"Bye Bye Asperger's Syndrome" - Response to APA

Post Reply New Topic

Here's an interesting article that I found that is refuting the American Psychiatric Association's proposal to remove the label "Asperger Syndrome" from the DSM.

Bye Bye Asperger's Syndrome?

I agree that the DSM should move toward a spectral approach when it comes to disorders, as everybody is different and has a different set of needs than everyone else. Yet I think, as the article says, that they should at least include sub-headings under the labels "mild autism" (or moderate to severe) to make it easier for individuals to know where they stand on the spectrum, and for clinicians who have been using this term for years. I also think that there is a lot of hype over the word "autism", judging it to mean that everyone who has "autism" can't talk or express themselves, can't socialize, are very repetitive, and can't function without routine. Those of us on WrongPlanet know that this isn't the case for all individuals with an autistic spectrum disorder. Clinicians have also been making these diagnoses for years, and I don't think it makes sense to change a system so drastically, which may prevent some people from getting the help that they need. Parents and other professionals may also become confused as to what to label a disorder in someone if the DSM makes such a drastic change. It will be interesting to see. I suppose that we could say "once an aspie, always an aspie!", despite what the DSM labels us lol.

i disagree . . . i think severity labels are counterproductive and send the wrong message

I agree with Alex I think that autism is far more complex then the rainbow diagram allows for. My younger son Jake is a self taught reader from 3yrs old can and has done his older brothers math homework and there is nothing the kid can't find on the internet no matter what I try to do to block him. He also almost never speeks more then a few world and has to be reminded to put on his pants when leaving the bathroom. Where does someone like Jake fall?

Technically the DSM categories do not describe functioning level at the moment.

People seem to assume that AS is necessarily less severe than Kanner type, but the DSM criteria refer to the first three or so years of life, and one thing that has repeatedly been found with ASDs is that their prognosis is not readily predictable. Functioning at three years old is not indicative of functioning at 13 or 23 years old.

Indeed some research has found that when older AS and Kanner type Autistic subjects with functioning speech are placed in a mixed group, diagnosticians could not readily identify who belonged in which group. Severity level is actually not predicted by the current division, and the problem is that people assume it is, and this is not helpful.

It’s not helpful to Kanner type Autistics who are written off as less able than anyone with Asperger type, nor helpful to those with Asperger type who cannot meet the functioning level assumed of them because they were diagnosed Asperger rather than Kanner type. The differentiating criteria do not consistently predict severity at a latter date, nor prognosis, and seem to be a source of misinformation rather than serving to clarify matters.

I am not sure why people think that measures of function or impairment are counter productive or undesirable. I am not sure if this means no one gets the help they need (or only the help needed by the highest functioning individual in their diagnostic category), or if targeted help and assistance should sweep everyone up in a single net, wasting unneeded help on people who do not need it (and probably do not want it), so that there is less left for everyone.

Peoples’ needs for assistance, support and accommodations differ according to their level and kind of impairment. The most efficient and the least dehumanizing way of delivering services, support and accommodations is to have a way of broadly categorizing individual differences in individual domains of functioning, keeping the system as simple (and therefore efficient) as possible within the constraint of ensuring sufficient nuance to meet individual needs. Multitple domains of functioning with individual measures for each domain, seems the best means of achieving this end. People who need no assistance at a particular time can get on with things, and people who need help in domain A will not be instead given help in domain B where they are doing just fine.

Currently the diagnostic criteria seem more an excuse to treat everyone the same, the assumption being that the differentiation criteria comments on functioning level over time, or has some prognostic value. This then justifies blanket assumptions that people in one group will need particular kinds of help, while people in another will not, without regard for the actual attributes or potential of the individual.

Why not call it Asperger's Autism, to go with Kanner's Autism?

I'm glad. Asperger's was just a euphemism for our (temporary) ignorance, before autism was understood as well as we understand it today.

Also see aether (physics), female hysteria (psychology), dark energy (also physics) etc etc...

It is the equivalent of a blank area on the old maps, before the explorers sailed into the unknown.

Besides, autism has a much broader awareness than the aspergers. A statement "he's got aspergers" is usually answered with "he's got what???" or "is it contagious?!" On the other hand, "he's autistic" is usually met with nodding heads or with "oh yeah that totally makes sense!"

I also think that it should be changed to Asperger's Autism, as well. That way, people won't be asking us strange questions.

I like the sound of Asperger's Autism too. That would be a logical term in my opinion, and yes I agree, it would clear up some confusion. I might start using that term. Even if the diagnostic manuals and psychology profession does away with the Asperger's term, I imagine many of us will still use it.