Is self-diagnosis okay/valid/a good thing?

Post Reply New Topic

I believe, possibly for the reasons I stated above, that the incidence of ASD's within various "minority" communities is actually higher than the official figures.

Other factors play into as well--especially factors which involved the stigma attached to ASDs within these "minority" communities.

I have experienced this myself. My wife is Afro-Trinidadian. People who are of that ethnic group believe that people who exhibit Aspergian systems are, by default, unmotivated to improve.

I have also experienced the notion, within people with whom I have come in contact, that ASD's are a "rich man's disease."

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 12 Dec 2014, 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Self-diagnosed based on an online test? So it's not a myth, after all?

Based upon my (albeit limited) experience (with ACA policies), the clinical psychologists who have expertise in diagnosing autism would more than likely not accept ACA insurance policies. As these policies seem geared to limit the amount of money someone can charge for an assessment. It is much more lucrative to accept private pay. Unfortunately, our health care system is going down the drain and ACA is simply enabling a bad system to get worse. Hopefully, one day, they will dismantle the entire system (including employer-sponsored health care).

I think there should be a third option for "It depends on the circumstances".

Self-diagnosis in some cases could be dangerous, as someone might try to "treat" themselves for something they don't have, or might be distracted from the real source of their problems (which might need more urgent attention).

In other cases though, it can't do any harm and could help the person find support (such as advice from friendly forum members) for a legitimate problem.

What sorts of self-treatments for ASD would be dangerous?

The person who is "self-diagnosed" with ASD might decide that a certain medication might "alleviate" his/her "symptoms." They might have read (even in WrongPlanet) how a certain medication has helped someone with ASD.

In the absence of a prescription, this person might seek out a friend who is taking the medication which was mentioned as alleviating the "symptoms" which this person might experience.

I was thinking in general, rather than specifically about ASD. Although, if someone is diagnosing themselves rather than receiving professional advice, they could be more vulnerable to these "cures" pushed by quacks, such as those in this link

...but diagnosed people might do that as well. Medication issues seem separate from the self-diagnosis issue because there is standard pharmaceutical treatment for ASD.

Why would you assume it's a myth? Especially given your siggy...

I took the test based on knowing that I've been different my whole life & never having fit in.

I think what you stated is valid, StarKid. Even one who is officially diagnosed could do the same thing.

However, we must point out the potential dangers when someone goes "too far" within the realm of self-diagnosis.

This occurs when the "self-diagnoser" "diagnoses" his/her self based upon the medical definition of the term, rather than the broader definition as presented within the WrongPlanet context.

If self-diagnosis is valid, at which age is it valid?
If it isn't an age issue, who judges?

Do we need to create a test to decide if someone is capable of self-diagnosing?

What are the control measures?

Hey m8, your sceptism isn't wanted here. Don't you know that people do years of extensive research first before reaching a self-diagnosis? Apart from the ones who don't.

It doesn't really matter to me if someone is 1% or 99% in their minds when they say that they have autism/are autistic without diagnosis. I posted before in another thread that they can think anything they like in their minds, but saying that one has autism/is autistic without diagnosis is not good, in my opinion, and open to criticism, esp. of self-diagnosis as a process.

How much time someone spends researching autism is not really important to me either, since my main problem with self-diagnosis process is lack of clinical observation from outside one's own mind, and lots of time spent researching autism and introspecting about one's thoughts and behaviors from inside one's own mind doesn't make up for this missing part that is critical for autism assessment. This is related to what I was posting earlier in this thread about autism being primarily defined by behaviors that are meant to be observed by someone else and perhaps objectively measured in future.

I don't see why they would be more vulnerable. Professionally-diagnosed people don't routinely get warned about those treatments by whoever diagnosed them, so they wouldn't be any less vulnerable to trying them than self-diagnosed people due to their professional diagnosis.

If anything, I would expect self-diagnosed people to be less vulnerable to trying those "cures," because they are likely to be older (and therefore wiser) than the professionally diagnosed, and more of the group of professionally diagnosed people are likely to want to cure themselves due to having more severe deficits (which caused them to be noticed and professionally diagnosed in the first place) and a sense of their diagnosis being imposed upon them.

I believe I haven't got personal at all in this entire thread?

Diversion aside, the questions remain.

I think NCOT was being ironic. She actually, by and large, agrees with your viewpoint on this topic.