Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

For those who see autism as a difference and not a disorder:

Page 2 of 3 [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

melanieeee
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 106

04 Nov 2011, 1:30 pm

wavefreak58 wrote:
melanieeee wrote:
The rationale of giving diagnosis in the medical profession is to give people the right types of treatment. Given this premise, do you think autism/aspergers should be removed from the DSM?



Are you suggesting that autism does not need treatment?


No. But if you saw autism/aspergers a difference rather than a disorder, why would it need treatment?



melanieeee
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 106

04 Nov 2011, 1:36 pm

Also I agree with most people on this forum that it is both a difference and a disorder but that is why I labelled the title "for those who think aspergers is a difference and not a disorder"



Joe90
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,492
Location: UK

04 Nov 2011, 1:37 pm

It's a disability to me, and help, support and encouragement is the only thing that makes me want to try things out and meet new people.


_________________
Female


wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

04 Nov 2011, 1:40 pm

melanieeee wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
melanieeee wrote:
The rationale of giving diagnosis in the medical profession is to give people the right types of treatment. Given this premise, do you think autism/aspergers should be removed from the DSM?



Are you suggesting that autism does not need treatment?


No. But if you saw autism/aspergers a difference rather than a disorder, why would it need treatment?


I don't differentiate between labels. If something is an impediment, it needs to be dealt with. It doesn't matter what I call it. Autism implies certain attributes that are sub-optimal in typical human to human interactions. This affects of these sub-optimal attributes must be attenuated by various mechanisms. Call it therapy, treatment, intervention, black magic or fairy dust. I don't care. It still is only a mechanism for attenuating deleterious affects of intrinsic traits.


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.


melanieeee
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 106

04 Nov 2011, 1:48 pm

Callista wrote:
An autistic brain is still a healthy brain, not a diseased NT brain. It's kind of the way a tall person is not a diseased short person, even though he might bang his head on the top of the door frame.

However, teaching the tall person to duck when going through doors, or to construct doors that are higher for his house, makes sense even though being tall is only a difference and not an illness. Similarly, accommodation and education for autism makes sense even though an autistic brain is still a healthy brain.

Autism does cause disability; and because autistic people can be helped by a diagnosis, they should be diagnosed. But a diagnosis does not imply that the condition should be eradicated. It only means that the condition exists, causes impairment of some sort, and is relevant to a doctor.


And yet being "tall" is not a recognized disorder because it is primarily a difference which has no treatment. If there was to be diagnosis which causes X impairment and Y intervention reduced the impairment, then like any other health or psychological disorder it would imply such thing.



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,778
Location: USA

04 Nov 2011, 2:08 pm

It's is both a disorder and an impairment, and at least part of the impairment comes just from it being a difference which society isn't made for. However, even though there are inherent advantages that come from it, it still has inherent problems whose severity vary. These problems should be fixed, not autism itself. Neurodiversity is important for our society and honestly I think the world could use more people who are autistic.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

04 Nov 2011, 2:35 pm

I believe that it needs awareness rather than treatment. If people were understanding and not so afraid of it then most people with it would not suffer so much. As for low funcitoning Autism I think parents need help with their children and research should be done to find ways of communicating with these children.

But AS I do not think of as a disorder, I believe it is a difference and if most people (NT's) said what they meant and were not so deceptive then we would not have half the problems we do.

Sometimes I think it is the NT's who have the disorder.



wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

04 Nov 2011, 4:03 pm

The problem is not whether we view autistics issues as "impairments" or "differences" but whether or not we fall into the trap of measuring our value has humans based on the impairment/difference.


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.


MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

04 Nov 2011, 4:11 pm

Callista wrote:
melanieeee wrote:
The rationale of giving diagnosis in the medical profession is to give people the right types of treatment. Given this premise, do you think autism/aspergers should be removed from the DSM?
No. Autism is both a difference and a disorder.

An autistic brain is still a healthy brain, not a diseased NT brain. It's kind of the way a tall person is not a diseased short person, even though he might bang his head on the top of the door frame.

However, teaching the tall person to duck when going through doors, or to construct doors that are higher for his house, makes sense even though being tall is only a difference and not an illness. Similarly, accommodation and education for autism makes sense even though an autistic brain is still a healthy brain.

Autism does cause disability; and because autistic people can be helped by a diagnosis, they should be diagnosed. But a diagnosis does not imply that the condition should be eradicated. It only means that the condition exists, causes impairment of some sort, and is relevant to a doctor.


Incredibly well said.

Callista, I admire your diplomatic skills. No wait.

I envy them! :salut:


_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...


aspie48
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: up s**t creek with a fan as a paddle

04 Nov 2011, 4:28 pm

Callista wrote:
melanieeee wrote:
The rationale of giving diagnosis in the medical profession is to give people the right types of treatment. Given this premise, do you think autism/aspergers should be removed from the DSM?
No. Autism is both a difference and a disorder.

