategies to cope which
would not be within the capability of someone with low underlying IQ.
Or it may be some aspect of IQ or specific autistic trait which makes
the difference - who knows?
More to the point, who could find out with the old categories?
If this paves the way for a re-categorisation, it could be a very good
thing.
As long as the previous categories were being used
Rich Ulrich
2013-02-18 23:32:14 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Bob Badour
2013-02-18 01:04:32 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Loading...