Overturning AS Diagnosis

Post Reply New Topic

No, but your assertions stand out.

Actually, most of the people I've met who fit your stereotype were not on the spectrum. So I don't find it a good indicator, and there is no basis for anyone other than you with your own personal experience to do so.



Dilution implies a weakening, and your reference to 'the ever-expanding definition' is telling; in fact, the process continues to both add details to the criteria as well as removing some that tend to indicate another condition or area within the autistic spectrum.



Derision through exclusion.



Yet if they have adapted in these ways, they're 'not ill'.


This has become a tiresome conversation, and your responses are becoming more puerile and attacking instead of relevant to the discussion. You are more than welcome to your opinions. Good luck.


M.

Once again all you've done is quote my post. Not a single one of these matches up with your initial claims about what I said and I can only imagine you're talking out of a bruised ego here.

The two quoted posts are the only ones which are in any type of context, and it highlights the sort of inanity you're dragging up here.

Derision through exclusion? I am somehow deriding these people by saying that people who are undiagnosed aren't factored into the definition of Asperger's Syndrome? Of course they're not. Are people without pancreatic cancer used as models when determining what the diagnostic criteria of pancreatic cancer are? No of course they're not. Are people without schizophrenia used as models for determining the diagnostic criteria of schizophrenia? No, of course they're not. And yet when it comes to Asperger's Syndrome you think I shouldn't point out the glaring obvious fact that people who haven't been diagnosed with the disorder don't factor into the pool of people who are used to as a model for people who do and do not have the illness? That's nothing short of ret*d.

"Yet if they have adapted in these ways, they're 'not ill'" just literally makes no sense. There's a quote from me, this piece of drivel, which has absolutely nothing to do what was said, makes no point, and just sits there like the ramblings of somebody who wants to say something despite having absolutely nothing to say.

In any case, you trying to tell me that somebody can be ill despite having no symptoms then you need to think about the definition of illness. "Resulting from suffering; harmful or distressing" is a common definition you'll find paraphrased in any dictionary you pick up. If somebody is not suffering in any way, is not being harmed in any way and is not distressed in any way they are simply not ill.

Really though, these are all basic points; I shouldn't have to spoon feed you the obvious whilst you go out of your way to completely misread sentences that a 5 year old would have little trouble with.

Makuranososhi- I sent a pm with some things you may be interested in seeing. I sent the same message to another moderator, but she isn't currently online. I have screen shots if anything in the links is deleted before you read them. The site they're on has been notified, so they may not be there long.

none of this fits me, unless you expand the "a little too rude" to include naivete and social awkwardness.

I wouldn't put intimate relationships on the criteria list to rule out AS.

Nobody ever said intimate relationships rule out AS. However if you find it easy to have intimate relationships (or wild uncontrollable sex with strangers) then you can hardly lay claim to being sick from a socially debilitating condition can you?

you said it was a good indicator, I said I don't think it can be used as criteria to rule out AS. the reason I said it is that quite a few people with AS find people who are understanding enough that they can build a good intimate relationship. do you consider AS to be a socially debilitating condition? if not, then your post makes no sense, so please explain further. if yes, then your logic dictates that having an intimate relationship rules out AS.

also note: I never once used the word "easy" and I have no idea what you're implying with the word. can you be more specific about what you would consider "finding it easy to have intimate relationships"?

I'm also not sick, btw.

It's not an illness.

I have to laugh at how rude you are being.

But I would say it is true that sadly society treats it like an illness, to me what you are writing is how some people perceive Asperger's in the wider community.

Lacking peer relations is in the diagnostic criteria; it's one of the big ones. The other three often lead to social isolation, as it says in the accompanying text.

Normal adaptive functioning in social, educational and vocational pursuits precludes a diagnosis as of now.

yes, I know that. that doesn't make friendships and partners an impossibility, however.

after some thought, I guess "debilitation" is an appropriate word for unwanted social isolation. it just sounds so incredibly dire in comparison to how I feel about being socially isolated.

Daniel, I didn't find that phrase when I search under the DSM criteria - are you using a different set? Gilberg? Just curious, as I am not familiar. I did find:

...which refers to impairment, but not the absence of. As one does not grow out of being on the spectrum, nor is there a cure, then what does the adaptive process mean to those diagnosed/affected by being on the spectrum? What is the definition of 'normal adaptive functioning'? One who is able to cope with certain situations is not unaffected, even if they are able to do so successfully. I do agree, through observation, research, and personal experience, that the effects of many of the exhibited traits of being on the spectrum do lead to social isolation - but it is not a terminal result, nor does it stipulate catastrophic social failure or inability to interact. Just rather confused, thanks in advance for the information in response.


