Would a Profound Autism diagnosis help or harm or both?

Post Reply New Topic

as I understand it, parents and caretakers seeking a "profound autism" diagnosis are hoping to get extra help from various programs to assure proper care and housing for those they care for.

I believe a label like "profound autism" may lead them to give up , believing the folks they are taking care of will never learn, never function, never gain in skills or understanding.

I wonder if it would limit the time and effort invested in programs to help individual functioning to focus instead on warehousing and institutional situations for those named as "profoundly affected". We have already gone that path with ND individuals and it would be a shame to go back to that way of "helping" those who struggle. I believe and expect that society and individuals are working on this, so much needs to be sorted and understood regarding science's current understanding of ASD and other neurodivergent diagnoses.

There seems to be a belief among parents and caretakers urging this new named category that those of us who are diagnosed but less affected in some areas are somehow stealing from those who experience the worst of struggles.
I don't understand this because except for general disability available with qualifications there really is not much support for those of us with ASD/mixed diagnosis except groups which we form and participate in on our own and which are generally not financial support in any way.

I believe the caretakers/parents don't recognize how many of us deeply care about what happens to our asd brothers and sisters with the worst struggles, and how many of us are working "behind the scenes" as advocates, and how many of the younger generation of those diagnosed with ASD are dedicating their lives to specialist careers aiming at research, medical and psychological /neurological careers and support systems especially due to our own diagnoses.
We are not the enemy to be fought against, but are allies because we understand, too, how profoundly our diagnosis affects every one of us. No answers, just musing because the question came up.

Researchers say the definition is intended to help governments and service providers plan more effectively for those with the most complex needs.

Nonetheless, the introduction would represent a considerable challenge.

“Change will depend on investments in science focused on practical clinical issues, and on social and service systems that acknowledge the potential for change and growth as well as the varied, complex needs of the autistic individuals and their families whose lives could be changed with such an effort," the authors said in the journal article.

The research team partly based their recommendation on a new Australian study examining how the category might work in practice.

They found around 24 per cent of autistic children met, or were likely to meet, the criteria for profound autism – a proportion similar to international estimates, according to three academics from the University of Sydney who were involved in the study, and wrote about their findings in The Conversation.

The research analysed data from 513 children assessed for developmental conditions between 2019 and 2024.

The study also found that children in this group were more likely to display behaviours that pose safety risks. Almost half had attempted to run away from carers, compared with around a third of other autistic children.

However, the researchers stressed that significant challenges were also present among children who did not meet the proposed criteria: one in five engaged in self‑injury, and more than a third showed aggression.

Crucially, the proposed definition of profound autism did not always align with existing diagnostic “levels” used to determine support and funding. Some children who appeared to meet the criteria were classified at lower support levels, while others receiving the highest level of support did not meet the proposed definition. The researchers warned this mismatch could complicate funding decisions unless the criteria are adapted and carefully introduced.

One practical concern is the proposed age threshold of eight. The researchers suggested that the threshold is useful because by that age, their cognitive and communication abilities are considered more stable. However, most children are diagnosed before that age, meaning the introduction of a new diagnosis category means families may need repeat assessments, adding pressure to already stretched diagnostic services.

Despite these challenges, the study’s authors said the category could provide a clearer way to identify those with the highest support needs – provided it is used carefully and communicated in inclusive language that recognises each child’s strengths as well as their challenges.

They believe that those who can speak and share their lived experiences must do so for those who cannot