Nancy Grace: Don't change autism definition

Post Reply New Topic

http://nancygrace.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01 ... efinition/

I normally can't stand that woman... but she's absolutely right! I have a six year old diagnosed with PDD-NOS, and the last thing my wife and I need is to have her special education withdrawn because some heartless politician decides he can save a few bucks after listening to the "opinion" of some sawbones.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I've always liked Nancy Grace. Watching that video made me like her even more.

I am supposed to listen and believe what a reporter on CNN says?

That is not what the changes will cause, the term Aspergers just won't be used anymore....people with aspergers will simply fit under the criteria for being on the autism spectrum.

as long as ones symptoms are severe enough to cause some impairment in functioning the diagnoses will still be perfectly valid......just like now unless there is some impairment in functioning you wont get the diagnoses and that is with any mental disorder or mental illness.

That women is just stirring the pot because it's a good news story and they can get everyone all worked up over nothing.

There are four quadrants of people potentially affected with any change in any definition of any disorder:

- Those correctly diagnosed who are now unfairly denied the diagnosis
- Those previously, correctly undiagnosed who are now wrongly branded with the disorder
- Those wrongly diagnosed who are no longer considered to have the disorder
- Those previously undiagnosed who should be diagnosed, and finally get the diagnosis they deserve

Nancy Grace only talks about the first quadrant. Furthermore, she's just being her usual vague, fearmongering self leaving out half or more of the story.

The new definition is not even finalized yet and so it's too early to say anywhere close to as definitively as Nancy Grace whether there will be many people who need help being denied because of the new definition - in other words, whether the first quadrant will have more people than all the others.

-They won't be unfairly denied the diagnoses, it just won't be called Aspergers Syndrome
-They are getting rid of Aspergers Syndrome not other disorders, so why would people diagnosed with other disorders who have had autism ruled out then be lumped under Autism? that does not even make sense
-Even if they don't make these changes people wrongly diagnosed would still be considered not to have the disorder
-Undiagnosed people who fit the criteria will certainly get the diagnoses where possible, there is however still the issue of affording a diagnoses.

But not suprising those were the main talking points presented by Nancy Grace, she is a bit of a fear mongerer and I kind of wonder what she thinks about people with autism...I doubt it's anything good.

So is getting services determined by psychometric tests and symptoms or do you need a label now?

Nancy Grace?! She is horrid. This issue is about MONEY!

Can doctors help Aspies? I don't think so. Are their medicines or therapies that change outcomes for Apies? I don't think so.

There is a problem with doctors slapping an autism label on other developmental disabilities and behavior problems when they can't find another label that fits. While I agree with you that meds are of limited use, some therapy techniques work rather well and the no money to be made theory doesn't hold for the lower functioning end of the spectrum.

It is my understanding that one of the major goals of eliminating the separate diagnosis for NOS PDD and the diagnosis for Asperger Syndrome by bring everything under the umbrella of Austism Spectrum Disorder is to resolve some of the meaningless distinctions and simplify the criteria to focus on social and communication impairment.

I believe another goal is to bring the formal diagnostic criteria more in line with the practical application of the existing criteria. The existing criteria are not necessarily representative of the current knowledge and practice in diagnosing from what I can tell.

I like to think that people with problems will continue to get help regardless of the label put on the problems. By clarifying the categorization of the problems, the services and treatments can hopefully be better targeted.

I don't know about all schools in all locations, but I know that in my home state in the US primary school students are not necessarily formally diagnosed in order to receive services in the public schools. They are evaluated to determine what their needs are, not to formally diagnose them. It is my understanding that you could be autistic, but if you don't need services, you don't need services and vice versa.

I don't have much knowledge about obtaining other entitlements based on a formal diagnosis, but I'm assuming that is possibly a bigger issue in other areas of need. I assume things such as Social Security disability require some solid measures of need and that might be an easier or harder measure depending on the formal diagnosis involved. However, I again like to think that the justification for help doesn't go away just because the diagnosis changes.

Anyhow, if I no longer have Asperger Syndrome as a result of the publication of the DSM V, then I look forward to my magic cure in about a year. I've never received any benefit from being labelled an "Asperger" so I suppose it will be no loss for me.

I like the list you created. If you really think about this carefully, and consider that in each of the four scenarios you've outlined, mostly the same doctors will be doing the diagnoses after the changes, as before the changes.

The new criteria really are not so radically different from the current ones (for all ASD's) that doctors would suddenly start tossing out and dismissing their current paradigms.

I really don't think there's a whole lot to be concerned about. NEW doctors coming into the field may be a different story, but they will be trained by current doctors. I really believe the pattern that exists today will continue relatively unchanged.

Frankly, I don't believe the number of diagnoses will drop, but will continue to rise as more and more professionals are being swayed every year more toward believing in the pervasiveness of Autism as opposed to years ago when far fewer of them were likely to diagnose.