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

Post Reply New Topic

Why is self-diagnosis humiliating for you?

I would have thought it would be like religious status. For example, a person that is not religious will not agree with the religion of a person that is religious, but won't despise it either, and the two live on independently, one religious and one not, despite the opinions.

In my case, I am against the general concept of self-diagnosis, but if a person with a self-diagnosis presents themselves to me there won't really be any difference in our interaction. Likewise I am not religious, and get along with religious folk just fine, provided they don't force their beliefs down my throat and accept no difference, which is more of an individual thing as anybody can do that with anything they agree with.

In all honesty, when I see a person with a self-diagnosis of autism, I don't think in my head 'I'm interacting with an autistic person', I think 'I'm interacting with a person who probably has autism, at the very least, autistic traits' - of course not in those exact words, but the consideration is there in my mind. This only changes when I strongly feel that the person is not autistic, but that can happen with any professional diagnosis too, and to date has only happened a few times with autism specifically. I will interact with a self-diagnosed autistic in the same way I interact with professionally diagnosed autistics.

I hate ending posts like this but I'm tired and can't be bothered editing my post for clarity. XD

Oh, you know. Old presumptions about myself, things I have said to family and friends when I was exhausted and having shutdowns or the odd meltdown. Then, there are the opinions about self diagnosis that some individuals here at Wrong Planet and elsewhere express, that, if I made the same judgment about a skin rash wouldn't provoke them enough to blink let alone criticize.

Stuff like that. Of course, I wouldn't give back my newfound self-identity and knowledge for anything.

Could you define 'impairment' so I can understand what you are referring to?



At which point their own suspicions and speculations are confirmed


They suspect they may be autistic and their suspicions remain speculative until such time as a professional assessment can be undertaken


They suspect they may be autistic and their suspicions remain speculative until such time as a professional assessment can be undertaken


They suspect they may be autistic and their suspicions remain speculative until such time as a professional assessment can be undertaken


Therefore they are not autistic


They suspect they may be autistic and their suspicions remain speculative until such time as a professional assessment can be undertaken

What happens when one clinician say a person's not autistic, then another clinician (per second opinion) says that the person IS autistic?

Do you mean prior to a diagnosis?



What happens if you believe you are autistic but your family believe you aren't?

I mean....

A person seeks an autism diagnosis. Goes to one clinician. Clinician doesn't diagnose person with autism.

Same person goes to another clinician. Clinician DOES diagnose the person with autism.

In the "family" scenario, if the minor child obtained an autism diagnosis via a clinician, then the child is autistic. The parents are entitled to seek a "second opinion." If the second opinion says "autism," then the child should be considered autistic; if not, then there is no official diagnosis. If the autism diagnosis was not obtained, then the child has the right to "suspect" that he/she has autism, but he/she is not officially diagnosed. Then a "self-diagnosis," using the looser definition of the term, would be possible. It would carry no real weight, except with the child and whomever "believes" the "self-diagnosis" and the concept of "self-diagnosis" obtained via self-research.

It really doesn't matter--the "self-diagnosis" cannot be used for anything

MTV Clinician Deathmatch?

Depends:
If your family has always perceived yourself in comparison to other children as normal, not deviating from normal behaviour, they might be right, in the end they would also be interviewed in an assessment and if they do not report behaviour deviating from normal (meaning the common majority) children, one would hardly get diagnosed as being autistic I guess.

If your family always told you, you were odd and weirdly behaving and other things indicating that your behaviour deviated from normal behaviour in childhood, but they are not informed about the spectrum of autism and equate autism with non-verbal low functioning autism only, so they don't believe you are, you might be autistic nevertheless.

What are the 'strict' and 'loose' definitions of 'self-diagnosis'? I'm struggling with the distinctions of the term 'self-diagnosis', and the various subtleties of its use that seem to be at play here.


To your question RE if one professional suspects and another doesn't suspect: I can't answer the question as I don't know the medical process in place for such an eventuality. To give you my opinion would simply be speculation on my behalf.


I've not been reading this thread for a number of days: what happened to the 'age of validity' question? Your last post (that I read) suggested when one is no longer a minor, their 'self-diagnosis' is valid. I don't understand why having a legal right for certain issues gives any authority as to something which requires specific training and testing i.e. the right to diagnose.

This seems to be a misinterpretation of right and authority.

