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

Post Reply New Topic

I feel a warm, cosy glow of validation now :p

and I apologise for any hurt I may have caused to your feelings.

It's okay, B19, honestly. I wasn't really hurt... :-/

I must be honest: I do like being sarcastic sometimes. I don't mind if people give me the same treatment back, but I suppose that is not always the point. I'm not sadistic or malicious; I might like to wind people up a little, but not any more than that. And if it's somebody who I think couldn't take it I wouldn't do it. I've got zero desire to make anybody break down and cry, feel suicidal, etc.

I hope I didn't make you feel that bad. I don't think I did, but if I did then I apologise for it.

Peace is breaking out here

It's not drama, but it'll do I guess... :p

Most of them I have known in real life.

I don't go correcting 'I am autistic' into 'I am self-diagnosed' either, I just disagree with the decision for anybody to claim that they have a disorder if they are not diagnosed with it. That's not targeted toward any individual, it takes into account the general population. Though some may be, many are not capable of accurately self-diagnosing themselves.



Depression probably wasn't the best example, but I have known people to claim that they're depressed (though usually adolescents) when really, they're just experiencing a hard time and seeking some attention. They still have issues, but depression is a serious, chronic illness, and should not be trivialized.

I suppose the issue with depression specifically isn't so much 'self-diagnosis' but the excessive use of phrases like 'I am depressed' in moments of relatively brief sadness. From my point of view, that links to the issue I perceive with self-diagnosis, regarding other disorders. When somebody self-diagnoses as OCD and refers to it as a person (though potentially without an actual self-diagnosis) with 'depression' does, the disorder is trivialized and romanticized.

Those that mention 'I'm so OCD' and 'I keep sorting my smarties by colour, I must have OCD', you will find, actually do believe that they have the disorder. Upon investigation it becomes obvious that they do not (if it wasn't clear already). It's not only adolescents that do this. My mum has a friend that self-diagnosed with OCD and she literally brags about it, and it pisses me off so much, because anybody who actually had it would know how damaging it can be. My mum actually warned me that self-diagnosis was dangerous, because of her experience with her friend.

I am sorry if this doesn't make too much sense, my posts are scattered throughout the thread.

I may be 100% misreading the above. Please pardon me if I am.

So, sonicallysensitive keeps asking, "at what age is self diagnosis valid"? I certainly hope no one (including Alex) is encouraging a minor to self-diagnose. From my perspective, that’s both inappropriate and irresponsible. If a minor thinks something is "wrong", hopefully someone (a parent, a teacher, a friend, someone in the WP community) is intervening. If an undiagnosed minor suspects they are autistic, I hope everyone here, would recommend that person seek professional help. This would be true for a minor suspecting autism or any other condition (including depression, OCD, etc. etc. etc.).

I realize most people in this thread are thinking only of themselves. Some of us, though, are parents. And, it’s our job to protect our kids (as long as they are minors). And I certainly would hope strangers in an online forum, wouldn’t be encouraging them to self-diagnose.

Yes, some of us here are parents - and grandparents. I am one of them, and the implication that my paragraph somehow links posters here to "thinking only of themselves" is baffling to me.

I think you have completely misunderstood the dialogue which led up to the paragraph of mine you cited. No-one here at any time advocated that minors self-diagnose, nor offered any such encouragement, so far as I am aware.

If you had read my posts you would see that I am expressing concern - as others have - about other people and their vulnerability to being marginalised by topics like this. I hope that reassures you that we autistics can and do think of others.

It wasn't that paragraph that led me to write the "thinking only of themselves" comment. That comment was not at all directed at you (or actually, any one person in particular).


Thanks for clarifying. I guess I totally misunderstood the dialogue. I was still thinking about sonicallysensitive’s question ("at what age is self diagnosis valid"). The one that I frivolously responded to with 42. And, after thinking about it, I realized how inappropriate it would be to "allow" a minor to self-diagnose. I put "allow" in quotes, because you cannot really stop a minor from doing so. But, once that minor makes their inner thoughts public, I would hope a responsible adult would step in and intervene.

That's sorted, all good.

Kraftiekortie declared self-diagnosis is valid at any age - he wrote, and I quote:

I don't believe the validity of self-diagnosis is age-dependent.

If it isn't age-dependent, there are no age boundaries. By definition, this is belief that self-diagnosis can be valid at any age whatsoever.

And yes - this is very dangerous for someone visiting this site.



