How will the DSM-5 affect me?

Post Reply New Topic

That's what I thought about.

Another point of criticism:
The criteria are still children-centric. I recall flapping hands and being obsessed with things like grains of sand as a child, so I would easily have matched them.
Meanwhile, I have more interesting things to do, and I have some self-control over my motivity. Does this mean that I've become less autistic?

I still say self-diagnosis is the wrong way to test your abillity to meet the criteria, ask your friends if you meet it.

maybe when you get frusterated the beheaviour comes out? I feel right most of the time and have come to get used my autistic traits as normal for me so I don't tend to notice until I overstep.

For example you might not notice your social issues if you talk to the same people all the time who are used to your shortcomings and have learned stratagys to make the interaction work you may feel like you have overcome the issue, well maybe you haven't Thats just my thoughts on the subject of what appears to be happening.

Hardly better. Now that I know the symptoms, I know specifically how to hide them towards other people – to some extent. So the self-diagnosis is already doing good.

My friends still say that I'm introverted, but I don't think they would be able to figure out all my social problems.

For example, I know that I show little interest in other people. So I force myself to ask "How are you?". I know that I can't react well to change. So I force myself to appear spontaneous, even though I'm actually not.

I think I know what he means to an extent. For instance, we don't always realise how we come across to other people. Yesterday, I was discussing my daughter having had meltdowns when she's been too hot. He then pointed out that I don't react calmly when I'm too hot, (I have sensory issues) and that I get anxious and start huffing and puffing and constantly saying how hot it is, and wanting to get out of wherever it is. It was a mini-revelation to me, as I thought I was calm enough when I'm hot, but clearly I'm not. So sometimes asking others how you are perceived is a good idea. What we do, to us is normal, it's what the 'normal' people think of it that counts!

I do the exact same thing and think I get away with it, except after the interaction the other party will often later reflect on it(usally not to me directly) and how I come across as diffrent and appear akward/fake, becouse forceing yourself isen't natural it won't look natural.

Between my self diagnois/feelings and the opinion of others I easly fit the critera even though meny don't figure out I have Aspergers based on that interaction alone. Becouse of my socal impairments I tend to miss the signs that my acting isn't working alot, theres a diffrence between saying something(words) and meaning it(emotion). So while one may not feel like they fit the discription they may just do anyway. Just my opinion though.

exactly, we are disabled as a group becouse the NT's see us that way if you think about, Asperger's was discovered by an NT and if NT's did not exist we would be normal becouse we feel normal to ourselves. The NT's write the book based on what they see in us and not what we see in ourselves. I think that is the heart of the issue of our diagnosis, maybe thats why I never beleaved I had AS for years, I never realised what I was doing wasen't normal but everyone else did and eventually pointed it out and one day I got it. Coping is not a cure its just coping so thats why I have my point that the folks who claim to be unable to meet the criteria for ASD diagnosis anymore might just and not be able to see it.

Aspergers and Classical Autism share the same diagnostic criteria though severity tends do distinguish the two, hence a single ASD with a sliding scale for severity. Certain individuals, mostly contained within the PDD-NOS diagnosis do not share all of these behavioral characteristics and so will be moved to more accurate diagnoses. This is most certainly more accurate categorization than the drawing of arbitrary boundaries where no clear delineation exists.



You use the over-diagnosis of disorders in the DSM in general as an argument against the refinement of ASD in the DSM-5. This refinement you argue to exclude individuals from an already under-diagnosed disorder. I find that to be an irrational argument; both points may very well be true however neither can be used as an argument for the other.



Anyone diagnosed as Asperger under the DSM-IV or any other set of criteria is by defenition Autistic. I suspect that many if not most individuals with Level 1 ASD under the DSM-5 will continue to use both Aspergers and Aspie with no complaint by the general population.



Worth pointing out this excerpt from the linked literature:

"it should be noted that the unification of Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s and
PDD-NOS into a single diagnosis is a significant positive development that is not only
consistent with the research literature but will also enhance the ability of people on the
autism spectrum to access services, supports and accommodations across the lifespan.
We urge the Work Group to retain the unified diagnostic category for Autism Spectrum Disorder."

