Preliminary draft DSM-5 released
10 Dec 2010, 2:03 pm
wavefreak58 wrote:
Mysty wrote:
There's also, though, the argument so many people with Asperger's make. That it's not a disorder. They are, in essence, arguing that it doesn't belong in DSM. DSM labels disorders. It doesn't label variations that aren't disorders.
Ridiculous. Those that argue that Asperger's is not a disorder are those with Asperger's that are simply less impaired. The very fact that a person is evaluated and diagnosed means SOMETHING brought that person to the attention of parents, school administrators or other people. It's not like categorizing people by eye color. The system, for all its flaws, doesn't randomly snatch people and put them through diagnostics just to slap a label on them. There has to be some indication that an evaluation is even needed before the expense will be incurred.
These does not mean that the person has a disorder - a person who is simply eccentric can attract the attention of parents, relatives, teachers or school administrators even if he feels perfectly happy with himself.
10 Dec 2010, 2:26 pm
wavefreak58 wrote:
Mysty wrote:
There's also, though, the argument so many people with Asperger's make. That it's not a disorder. They are, in essence, arguing that it doesn't belong in DSM. DSM labels disorders. It doesn't label variations that aren't disorders.
Ridiculous. Those that argue that Asperger's is not a disorder are those with Asperger's that are simply less impaired. The very fact that a person is evaluated and diagnosed means SOMETHING brought that person to the attention of parents, school administrators or other people. It's not like categorizing people by eye color. The system, for all its flaws, doesn't randomly snatch people and put them through diagnostics just to slap a label on them. There has to be some indication that an evaluation is even needed before the expense will be incurred.
By insisting it's "not a problem", those with Asperger's that function well enough that a "cure" is not necessary are doing a disservice to those on the spectrum that actually ARE struggling. Just because it's going great for them doesn't make it so for a large number of others. Additionally, how many Aspies would not be doing so great if it were not for the identification of Asperger's, early intervention and the targeted education in life skills.
At least one thing is for certain, ego is intact with Aspies.
Get over it. Asperger's is a neurological variant that causes problems. A sub set of those with Asperger's are able to adapt very well and live very fulfilling lives. And there is a subset of Aspies that struggle every day.
I am so glad to see someone say that. It is easy to say we aren't disordered when you get by relatively fine. I hear aspies say how we shouldn't be in the DSM frequently and I wonder is it because thery don't struggle like I do (and I am pretty mild mysel).
10 Dec 2010, 2:33 pm
TPE2 wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
Mysty wrote:
There's also, though, the argument so many people with Asperger's make. That it's not a disorder. They are, in essence, arguing that it doesn't belong in DSM. DSM labels disorders. It doesn't label variations that aren't disorders.
Ridiculous. Those that argue that Asperger's is not a disorder are those with Asperger's that are simply less impaired. The very fact that a person is evaluated and diagnosed means SOMETHING brought that person to the attention of parents, school administrators or other people. It's not like categorizing people by eye color. The system, for all its flaws, doesn't randomly snatch people and put them through diagnostics just to slap a label on them. There has to be some indication that an evaluation is even needed before the expense will be incurred.
These does not mean that the person has a disorder - a person who is simply eccentric can attract the attention of parents, relatives, teachers or school administrators even if he feels perfectly happy with himself.
And such a happy eccentric is a minority. Most that attract attention are already struggling with behavior and/or academics.
_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.
10 Dec 2010, 2:38 pm
I have to agree with the fact that it does deserve a diagnosis. Under the definition of disability, it is literally something that impears one from enjoying or experiencing life in a full manner and which they desire. While somebody may be at a very high functioning level, what does that say about those aspies who continously struggle with relationships for example? They may be doing very well in other aspects of life, but certian disabilities with regards to social subtleties may cause problems.
I have to agree that "lack" is to strong a word. I think may be "deficits" in social reciprocity may be better terminology in this case. I think it would help diagnose teens and adults more consistantly. I think we are capable of social reciprocity but it takes on a different form and may be developmentally delayed. We may lack it early in childhood, but it may develop later in life. I also think it is repetitive with regards to the persistant social deficits.
10 Dec 2010, 2:46 pm
visagrunt wrote:
...Finally, the use of the term, "clinically significant" keeps the diagnosis focussed on those for whom the traits present a functional deficit that merits intervention, rather than mere inconvenience that can be accommodated or overcome...
