Aspergers referred to as a disease?

Post Reply New Topic

I think by and large it is simply unintentional ignorance. It happens in the media fairly regularly too. Also some people just struggle to comprehend the idea of neurological differences.

For example - my step-father-in-law, I've known him for over ten years, during that time myself and my wife have had lots of discussions about Aspergers, why and how it occurs, differences in neurology ect. Yet despite all of that, he recently asked my wife if there was a cure. I know he didn't mean anything by it, but he is very set in his ways, and try as we might, I don't think he is ever going to understand it. He is of the generation where things weren't talked about, people certainly didn't openly discuss things like depression. People with aspergers syndrome where generally considered a bit shy or quiet ect. I'm sure if you asked him he would say I have a disease, and I daresay the same would be true of schizophrenia or bi-polar.

I think the problem is one of semantics and historical ambiguity. In time the concepts could be better distinguished to differentiate communicable diseases and other "afflictions". Within the latter genetically determined developmental disorders could be separated from what textbooks refer to as genetic diseases. As I said before, half the problem is psychiatry has inherited concepts that are not necessarily a construct of what they are supposed to represent.

The usual response from the psychotherapist is "if something gets in the way of a person's functioning, then we classify it as a pathology." That means that for some of us, Aspergers is a disorder, even disease like; for others, a diversity; for still others, an advantage.

Therefore, we ought not call Aspergers anything connoting some value judgment. "Aspergers disease?" No. "Aspergers disorder?" No. "Aspergers syndrome?" No. Just "Aspergers."

I've had my AS referred to as an 'illness' and a 'disease' --both times I have challenged it and have been met with a challenging look at the question: "Well, what is it then?"

I must admit, I usually haven't pursued it any further -- when you're faced with that sort of ignorance, what's the point?

* this

or any autism for that matter. autism will not progress or get worse also, diseases need to be cured or at least in remission or you will die not with autism.

although it isnt a disease technicaly people can die from high functioning autism or any other level of it if their autism affects their behavior to acute levels such as being obsessed with drinking water to the point of water poisoning.
it has hapened to a number of autistics including one who was high functioning but that shoudnt make a difference anyway.

Because wikipedia defines disease as: "A disease is an abnormal condition that affects the body of an organism. It is often construed as a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs.[1] It may be caused by factors originally from an external source, such as infectious disease, or it may be caused by pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person. In this broader sense, it sometimes includes injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts and for other purposes these may be considered distinguishable categories. Diseases usually affect people not only physically, but also emotionally, as contracting and living with many diseases can alter one's perspective on life, and one's personality."

Autism also fits the definition of Mental Disorder, again from wikipedia: "A mental disorder or psychiatric disorder is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes distress or disability, and which is not developmentally or socially normative. Mental disorders are generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives. This may be associated with particular regions or functions of the brain or rest of the nervous system, often in a social context."

As someone who has had a mental illness, depression, for over a decade, it's annoying that many people here, whose autism means they obviously fit the criteria of a mental illness as defined above, think that autism somehow doesn't fit the criteria of being mentally ill. It makes me curious and angry to find out what, exactly, you think a mental illness IS. Just because we know more of the etiology and physiology of autism, it is STILL a disability and causes mental distress and isn't socially normative. Rather, it's like you choose to make the often unspoken point that it makes the distinction between someone who is mentally ill as somehow causing their own mental distress or illness, simply because there's not yet a clear medical reason for its cause. Or for some reason you attach the meaning that circumstances and conditions must cause a mental illness later in life. Or because you see it as something that's merely passing. But none of these things are true.

It quite frankly shows YOUR ignorance if you think that mental illnesses aren't physiologically based. They rather have to be, unless you think our soul or spirit or some such is making people mentally ill. Most importantly though, it comes off as all of you who don't want to be classified as mentally ill clamoring to get away from those crazy nut-jobs who ARE mentally ill, as if you have to put yourself above someone else. It's one thing if you actually, you know, explained how the term 'mentally ill' doesn't apply to you, but you do not, for in order to do that, you must know what the term 'mentally ill' actually means. No, not your own view of the word mentally ill, the actual definition of it.

I can't get upset at those people with autism who perceive that autism isn't disabling at all, if that's what you think then my arguments don't hold any weight with you whatsoever. But I'm not addressing those people, I'm talking about the ones that see that autism causes difficulties in their lives yet who grandly throw off terms that fit them because they don't like the term.

And yes, mental illnesses are also diseases. That's the definition of the word. If you make up your own definitions for words because someone applies a far more negative connotation to them then what they inherently have, or even if you simply want to create a distinction between words because you see that the term 'disease' is far too encompassing to really be useful as a term, and then get upset when someone then uses that word incorrectly from your private definition, that's your fault, not theirs. I am diseased and mentally ill, and I don't give a s**t about those terms because I don't stigmatize myself when I say it, and I don't give more weight to those definitions than what they have.

cavernio, you bring up very good points. For starters, I want us to stand in solidarity with our less verbal brothers and sisters who might well be very communicative in other ways. I want us to start breaking down this artificial distinction between persons who are quote 'low'-functioning and persons who are quote 'high'-functioning.

And I'll take it a step further. With persons who are schizophrenic or bipolar, I'll say what I say about autism spectrum, both a difference and a disability. And with a little bit of help along the way, the person can do and contribute all kinds of things.

I myself have not had the best of luck with so-called mental health professionals. So, I like knowing I can go to a regular doctor like an internist and potentially get a prescription for depression medication, which I have read is trial and error in a respectful sense anyway. I, too, have struggled with depression, but probably not as much as you have. (For anyone else reading along, I have also read that it's usually important to phrase down in steps even if the medication doesn't seem to be working, because a person's body has gotten used to it.)