They do not share the same criteria hence they are distinct. I dont accept that at all.

You are speaking under DSM5 already when its in draft stage and being slated all round because of "the drawing of arbitrary boundaries".

PDD-NOS has to be the most vague term I've ever heard of and is quite meaningless. That the term exists alarms me.

I dont believe there is no delineation of the differences between the two. Its absurd to call them the same.

I didnt write that myself its not my view its just a view for the OP that you have hijacked to make a point to me.

If you looked at the other (not-quoted) link you can see quotes regarding DSM over and under diagnosis. With specific bias towards diagnosis that are "treated" with drugs. Even those as insane as Neuroleptics.

I believe the term will survive the change yes. But in terms of the individual and social understanding i dont think this is helpful at all to say the least. The change is to make it easier on diagnosticians and get AS rates down and more "drug friendly" labels up.

I dislike the change and it will cause problems and be woefully slow to update.

"One thing we do know without question is that the prevalence of Aspergers and PPD-NOS will, in the coming years, fall to zero, even as the prevalence of social communication disorder increases dramatically. Will we of the future wonder what underlies this decrease in Aspergers and PDD-NOS? Will we think it is air pollution, the levels of which have been falling for decades? Perhaps the fact that thimerosal was removed from vaccines a decade ago? The backlash against trans-fats in foods? Surely people also will call for a hard look at the data to determine why social communication disorder is rising so steeply, given that no one even knew what it was in 2012, and emphasizing that we should leave no stone unturned looking for its causes. Perhaps some cooler heads of the future will hazard that a large part of the explanation underlying the surprising 2013-2014 decline in Aspergers and PDD-NOS and sudden rise in social communication disorder traces to changes in diagnostic criteria and diagnostic substitution of one label for another. But gosh. How will we be sure?"

"Robert Spitzer, the head of the DSM-III task force, has publicly criticized the APA for mandating that DSM-5 task force members sign a nondisclosure agreement, effectively conducting the whole process in secret: "When I first heard about this agreement, I just went bonkers. Transparency is necessary if the document is to have credibility, and, in time, you're going to have people complaining all over the place that they didn't have the opportunity to challenge anything."[38]

Allen Frances, chair of the DSM-IV Task Force, expressed a similar concern.[39]
Although the APA has since instituted a disclosure policy for DSM-5 task force members, many still believe the Association has not gone far enough in its efforts to be transparent and to protect against industry influence.(/b)[40] In a recent Point/Counterpoint article, Lisa Cosgrove, PhD and Harold J. Bursztajn, MD noted that "the fact that 70% of the task force members have reported direct industry ties---an increase of almost 14% over the percentage of DSM-IV task force members who had industry ties---shows that disclosure policies alone, especially those that rely on an honor system, are not enough and that more specific safeguards are needed." [41]

In June 2009 Allen Frances issued strongly worded criticisms of the processes leading to DSM-5 and the risk of "serious, subtle, (…) ubiquitous" and "dangerous" unintended consequences such as new "false 'epidemics'". He writes that "the work on DSM-V has displayed the most unhappy combination of soaring ambition and weak methodology" and is concerned about the task force's "inexplicably closed and secretive process.".[46] His and Spitzer's concerns about the contract that the APA drew up for consultants to sign, agreeing not to discuss drafts of the fifth edition beyond the task force and committees, have also been aired and debated.[47]

The appointment, in May 2008, of two of the taskforce members, Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard, has led to an internet petition to remove them.[48] According to MSNBC, "The petition accuses Zucker of having engaged in 'junk science' and promoting 'hurtful theories' during his career, especially advocating the idea that children who are unambiguously male or female anatomically, but seem confused about their gender identity, can be treated by encouraging gender expression in line with their anatomy."[49] According to The Gay City News, "Dr. Ray Blanchard, a psychiatry professor at the University of Toronto, is deemed offensive for his theories that some types of transsexuality are paraphilias, or sexual urges. In this model, transsexuality is not an essential aspect of the individual, but a misdirected sexual impulse."[50] Blanchard responded, "Naturally, it's very disappointing to me there seems to be so much misinformation about me on the Internet. [They didn't distort] my views, they completely reversed my views."[50] Zucker "rejects the junk-science charge, saying there 'has to be an empirical basis to modify anything' in the DSM.