M.

Agreed. I have a partner and our relationship is excellent. Non-Autistic people I know have gotten together, gotten married and since divorced in the time I have been with my partner.

Introversion is neither necessary or sufficient for an AS diagnosis.

To be diagnosed with something one has to be assessed and why would anyone be assessed if someone did not perceive some particular problem? These kinds of services cost money and people who genuinely need them experience significant waiting times if they can access them at all. Government funding and insurance money are not free for alls. On the contrary both governmental agencies and insurance companies seek to minimize their costs. As do educational establishments who often have to provide expensive accommodations if one of their students is recognized as having "special needs".

It does not make a lot of sense to suggest that people are being unnecessarily labelled with disorders just for being introverted. Governemental agencies do not have any motivation to do this, but rather have a financial incentive to avoid it, the same is true of insurance companies and educational establishments (who sometimes make referrals). So how or why would introverted people even be getting assessed if there were not some identifiable distress or impairment triggering assessment in the instance of any particular introverted individual receiving some diagnosis or other?

AS is not an illness.

It may not be entirely accurate to dismiss the possiblity that you are characterized by this ...a little too rude... characteristic that you describe.


Good grief, as though Mak is likely to be silly enough to believe that. If you can find a 7 year old that can post like Mak, I'd really love to meet that kid. I think it would take something significantly more substantial and forceful to bruise Mak's ego. After all he is a decent person of obvious intelligence, reasonability and good sense (not to mention a fairly large capacity for tolerance). What's he got to feel insecure about to the extent where anything you have posted could possibly have any impact on his ego?

AS is not an illness.

makuranososhi, Danielismyname is referring not to the "list" section of the DSM criteria, but to the accompanying text. This is rarely published on the internet (probably a copyright issue). If you are reading a list of criteria not accompanied by a more extensive text in paragraph form, then this is only a sub-section of the full diagnostic entry in the DSM.

Last edited by pandd on 06 Dec 2009, 11:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Appropriate adaptive functioning just means you're like everyone else for your age level, i.e., within the normal continuum in work, social and academic achievements. That's what Criterion C is referring to.

Friends are possible, of course, and I always had a few friends growing up when I entered school; I lost such when I hit my ceiling of development. The more mild cases (who are in the minority), can form romantic relations in person, they can marry, and they're usually working in a high position (the benefits of the intense focus). But, as I said, these people are in the minority, and the spouses usually report problems with the relationship (where the individual with AS is oblivious too), so they can meet Criterion C too, just though.

There's a heap of people with AS and Kanner's who drive, work and live by themselves, it's just that they're socially isolated, so they meet Criterion C. There's also a whole heap who work and have a few friends, but they live with their parents and don't drive as adults, so they meet Criterion C too. There's many ways this can manifest.

Interesting - thank you for the explanation. It is interesting for me to note where I would qualify as mild and where I am more severely affected in your explanation of the criteria. And pandd - thank you, you are entirely too kind.


M.

Last edited by makuranososhi on 06 Dec 2009, 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

twenty one posts and so many chances to behave in a civilized manner.
this new member has been doesn't seem to want to play by the rules we all have to follow.

Merle

Pandd
To be diagnosed with something one has to be assessed and why would anyone be assessed if someone did not perceive some particular problem? These kinds of services cost money and people who genuinely need them experience significant waiting times if they can access them at all. Government funding and insurance money are not free for alls. On the contrary both governmental agencies and insurance companies seek to minimize their costs. As do educational establishments who often have to provide expensive accommodations if one of their students is recognized as having "special needs".

It does not make a lot of sense to suggest that people are being unnecessarily labelled with disorders just for being introverted. Governemental agencies do not have any motivation to do this, but rather have a financial incentive to avoid it, the same is true of insurance companies and educational establishments (who sometimes make referrals). So how or why would introverted people even be getting assessed if there were not some identifiable distress or impairment triggering assessment in the instance of any particular introverted individual receiving some diagnosis or other?



I do agree Pandd, I am talking about what has happened to me which isn't relevant. In my case I feel I have been diagnosed when I actually just have traits. But I really shouldn't have got involved in this discussion.

You do not need to feel your comments are any less welcome in this thread than anyone else's emc2.

Misdiagnosis does occur with any diagnostic entity (including ones for which we have genetic tests, for instance I know of someone diagnosed with a chromosomal disorder but subsequent re-tests showed the first test had been in error....it happens).