Thank you aardvark. I know I come off as very...acidic sometimes. Well I am about this, in that I'm especially vehement when it comes to mental illnesses. I'm sick and tired of having a stigma attached to it, so any behaviour that supports, directly or indirectly, a stigma of being mentally ill, I fight. This involves, well, people understanding the definition of mentally ill. And to get people to understand that the idea of a purely psychosomatic illness is kinda ridiculous, they just don't exist.

I know I had recently used the word 'disease' to mean autism in a post a couple days ago, and I half feel that this thread was started because that. And I want to stand by my use of it because, well, it fits the definition! But I also don't want people to think that I'm...misusing the term and meaning something I didn't when I said it or may say it again in the future.
Just like any disease, there are lesser and greater forms of it. If being autistic doesn't make things difficult for you, then you are not diseased and all the power to you! I don't think that autism is contagious. I don't think it's something that (right now) has any sort of cure. I know it's a developmental issue that occurs extremely early on in life. I don't think that you have to isolate yourself (although obviously many of you choose to!), I don't think that you have nothing to contribute to society and life in general. Having autism means different things for different people.

I'm not here to judge, I'm here because I not only like it here socially (the only person who's complained about my long posts on WP was lost...), I see autistic traits in myself, and probably because I find differences in people and cognition fascinating. (If I do at some point find out I'm HFA, I would have to call psychology a special interest of mine...had I managed to be mentally healthy enough to keep up with my studies, I swear I'd be a professor of cognition right now, researching and teaching and discussing to my heart's content. If only I didn't have anxiety and depression...)

I was only ever on antidepressants close the beginning of my depression. And although I see that my concentration got better because of it, (I had great marks in school that term), they didn't help me emotionally at all. And they had scary withdrawal (one of them I was on, effexor, I would get brain shocks if I were more than an hour behind dosage schedule) that, at the time, wasn't even a warning or mentioned, it was purposefully hidden. I was also very young, 18-19, which is young enough for the side-effect of becoming more suicidal to exist (and I think it did.) In any case, my then newfound skill of being able to read and discern papers from my psyc courses came in handy and even back then it was known that antidepressants worked about as well as exercise in 'curing' depression.

You may want to talk to the Victorian Aspergers association here in Australia as they are openly opposed to any attempt to categorise Aspergers as autism. I recently spoke to one of the representatives of this group (made up mostly of parents of Aspies) and she says that her son is already stigmatised in school for being an Aspie and the last thing he needs is to be labeled autistic.

In my view parents of Aspies are the first to brainwash their Aspie kids - that whatever NTs call them in the school that they are smart and gifted (which many of us are). My limited experience with parents of Aspies is that they teach their kids to be normal (as possible) at school and not to draw attention to any deficits they have if they want to make friends. It's not a quantum leap in connecting that if Aspies don't voluntarily want to draw attention to their social deficits then the last thing they will want to do is hang out with "Rainman" and say "look at me" "Im weird and I even hang out with weird people".

Sorry, I'm not trying to undermine your good intentions, but I don't see any real solidarity between LFAs and Aspies developing in the future. Parents of LFAs and their kids have considerably different problems to Aspies and their parents. Never the Twain shall meet....

I'm sorry the medication had serious and substantial negatives, and I'm sorry they did such a poor job communicating. Maybe they'd come back and say, well, we didn't want to set up self-fulfilling prophecies. But I think that justification fails. The clear better alternative is just to be matter-of-fact and give the patient the quiet, easy confidence that he or she can handle issues if and when they come up.

For example, a doctor seeing a flu patient and prescribing Tamiflu might also say, " . . Now, this is important. If you have a relapse with high fever, give me a call right away because that relapse can be pneumonia." [either viral or bacteria pneumonia]
https://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5157663.html And this something I'm proud I know. :>)

I don't think it's possible to find a name that wouldn't insult someone. While some people - including me before - find the word "disease" very insulting when it comes to autism, others think it's hurtful to deny the "disease" nature of a condition that they really suffer from. I also think it's arrogant to say in general that autism is only a personal feature and thus ignore the fact that some people really suffer from the symptoms themselves and not only from the attitudes of NT people.

While "disability" has become more neutral and even positive term, there are people who would never consider autism as a disability (probably they only think slight forms of autism then).

To me "disorder" does not sound any better than disease.

The fact, however, is that autism has been classified as some kind of disease; otherwise there wouldn't be DSM and ICD codes. The diagnosis are disease classifications. Of course there have been conditions that don't cause any harm themselves and should not been considered as diseases and have a diagnostic code, like homosexuality.

I find it a bit paradoxical that some people first say autism is not a disease, just a personal feature or even gift, and next they say it absolutely must not be removed from the disease classifications... Diagnosis are not there for identity. They are tools to recognize aetiology and symptoms that have negative impacts in life, and of course a basis for a medical treatment. If autism was only a gift, ot a difference, it would not belong to the disease classifications. And there would be no reason to get any special arrangements or medical treatment (such as neuropsychological rehabilitation). A difference, or a gift, is not a reason for medical treatment or extra help.

Asperger's is not an effing disease!

No "germ" causes it.

I totally agree with you. You don't "catch" autism, just like you don't "catch" your eye colour or Down's syndrome, you're born with it.

That's true. But there are many dimilar diseases. I have idiopathic epilepsy. I was born with it. People with albinism were born with albinism. Other were born with heart disease or hydrocephalus. They cannot be cured. they are still diseased.

I'd query that any of them are diseases, they're conditions or syndromes.