Another possibility is the a family member in denial might insist that you were normal, but report this in an atypical way that would make the clinician doubt the accuracy of their evaluation. The family member might be unable to provide authentic accounts of a normal childhood and the family member might present as BAP or autistic. I such cases, the family members overt statement "we are a normal family" might be discounted and the observed details might support the diagnosis. I think you have to assume that most of the assessing diagnosticians are both perceptive and intelligent.

What Eloa says makes sense....especially as regards the usual perception of autism within the general public (i.e., that it's a disorder where the person is nonverbal, doesn't engage with others, and "stims" on a rather constant basis).

Yes, the possibility of denial.
My former psychologist (she is diagnostician as well) told me once as well that in some cases diagnosticians can sense it as they also observe family members behaviour.
She said, when she senses that someone from the family like parents is "making it up" or denying, but the person assessed is clearly presenting as autistic then the diagnosis goes in favour for the assessed person.
I find "denial" a difficult concept, is it like lying?

I think it is like self-deception or clinging to a fantasy rather than an unacceptable reality.

My family gave me the idea that it would be terrible to have any serious mental issues and rejected key parts of the child study team's conclusions when I was about 12. Had they taken the CST's advice, I might have had a totally different academic career. I can recall my dad angrily saying "there's nothing wrong with him!" when he read the report.

I found that I was doing the same thing, though with a slightly more open mind, when people at the school told me my son needed an assessment for neurological issues and then was told "aspergers."

"He can't have anything wrong with him," I thought, "he thinks just like me!" But I did my homework and realized they were right. This lead to the logical follow up and my own diagnosis.

Then I suppose they get their autism diagnosis. I can't see how this matters?

There's a small minority of people who doctor-shop endlessly. I suspect (although don't know) that doctors who work in the same field are aware of patients who do this, and the patient gets a bit of a bad rep as a result. That said, patients certainly have the right to seek a second opinion and there are times when it's valid to do so.

But if somebody tries seeking a third, fourth, fifth, etc. opinion, then I'm just going to see that person as a neurotic or attention-seeker.

Oops. I accidentally omitted that scenario. I also forgot to document my own personal scenario:

Scenario G – Person recognizes that they have autistic traits, suspects they are autistic, feels like those traits are impairing themselves in some manner, seeks a professional diagnosis, but for whatever reason is diagnosed with something else. Person then seeks a second opinion and is subsequently diagnosed with autism.

Scenario H – Person recognizes that they have issues that they have struggled with since they were young. Person recognizes that they have autistic traits, but is uncertain if they have autism or some personality disorder or something else. They receive a recommendation to have a thorough psychological evaluation, along with a psychiatric medication evaluation. They are subsequently diagnosed with an ASD.

Please note, when I wrote down the scenarios, I was only considering adult diagnoses. Also, Scenario H is my own personal scenario.


I will graft together quotes from kraftiekortie and btbnnyr to provide my personal working definition:

Someone “who says to other people that they have autism/are autistic when they have not been diagnosed with autism” because they are “‘very sure’ that they have an ASD--perhaps not 100%, though”.

It could be written more concisely. But, oh well.


I realize this question was not directed to me. The main comment about minors had nothing to do with “validity”. Rather, it was argued that an adult (i.e. a parent, a teacher, a member of clergy, etc.) should intervene if an undiagnosed minor makes a public statement (written, verbal, etc.) suspecting they are autistic.


Unfortunately, I do not feel qualified to define that word (as it is used in the DSM). Mostly because the things I personally struggle with seem quite a bit different than others on this forum.

As an example, for me, I do not experience the intense sensory issues that some people write about on WP. I do have sensory issues, but nowhere near the same level of severity. As such, I have never required special accommodation at work or school (e.g. some people have described being bothered by certain lighting or noise levels).

From my perspective, most of my impairments seem to be related to anxiety (near constant worry/obsessing) + dysphoria. Is that an impairment? Well, not really, as I’ve managed to live with it my entire life. It’s just become part of who I am. And, its level fluctuates. Some days, I feel fine and totally normal (mostly, when I am alone). It was observations like this that led me to question my diagnosis in the first place.

In any event, I used the term “impairment” simply because:
1. It was the term used by starkid and
2. It is my understanding that a diagnosis would not be made if the patient wasn’t somehow impaired by the symptoms

I have always thought this was logically a best of 3 situation.

If there is no reason to doubt the first diagnosis, then you accept it, but if there is some doubt, you may seek a second opinion.

If the second opinion agrees with the first, that's it. It makes no sense to seek a third.

If the second opinion is different than the first, how can you evaluate? Then it might be wise to seek a third and go with the majority opinion. I would think this was due diligence, not doctor shopping.