However, as an adult, most of the time I will not present "clinically significant" traits. I have learned coping skills and developed filters to address my deficits, and most of the time these allow me to function quite happily. When my skills and filters break down, though then I drop back into "clinically significant" presentations.
Have I dropped off the spectrum? I don't think so. From time to time my presentations still trigger the "clinically significant" standard. But most of the time, I don't need professional help to get on with my life, so it stands to reason that during those times, I would not present traits that merit diagnosis.
However, as an adult, most of the time I will not present "clinically significant" traits. I have learned coping skills and developed filters to address my deficits, and most of the time these allow me to function quite happily. When my skills and filters break down, though then I drop back into "clinically significant" presentations.
Have I dropped off the spectrum? I don't think so. From time to time my presentations still trigger the "clinically significant" standard. But most of the time, I don't need professional help to get on with my life, so it stands to reason that during those times, I would not present traits that merit diagnosis.
I always wonder if those who have been originally diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder BUT who have developed effective coping strategies to address spectrum-specific deficits, such as yourself, would even still be considered as being on the spectrum.
As well, would someone who is able to fake things so well that they are able to gain friends, control obsessions and successfully socially interact in daily society BUT feel that these behaviours aren't natural to them still be considered to be on the spectrum? The DSM-V has made diagnosis criteria a lot more streamlined, but these unanswered questions still linger.
Context: I was given a diagnosis of Aspergers/PDD-NOS as a young child, but none of the criteria listed in either DSMs apply to me today...with the exception of maintaining relationships and possibly fixated interests. I still have significant functioning issues, but today they stem from something completely different (anxiety and depression).
_________________
Given a “tentative” diagnosis as a child as I needed services at school for what was later correctly discovered to be a major anxiety disorder.
This misdiagnosis caused me significant stress, which lessened upon finding out the truth about myself from my current and past long-term psychiatrists - that I am a highly sensitive person but do not have an autism spectrum disorder
My diagnoses - anxiety disorder, depression and traits of obsessive-compulsive disorder (all in remission).
I’m no longer involved with the ASD world.
10 Dec 2010, 2:54 pm
anneurysm wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
...Finally, the use of the term, "clinically significant" keeps the diagnosis focussed on those for whom the traits present a functional deficit that merits intervention, rather than mere inconvenience that can be accommodated or overcome...
However, as an adult, most of the time I will not present "clinically significant" traits. I have learned coping skills and developed filters to address my deficits, and most of the time these allow me to function quite happily. When my skills and filters break down, though then I drop back into "clinically significant" presentations.
Have I dropped off the spectrum? I don't think so. From time to time my presentations still trigger the "clinically significant" standard. But most of the time, I don't need professional help to get on with my life, so it stands to reason that during those times, I would not present traits that merit diagnosis.
However, as an adult, most of the time I will not present "clinically significant" traits. I have learned coping skills and developed filters to address my deficits, and most of the time these allow me to function quite happily. When my skills and filters break down, though then I drop back into "clinically significant" presentations.
Have I dropped off the spectrum? I don't think so. From time to time my presentations still trigger the "clinically significant" standard. But most of the time, I don't need professional help to get on with my life, so it stands to reason that during those times, I would not present traits that merit diagnosis.
I always wonder if those who have been originally diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder BUT who have developed effective coping strategies to address spectrum-specific deficits, such as yourself, would even still be considered as being on the spectrum.
As well, would someone who is able to fake things so well that they are able to gain friends, control obsessions and successfully socially interact in daily society BUT feel that these behaviours aren't natural to them still be considered to be on the spectrum? The DSM-V has made diagnosis criteria a lot more streamlined, but these unanswered questions still linger.
I think that a big problem is the behaviorist approach that is been used, at least since DSM-III - they diagnose conditions by your external actions, not by the internal reasons for your actions. If these make sense for young kids (who can't talk in a meaningful way about is inner states), does not make much sense for teenagers and adults.
10 Dec 2010, 5:50 pm
anneurysm wrote:
I always wonder if those who have been originally diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder BUT who have developed effective coping strategies to address spectrum-specific deficits, such as yourself, would even still be considered as being on the spectrum.
For whatever it's worth, one thing I get tired of is those who narrowly define the spectrum as being only those with actual diagnosed or diagnosable disorders, and not including those who have definite autistic traits, yet not a full-fledged disorder.