This could be said of any topic and any opinion expressed anywhere.

Would I be invalidating you by encouraging you to seek a professional opinion if you believed you were Mowgli because you 'really relate to his issues' and have researched the Jungle Book/the history of Disney?

Is your self-diagnosis as Mowgli more valid because you have studied the entire history of Disney?


Is the medical profession invalidating doctors by not allowing them to practice until they are fully qualified?




But you're not diagnosed

It depends more on the quality of the research performed than the age.

I would guess, if one wanted to choose an age, that it would be either the "age of consent" (about 16 in most places), or the "age of majority" (about 18 in most places).

I think you're extending "self-diagnosis" into unintended territory. Only if someone deigns to self-medicate based upon self-diagnosis does it become dangerous, as far as I'm concerned.

In many cases, of course, there's a fine distinction between co-morbids. The question is, then, for example. "Is the ADHD more dominant, or the autism more dominant?" Is it dangerous to emphasize the autism, when the ADHD should be attended to "more" than the autism?

I guess, if one states he/she is autistic, and is not actually autistic, and is seeking a job and "discloses" his/her alleged autism, that it might be dangerous--to the person disclosing--but I don't believe this is a realistic scenario in the "real world."

Like I stated a few times, "self-diagnosed" individuals are not "diagnosing" themselves making use of medical criteria; it's more subjective than that--and it is acknowledged as such. It is acknowledged that official diagnosis carries more weight than self-diagnosis.

Nobody is prescribing themselves, say, anti-depressants, based upon a "self-diagnosis." If that were so, that would be wrong and dangerous.

But this isn't happening among the "self-diagnosed" here (at least I hope not!)

Very true. But, as kraftiekortie points out, legal age of consent is about 16 years while legal age of majority is about 18 years. Female minors, for example, are legally authorized by 12 U.S. states and the District of Columbia to choose and pursue abortions for themselves without parental consent or notification. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in its opinion about Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), that laws which make it a crime "for any person to sell or distribute any contraceptive of any kind to a minor under 16" are unconstitutional.

I could probably find several more examples of state and federal laws which authorize minors to choose and pursue for themselves certain kinds of medical assessments and treatments whether such choices are based on the minors' self-diagnoses, self-identification or, simply, on a whim ("I might be pregnant" or "I might be autistic").

Now, the question of whether such actions are wise, is another matter for another day; and, I would leave discussion of that topic to others such as parents. But, if a 16-year-old boy, who has a good friend who is already professionally diagnosed with an ASD, considers some of his friend's ASD characteristics, studies about them and finds a few similar characteristics in himself (a kind of self-diagnosis which is a perfectly lawful activity in and of itself) and asks one or more of his parents or legal guardians to help him pursue a professional diagnosis (and possible treatments) is "self-diagnosis of one or more ASDs by a minor," then sign me up. I wholeheartedly support that kind of scenerio based on current state and federal laws, and court opinions which have determined that, in certain instances, minors have the right to choose for themselves what assessments and treatments they might pursue whether such actions are based on their self-diagnoses or self-identification, or not.

What are the control measures to determine the 'quality of research'?


Why?


Unintended is not synonymous with unimportant.

Peer-reviewed, double-blind, etc., studies, which take into account all possible variables carry more weight than other studies. This, combined with anecdote, is probably more effective than most. In my assessment of anything, I make use both of objective studies and of subjective accounts.

I don't believe the results of the "Aspie Quizzes" is enough for a decent "self-diagnosis."

I don't believe most "self-diagnosers" rely solely on those quizzes, though. Based on what I've read on WP, many people make considerable use of peer-reviewed, double-blind, etc. studies.

As for the age thing: it's obvious. It's at the point where somebody becomes a legal adult.

The Frittata of diagnosis:

. Diagnosis is like herpes, because you don't know it's with you until it shows up.

Defined
Informed
Assessed
Gamut
Necessity
Official
Self
Impenitent
Super, ty for asking

I'm loosening my valves, haha.

Official diagnosis should be free, and there needs to be a readily available, objective test that anybody can take. It's a joke that it costs so much, because you're almost guaranteed to pay more for medication or support once you've being diagnosed.

If anyone can relate to the following please PM me:

. You spend the majority of your day feeling agitated
. You want to release some steam

I'm kind of tired of posting like a pedantic lunatic and I feel like raving on to someone, but at the same time don't want to take a chance of being utterly obnoxious in the eyes of a member, and placed on the ignored list.