New Definition of Autism May Exclude Many (NYTimes Article)

Post Reply New Topic

Well there are no drugs that currently treat ASD's but alot of drugs that treat bipolar disorder.
They have narrowed the criteria for Autism while quietly but drasticly widened the criteria for bipolar disorder
Under the new proposal anyone who ever had a hissy fit can be diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

coinicidence, I think not...they will just funnel all those with higher functioning ASD's into toxic drug treatments for bipolar disorder.
If they are really concerned about balloning diagnoses' why are they not concerned that bipolar disorder, once believed to be a rare disease is now psychiatrists' favorate diagnosis....because there is a big market for bipolar drugs.

It is rather simple really, just follow the money.

Jojo

Exactly! I was just about to post "they will simply diagnose aspies and HFAs with whatever benefits the pharmaceutic industry" in response to PersephoneX's comment "Someone must be benefiting from such a choice".

I don't see what the fuss is about. I read the comments and it sounds like parents don't realize that their child's diagnoses would automatically change to ASD.

I think anyone with any sort of difficulties should get help so that way people who won't be meeting the new ASD criteria won't be left behind because they fit no criteria for their problems. Perhaps they should create a new category. They had, it's Social Communication Disorder, but they should still offer the same help to those people too like they would to autistic people. There, now no one would have to panic anymore. Then the doctors wouldn't have to revise the DSM criteria again so people with autism impairments wouldn't be left in the gutter because they failed to meet the new criteria. Things just need to stop being so black and white and offer help to anyone with a disability or impairment. But I bet doctors would still be mislabeling autism anyway because it be the closest match for a diagnoses because that be the only way the child or adult can get the help they need.

Volkmar's study is based on medical records from 1993, back when psychs barely knew how to diagnose the newly recognized kind of autism that did not include significant intellectual disability. Who knows what these old medical records contain? The incomplete confused notes of psychs learning about this new HFA for the first time? Based on the current knowledge about ASD, autistic people will still be diagnosed with autism. The NYT article is sensationalist. In reality, when the criteria are applied based on current knowledge, autistic children will still meet the criteria for autism, and autistic adults will as well, when adulthood behaviors and childhood history are both taken into account, as they are during an ASD evaluation.

Multiple other studies, based on evaluations of real-time real live hoomans with ASD, have shown that the new criteria have high sensitivity and specificity.

If you compare the current DSM verses the propsed DSM...the difference is startling. The criteria in the proposed version aims more towards classic autism and the folks on the higher end of the spectrum WILL be eleminated from the criteria. Compare the two for yourself.

Jojo

Where did you get this information anyways......Bi-polar disorder is a specific mood disorder, anyone who's ever had a hissy fit does not fit the criteria and probably will not fit the new edited version of the criteria. Unless one has periods of depression and periods of mania they aren't bi-polar. If they did make such a change to the DSM I would be pretty pissed but I find it doubtful.

again where is this info coming from exactly?

Definitely going into my therapist next month and getting a revaluation of my original diagnoses. f**k being an aspie, I'd rather just be an a**hole loner.

LMAO! >^..^<

I generally think it is okay to treat for bipolar as follows:

Okay, for people who are sometimes doing alright and sometimes not, a medical student from the 1980s wrote that British psychiatrists tend to diagnose bipolar and American psychiatrists tend to diagnose schizophrenia.

And he also wrote that bipolar is more easily treatable in that once a therapeutic blood level of lithium is established, periodic blood tests can largely prevent a rare potentially fatal side effect (involving an abnormality of blood cell formation).

Whereas using medications for schizophrenia like Thorazine, Stelazine, or Haldol: “ . . . There were such immediate side effects as restlessness or spasms of the lips and tongue. These were transient and could usually be corrected by dosage adjustment, change of drug within the broad category, or addition of a second drug to control them. Much more serious were the so-called “tardive dyskinesias”---literally, late-appearing movement abnormalities. Resembling some aspects of Huntingtons’s disease and other disorders of movement, they ranged from the merely annoying to the incapacitating. They occurred in as many as 5 percent of patients treated for several years with antischizophrenic drugs, and eventually, perhaps, many more. And in a large proportion of these patients, they were permanent. Clearly then, if there were another effective treatment, every patient should have that option. . . ”

So, apparently, for patients where the diagnosis is unclear it’s better to go the route of treating for potential bipolar than to go the route of treating for potential schizophrenia.

In fact, in talking about one of the experienced doctors, this medical student wrote, “He simply thought that any person with a remitting psychosis deserved to fail a lithium trial before being exposed to the risks of long-term treatment with antischizophrenic drugs.”

And to me, this a pretty good point.

Becoming A Doctor: A Journey of Initiation in Medical School, Melvin Konner, M.D., United States: Penguin Books, 1987, pages 163-165.

from the post schizophrenia or bipolar? (Melvin Konner, 1987)
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt177714.html

Of course, 1987 is a long time ago and things change.

What the heck??? What about the Aspies that changed since they were kids and learned to hide the Asperger's more??? I dont show my Asperger's much, but I defidentally have learning disabilities along with the Asperger's that makes it hard for me in school. Does this mean I'll just fail high school and not ever go to a good college?

I see, it's changed. I heard before that anyone who is diagnosed with AS or PDD-NOS, their diagnoses would automatically turn to ASD diagnoses without having to get retested. But now they would?

I'm going to be so angry if I have to get rediagnosed. The first time it was almost $1000 for the diagnosis. The rediagnosis would be $1000 of diagnosis me as NT because I probably would only show 4 or 5 of the 12! I fit the qualifications exactly for Asperger's at the moment, but I learned to control some of the symptoms, like stimming. Since I can appear NT most of the time, does that make me not Asperger's? NO!

What this really means is that society doesn't want to label those that they have examined and are ready to accept and embrace as defective.

Do aspies get help as it is now anyway??

Kids do. And sometimes special ed helps. (Although sometimes it's clumsily and disrespectfully done.)

Adults here in the United States? Well, for starters, I've heard it takes a very long time to get SSI.

I really think we need to join with, participate with, and build our own self-help and self-advocacy organizations.

Another thread was started on this today:

New Definition of Autism Will Exclude Many, Study Suggest!! !
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt187388.html

And since I see from the physical copy of the today's (Friday, Jan. 20, 2012) New York Times that this is front page, top of the fold, I think a second discussion is fine.

Since the proposed new category is "autism spectrum disorder," well, just including the word "spectrum" is a positive. Although I myself prefer to view autism as both a difference and a disability.

Let's see if we can add some other positives.