New Definition of Autism May Exclude Many (NYTimes Article)

Post Reply New Topic

New York Times article on effects of redefining autism in the DSM.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/healt ... ml?_r=1&hpNYTimes Article

Looks like many of us diagnosed with PDD-NOS and Aspergers syndrome will no longer be considered "autistic."

I think people who claim over diagnosis are talking s**t. If it means people with Asperger and PDD-NOS won't get helped, then it's the biggest pile of steaming dung ever.

I think it's absolutely bullsh**. I wonder sometimes if insurance companies are in bed with the people who decide this crap. How can you say it doesn't exist? Apparently under the new revisions only 45% of the highest functioning people with autism would even be considered autistic. It makes me angry. Who benefits from this besides insurance companies?

“The proposed changes would put an end to the autism epidemic,”

Complete BS. They're not changing anything except the ability to recognize it. See...a lot of people wonder why so many more people are getting diagnosed. Rather than launch inquiries into what could be causing differences/changes our brain function that have led to the so called epidemic, they plan to pretend that it doesn't exist.

i used to fit the diagnosis for AS. under the new criteria, i still have mild autism.

I haven't been able to get on the dsm 5's page to see the new criteria...I think there's just too many people searching. Anyone have a link?

To some extent, the "professionals" who don't want to be accused of exaggerating and therefore become too timid.

The schools who don't want more case load.

And yes, probably the doggone insurance companies.

“ . . . Under the current criteria a person can qualify for the diagnosis by exhibiting six or more of 12 behaviors; under the proposed definition, the person would have to exhibit three deficits in social interaction and communication and at least two repetitive behaviors — a much narrower menu. . . ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/healt ... ml?_r=2&hp
(mid-way down)

So here’s the sad-tragic-comedic-infuriating thing all at once. We have a spectrum, then we immediately put on these rigid requirements.

What if the person having trouble has 5 of the 12 behaviors ? ? ?

PS There was actually a pro-aspie spoof definition which I thought was better than DSM-IV! Will try and find it.

Here's the spoof rewrite. Better than the original!

Awe-tistic rewrite of DSM-IV. Love it!
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt176628.html
“(E) An altogether eccentric form of social and emotional reciprocity that insists upon fairness, directness, sensitivity, tolerance, substance, acceptance of difference, and mutually interesting subject matter”

http://www.journeyswithautism.com/2009/ ... or-autism/

Similar to gay rights organizations, we need to build our own organizations and provide advocacy and services, and not rely on the quote-unquote "professionals."

Another example might be shelters for battered persons, which I understand were controversial at the time ("encouraging women to leave their husbands") and now are accepted as mainstream.

So, eventually we can build United Way type agencies, where we have enough money that we have to do it right, hire accountants, have financial transparency, and matter-of-factly acknowledge mistakes when we make them.

And, say, we might have a nine-member board of directors, where six of the members are adults on the spectrum and/or parents, and three of the members are various kinds of professionals. That is, good-hearted professionals can help out, but they can't run the show.

Honestly I don't think the New York Times really knows what they are talking about, there is nothing factual in the article other then that people are concerned about the changes.......they don't even have any specific reasons listed for the concern.