An autistic brain is still a healthy brain, not a diseased NT brain. It's kind of the way a tall person is not a diseased short person, even though he might bang his head on the top of the door frame.

However, teaching the tall person to duck when going through doors, or to construct doors that are higher for his house, makes sense even though being tall is only a difference and not an illness. Similarly, accommodation and education for autism makes sense even though an autistic brain is still a healthy brain.

Autism does cause disability; and because autistic people can be helped by a diagnosis, they should be diagnosed. But a diagnosis does not imply that the condition should be eradicated. It only means that the condition exists, causes impairment of some sort, and is relevant to a doctor.

thats pretty bright. i was going to write something but i really can't one up or add to this good advice.



melanieeee
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 106

04 Nov 2011, 4:32 pm

wavefreak58 wrote:
The problem is not whether we view autistics issues as "impairments" or "differences" but whether or not we fall into the trap of measuring our value has humans based on the impairment/difference.


I really like your interpretation but my fundamental question is whether or not it should be put in the DSM and this is largely based on whether it is seen as an impairment or difference.

Drawing from the point made by callistra (sorry if I spelled your username wrong), tall people is not a recognized condition and most (all?) people do not need to see a doctor for it.



wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

04 Nov 2011, 4:43 pm

melanieeee wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
The problem is not whether we view autistics issues as "impairments" or "differences" but whether or not we fall into the trap of measuring our value has humans based on the impairment/difference.


I really like your interpretation but my fundamental question is whether or not it should be put in the DSM and this is largely based on whether it is seen as an impairment or difference.

Drawing from the point made by callistra (sorry if I spelled your username wrong), tall people is not a recognized condition and most (all?) people do not need to see a doctor for it.


If it was not in the DSM then insurance companies would not have to include autistic services in their coverage plans. While this might be tolerable for someone HFA like myself, it would be catastrophic for families where such services are critical to the growth and development of their children.

Because it is a spectrum, there are degrees of "difference" that depending on context create degrees of impairment. In the context of this forum I suffer zero impairment. In a situation where I must interact socially in real time, I have some impairment. In a social situation where I must gauge the intent and motivations of others, I am significantly impaired.

It's all a matter of degree and context.


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.


melanieeee
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 106

04 Nov 2011, 4:52 pm

wavefreak58 wrote:
If it was not in the DSM then insurance companies would not have to include autistic services in their coverage plans. While this might be tolerable for someone HFA like myself, it would be catastrophic for families where such services are critical to the growth and development of their children.

Because it is a spectrum, there are degrees of "difference" that depending on context create degrees of impairment. In the context of this forum I suffer zero impairment. In a situation where I must interact socially in real time, I have some impairment. In a social situation where I must gauge the intent and motivations of others, I am significantly impaired.

It's all a matter of degree and context.


Okay so re-phrasing my question, instead of autism being removed from the diagnostic criteria, should the diagnosis be only reserved for those who are mid and low functioning? (for those who see high functioning autism as a difference rather than a disorder)



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

04 Nov 2011, 5:57 pm

ASD is a disorder in DSMIV because impairment in social and in many cases functional skills may compromise independent living and therefore survival. The boffins have this one covered.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

04 Nov 2011, 6:16 pm

There's of course a difference between "my autism or Asperger's doesn't impair me and I don't see it as a disorder" and "Many people find ASDs to be quite impairing."

It doesn't matter whether some people find that it's nothing more than a difference from other people. There are many others who find it impairing, who find it adds difficulties others don't have to cope with. Because of that, there's no good reason to remove it from the DSM.

I also like what Callista, Wavefreak58, and cyberdad have said in this thread.



wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

04 Nov 2011, 6:23 pm

melanieeee wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
If it was not in the DSM then insurance companies would not have to include autistic services in their coverage plans. While this might be tolerable for someone HFA like myself, it would be catastrophic for families where such services are critical to the growth and development of their children.

Because it is a spectrum, there are degrees of "difference" that depending on context create degrees of impairment. In the context of this forum I suffer zero impairment. In a situation where I must interact socially in real time, I have some impairment. In a social situation where I must gauge the intent and motivations of others, I am significantly impaired.

It's all a matter of degree and context.


Okay so re-phrasing my question, instead of autism being removed from the diagnostic criteria, should the diagnosis be only reserved for those who are mid and low functioning? (for those who see high functioning autism as a difference rather than a disorder)


Maybe this is where there is room for something like the BAP (broader autism phenotype).

Anyone going to a psychologist is by definition have some form of difficulty. It's not like everybody gets evaluated at age 5 and gets an "Autistic" tattoo on their forehead. If someone is going to a mental health professional the are going to get some form of diagnosis.

If someone is showing autistic traits but has no distress or difficulties, then they wont go to be evaluated and they won't get the diagnosis.

The diagnosis exists for those that need assistance, not for those that don't.


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.