_________________
not aspie, not NT, somewhere in between
Aspie Quiz: 110 Aspie, 103 Neurotypical.
Used to be more autistic than I am now.
10 Dec 2010, 8:28 pm
anneurysm wrote:
..... I always wonder if those who have been originally diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder BUT who have developed effective coping strategies to address spectrum-specific deficits, such as yourself, would even still be considered as being on the spectrum.
As well, would someone who is able to fake things so well that they are able to gain friends, control obsessions and successfully socially interact in daily society BUT feel that these behaviours aren't natural to them still be considered to be on the spectrum? ......
As well, would someone who is able to fake things so well that they are able to gain friends, control obsessions and successfully socially interact in daily society BUT feel that these behaviours aren't natural to them still be considered to be on the spectrum? ......
Yes, these people are still on the spectrum. My case presents the example. Even though I can function at a very high level of so called "normalcy". I cannot function in certain environments or under certain situations. As a result I may have to fall back on ADA protections.
-- I cannot function in a highly distractive environment with a lot of noise, and for me that amounts to normal open office floorplans.
-- I cannot function when certain sensory stimuli are often present, such as scents, (aftershaves perfumes, tobacco residue or even tobacco scent on clothing or breath) repetitive or rythmic stimuli such as flashing lights (think blinking christmas tree lights) rythmic music, musak played in stores,
-- etc.
So long as I can avoid certain things I can function very productively and only appear to have a slightly odd personality. With those sorts of things in my environment I cannot work, even though NT's can work there and don't even notice what I respond to. As far as I can see, I was born Aspie I will die Aspie, even though I might hide it from most.
Perish the thought that I should ever fall so afoul of the law as to end up in prison, but in an environment like that suicide might look preferable to several years of victimization by other inmates.
My asperger's traits played a strong part (not the only part) in my choosing to take early retirement because it limits my options for effective employment with respect to finding alternate employment that would match my needs. With an Asperger's diagnosis, I would be able to get "reasonable accomodation" as required under the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) (I did not have such a diagnoss when I took early retirement.)
_________________
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer
11 Dec 2010, 1:42 am
Danielismyname wrote:
There's various types of peer relationships people can have as they age; there's friends and the different types of such and there's romantic partners and the different types of such that come under here, both of which are the big ones and they come under the plural "relationships".
I've been doing some research, seeing how various professionals on the 'net interpret this criterion in the old DSM-IV-TR, and they say that it's a complete lack of social relationships/relations due to the difficulties of the ASD.
I've been doing some research, seeing how various professionals on the 'net interpret this criterion in the old DSM-IV-TR, and they say that it's a complete lack of social relationships/relations due to the difficulties of the ASD.
Nonesense.
The interpretation of what is considered "appropriate" and even what is considered a "friend" will vary from individual to individual. I have two friends. In my entire 27 years of life I have had two friendships, both of which were initiated by others and formed under odd circumstances.
My psychologist considers these "friendships" to be "not appropriate to my developmental level." Human relationships are not so easily quantified. If an Asperger's individual makes a friend, keeps the friend for a few month, and then the friend drops dead, were they Asperger's, then not Asperger's for a few months, and then Asperger's again? And what exactly are the specific traits and qualities that define a "friendship" verses a "companionship" verses an "aqaintance".....etc. Unless you're willing to define "friend" in concrete terms and then prove that absolutely no one can meet the criteria for being a "friend" to an autistic person, then I'm not inclined to accept the interpretation that "true autistics" have absolutely no friends.
Quote:
The DSM-IV-TR puts it as:
That's its complete description. It's hard to interpret, but I'm seeing an inability to develop such here ("lack of understanding" leads on to the social isolation that it describes elsewhere).
Quote:
There may be failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level (Criterion A2) that may take different forms at different ages. Younger individuals may have little or no interest in establishing friendships. Older individuals may have an interest in friendship but lack of understanding the conventions of social interaction.
That's its complete description. It's hard to interpret, but I'm seeing an inability to develop such here ("lack of understanding" leads on to the social isolation that it describes elsewhere).
There's also a "MAY BE" in the begining of that statement. There's nothing in the aforesaid description that would lead me to believe a complete lack of any relationships is necessary for a DX of Asperger's/autism.
_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."
-XFG (no longer a moderator)