In 2011, psychologist Brent Robbins co-authored a national letter for the Society for Humanistic Psychology that has brought thousands into the public debate about the DSM. Approximately 13,000 individuals and mental health professionals have signed a petition in support of the letter. Thirteen other American Psychological Association divisions have endorsed the petition.[51] In a recent article about the debate in the San Francisco Chronicle, Robbins notes that under the new guidelines, certain responses to grief could be labeled as pathological disorders, instead of being recognized as being normal human experiences.[52] In 2012, a footnote was added to the draft text which explains the distinction between grief and depression.[36]

[edit]Borderline personality disorder controversy
The Treatment and Research Advancements National Association for Personality Disorders (TARA-APD) campaigns to change the name and designation of borderline personality disorder in DSM-5.[53] The paper How Advocacy is Bringing BPD into the Light[54] reports that "the name BPD is confusing, imparts no relevant or descriptive information, and reinforces existing stigma...". There is also discussion about changing Borderline Personality Disorder, an Axis II diagnosis (personality disorders and mental retardation), to an Axis I diagnosis (clinical disorders).
[edit]More radical criticisms
Some authors believe that the problem is not simply of a few criteria to be deleted or modified. For example, a Kuhnian reformulation of the diagnostic debate suggested that apparently trivial problems of the DSM, like the extremely high rates of comorbidity, might fruitfully be analysed as Kuhnian anomalies leading the DSM system to a scientific crisis.[55] As a consequence, a radical rethinking of the concept of mental disorder was proposed, acknowledging for its constructive nature.[56] Based on similar views, several revolutionary approaches were proposed, ranging from dimensional diagnosis to various forms of etiopathogenetic diagnosis.[57]
The financial association of DSM-5 panel members with industry continues to be a concern for financial conflict of interest.[58]

[edit]British Psychological Society response

The British Psychological Society in the United Kingdom stated in its June 2011 response that it had "more concerns than plaudits".[59] It criticized proposed diagnoses as "clearly based largely on social norms, with 'symptoms' that all rely on subjective judgements... not value-free, but rather reflect[ing] current normative social expectations", noting doubts over the reliability, validity, and value of existing criteria, that personality disorders were not normed on the general population, and that "not otherwise specified" categories covered a "huge" 30% of all personality disorders.
It also expressed a major concern that "clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalisation of their natural and normal responses to their experiences... which demand helping responses, but which do not reflect illnesses so much as normal individual variation".

The Society suggested as its primary specific recommendation, a change from using "diagnostic frameworks" to a description based on an individual's specific experienced problems, and that mental disorders are better explored as part of a spectrum shared with normality:
[We recommend] a revision of the way mental distress is thought about, starting with recognition of the overwhelming evidence that it is on a spectrum with 'normal' experience, and that psychosocial factors such as poverty, unemployment and trauma are the most strongly-evidenced causal factors. Rather than applying preordained diagnostic categories to clinical populations, we believe that any classification system should begin from the bottom up – starting with specific experiences, problems or 'symptoms' or 'complaints'...... We would like to see the base unit of measurement as specific problems (e.g. hearing voices, feelings of anxiety etc)? These would be more helpful too in terms of epidemiology.

While some people find a name or a diagnostic label helpful, our contention is that this helpfulness results from a knowledge that their problems are recognised (in both senses of the word) understood, validated, explained (and explicable) and have some relief. Clients often, unfortunately, find that diagnosis offers only a spurious promise of such benefits. Since – for example – two people with a diagnosis of 'schizophrenia' or 'personality disorder' may possess no two symptoms in common, it is difficult to see what communicative benefit is served by using these diagnoses. We believe that a description of a person's real problems would suffice. Moncrieff and others have shown that diagnostic labels are less useful than a description of a person's problems for predicting treatment response, so again diagnoses seem positively unhelpful compared to the alternatives.
—British Psychological Society June 2011 response"