Aspergers not in next DSM, so what happens next?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not currently diagnosed with Aspergers but was thinking of getting assessed but is there really any point if Aspergers is not in the next DSM and what will it mean for people that are already diagnosed with Aspergers will they simply be referred as "High-Functioning Autism" or will the have to be reassessed in order to be considered autistic?

You can be assessed for "Autism Spectrum Disorder" (which includes autism, aspergers, pdd-nos), and--if diagnosed-- you will be either type 1, 2, or 3 depending on your severity.

type 1,2 and 3, so which one would be the equivalent to aspergers?

http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevisions/p ... px?rid=94#

Not one in particular is equivalent to Asperger's. The severity levels are dependent on the level of support you need and someone with Asperger's could need more support or not.

Most people with Asperger's will fall into severity class 1, but that does not make severity class 1 equivalent to Asperger's. Severity class 1 is entirely about the level of support you need, not anything about your capabilities as a child.

People with classic autism will also fall into severity class 1. And people with PDD-NOS.

People with all three diagnoses currently will also fall into severity class 2.

Looking at myself, I feel I am best described by social severity 2, RRBs severity 1. My diagnosis is Asperger's.

The levels of support are vague, so I dunno what level I am. What do they mean specifically by level 1 or level 2 supports for social? What about for RRB? All I know is that I have moved up and away from level 3 4evar, unless I become mute or fry my brrrainzzz again, which seems verry merry berry attractive to me, ackshuly, the mute part, not the fried brrrainzzz part. Ackshuly, just being mute wouldn't make me level 3, because I'd still be verbal. I have often wished to give up verbal eberrything, that would be nice, but I would miss reading the Internetz.

Yeah, we're ASD now. I'm a bit better with the abbreviation than simply being labeled as "autistic."

We die.

I suppose what seems most insidious about this is that it implies that psychologists should only bother with cases that a severe enough to need formal are. I'm sure there are lots of people who can hobble through life without "care" who benefit from a diagnosis.

They don't diagnose anyone who doesn't have some sort of impairment. That is a pretty broad criterion, though, because "impairment" can include just having to work harder than everybody else to do the same things, or having to use different tactics, like practicing your smile in the mirror instead of just naturally knowing how and when to smile.

If you don't have some kind of impairment due to autism, you don't need the diagnosis. There are terms like "BAP" or "subclinical" to describe those who have no impairment but still have autistic-like personality traits. If you don't have any impairment, there's no harm in labeling yourself with those. It's probably beneficial, since it would let people at the edges of the spectrum understand themselves and their minds better--but if there's no need for treatment, then there's no need for a professional diagnosis.

The "significant impairment" boundary will be in the same place in the future as it is now. If you're diagnosable with something now, you'll be diagnosable in the future. A few people may be shifted into a different category, but you won't lose access to services.

AS has always had a fairly decent impairment criterion listed; if people gave someone a label who didn't have that, they were misdiagnosing someone. I'm guessing all of the positive articles gave many people the wrong view (see: "geek syndrome" and other erroneous pieces published in magazines and such).

See:

Yeah. I still wouldn't want to get rid of the positive pieces about AS, though. I mean, there really are good things about it. There are good things about having a disability, iperiod. Some of it is just being different. I wish people woul dsee disability as more of a neutral thing rather than something to pity.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Asperger's isn't a mental disorder. It is a state of being. It is a way of receiving and dealing with data and information. There is nothing to fix, or treat, or make better.

There's nothing to fix, sure, but that doesn't mean therapy is useless. Teaching useful skills has always been the best use of therapy time for an AS kid. Lots of things in the DSM don't involve having to fix anything, because they represent problematic extremes or atypical neurology or unusual development instead of injury or illness. For example, a kid with an intellectual disability is usually a healthy kid with an intellectual disability. The solution is to teach him useful stuff, not to try to "fix" him. ASDs are similar. There's a troubling tendency among professionals to want to fix their patients and turn them normal, but hopefully that's dying out as said patients are fighting back, saying, "Hey! That's part of me!" Hopefully we can work toward an appreciation of neurodiversity within the psychology profession.

There's also Social Communication Disorder, which catches people who don't fit into the new criteria criteria fully. (http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pa ... px?rid=489)

I still think there's a gap there - you can not quite fit the autism criteria (you have to have several symptoms in combination to qualify) and still have difficulties not covered by purely social deficiencies. OTOH I'm not a doctor - maybe it's more flexible than it looks.

"Therapy" is a word with ten thousand facets. Most therapy, it seems to me, is drug therapy. Folks on the spectrum present with anxiety at the helping professional's office because they aren't fitting in. No doubt if you catch a kid very early there is plenty that could be taught, but I wouldn't call it "therapy."