Are we disabled?

Post Reply New Topic

I put "yes", because, although a person may not see Asperger's syndrome/Autism as a disability, society will continue considering it an handicap. And as long as society considers it an handicap, well, it IS an handicap. I mean, there are worse things, like schitzofrenia or bipolarism, but just because of this it doesn't necassarily mean that it's not a disability.

It depends. I would say that when you have trouble doing things without help you are disabled. The upper end of the spectrum would be a good example. People in wheelchairs can get about, but I often see them being helped out. Same with blind people.

Otherwise I would say it's less-abled. I would put HFA in this category - isn't that kind of the definition?

Maybe I just have a warped perspective because I don't know any different - my girlfriend had a bout of anxiety symptoms recently and basically said "how do you live like this?"

All I know is that there are people far worse off than me, so I try to be happy with what I've got.

Regarding if other people think it's a disability? Well I can't really dwell on that. Educating the sheep is difficult.

I would say no in my case. While my social impairments do hold me back in all areas of life, (3 years looking for work, 29 years to find a girlfriend, no friends at all) I do have some amazing talents even if they aren't recognized by many. I know I am VERY well respected at work for my amazing attention to detail, dedication and reliability. The only reason I would be considered disabled is because many people are inconsiderate %$@%@ and if we lived in a sane world, most NT's would be considered mentally disabled due to their inability to think clearly.

There are aspects of autism that are a disability rather you want to admit it or not.

What do I chose if I think it is both a disability and a difference?

None of those are required for an autism diagnosis.

DSM-IV criteria for autism.

Proposed DSM-V criteria.

Note that neither of those criteria say you have to have meltdowns, sensory issues or clumsiness. In fact, only DSM-V explicitly mentions any of those three, and that's as one criteria out of four, with two needing to be met for diagnosis.

So it's certainly possible to meet either set of criteria if you have no meltdowns, good coordination and no sensory issues.

Of course it is a disability. It removes your ability to do some things as easily.

Some people are saying that it is not a disability, because some autistic people function in society or are even highly respected and talented... so what? Paralympians mostly function in society and they all have amazing talents, but they also aren't able to do certain things and are clearly disabled (or, you know, they wouldn't be in the Paralympics). Stephen Hawking is disabled, despite being a brilliant scientist.

Of course, you could go on to say that everyone is disabled, because nobody in the world is a master of every activity.

You can't get a diagnosis of any form of autism (under either DSM criteria) unless your issues interfere with your everyday life. Therefore: disability, or else no diagnosis under either DSM version. You can be awkward and obsessive without being autistic.

And you are mistaken that the DSM-V only mentions it as one criteria out of four, and that the DSM-IV doesn't mention them at all. Under DSM-V, B1 is motor issues and B4 is sensory issues. Also, B2 mentions motoric rituals, and I think underlying sensory or motor issues are the general cause for the insistence on routine and often even the obsessive, narrow interests in B3. I know that's the case for me anyway. Under DSM-IV, motor issues are mentioned in C3. Sensory issues may not be mentioned, but that seems likely to be because autism wasn't well-understood when it was published (still isn't, but it's getting better).

At first I was opposed to the proposed DSM-V revisions, but the more I look at them, the more I agree with them. My point is, there is no form of autism which is *purely* social. There has to be more than that going on, and some of that has to be disability, or it's not autism.

For many, I think society disables us.

It depends how various clinical symptoms affect us through out our lives, ASD's affect every one of us differently in several ways, nevertheless I have an enlightening perception towards the multi-diversity of the Autistic spectrum, not to mention that NT's have a vast amount of multiple perspectives and stereotypes with regards to it as well.

In numerous ways how I see it, I consider it a cognitive difference when you account for distinctively gifted individuals who maybe artistically creative or intellectually bright, and can harness their unique "gifts and talents" to fulfill their potential and subsequently, their aspirations may indeed come true. As a result of their giftedness, they may be highly appreciated by society; therefore, they may regard them as an invaluable contribution to multicultural societies.

In other perspectives of logic, I consider autism a developmental disability, particularly those who are deemed or stereotyped as "lower-functioning" and require indefinite supervision as a result of severe to profound intellectual disabilities, hindered adaptive functioning, mobility issues, chronic sensory integration dysfunction, and underlying handicaps of debilitation etcetera. However, it is important that the severely autistic are also cared and loved for in the same way as higher-functioning individuals are treated, as well as having their full worthiness recognized for whatever the reason. Savant skills are highly intrinsic to autism or any other disability, and just proves how intriguing the juxtaposition of exceptional giftedness, prodigious ability and severe handicap really is.

It isn't always the severely autistic who are in need of externalized or lifelong supports for their disability, sporadically for example, if an individual with Asperger's syndrome or HFA exhibits symptoms indicating extreme social and adaptive impairment, whether it's due to severity or symptom exacerbation as a result of underlying neurological, psychological or physical co-morbidities, they may be perceived by a clinician to be "developmentally disabled" and may be eligible for services and individualized support from an agency whose primarily objective is to aid those with developmental disabilities (e.g. Mental retardation, Cerebral palsy, Fragile X, Muscular dystrophy etcetera).
__________________
Diagnosed with "Classical" Asperger's syndrome in 1998.
AQ: 47/50

Last edited by TheRedPedant93 on 10 Nov 2012, 6:55 am, edited 6 times in total.

So how am I disabled?

What she said.

If you come out with statements like that in real life in the hope of convincing people of your superiority, it won't work. They'll only be convinced that you're a self-important, arrogant little twat. If you aren't one, maybe you should work on not seeming like one.

For some individuals, regardless of how society treats them, it undoubtedly is a disability. For many others, once they have learned to compensate and adapt their environment to suit their needs, it isn't.

There is no cut and dried answer that covers everyone with autism, although by definition, as has been pointed out, to qualify for diagnosis the symptoms have to interfere with your life significantly.

Saying this is like saying that people should wish to be autistic because this would make them better persons.

Maybe it's an euability in your case; in my case, my AS causes me a lot of problems, and I have a lot of difficulties in doing things that other people find very easy to do. And AS is just the mildest for of the spectrum. I have an older brother with severe autism. He can't speak. He can't take care of himself. He can't do everyday life things that others can do without a person helping him. Do you think that my brother has an euability, and not a disability?

Well all people are different who has autism.

There is a reason why some of us sadly get disability pension, they dont just hand those out willingly.