For those who see autism as a difference and not a disorder:

Post Reply New Topic

The rationale of giving diagnosis in the medical profession is to give people the right types of treatment. Given this premise, do you think autism/aspergers should be removed from the DSM?

Can you elaborate?

Are you suggesting that autism does not need treatment?

I for one believe that it does not need treatment. It requires intervention, but not treatment.

no it should not be removed from the DSM,yes it's a difference but a difference that can be problematic in a lot of cases.

If it were just a difference and not a disability then why do we need a support forum?

No, I don't think it should be removed. For many people, the difference is great enough that they need an expert to help them understand that difference and make the best of who they are. I think our whole concept of "normal" is flawed, and disagree with the idea that, since autistics are unusual, they need to be forced to "look more normal," but denying them the help they need isn't going to change any of that.

This strikes me as sophistry.

Calling something "intervention" or calling it "treatment" doesn't change what such an activity actually does. It modifies state. If there is no need to modify state then there is no anomaly. If there is an anomaly, then the state needs modification.

Is autism an anomalous state that needs modification or not? If not then why do we even have the word "autism"? What does it define if not something discernibly different than other states? If autism is discernibly different than non-autism is it something that requires no change in state? Is its difference benign like the difference between red and blue or is its difference material as in the difference between having a thumb or missing a thumb?

Agreed, and then the question of the relationships between the DSM and its use in relation to autism comes into play.

With autism in the DSM, some considerations of my AS/HFA were shown during my SSDI appeal hearing, and that happened even though I do not have any actual-and-official AS/HFA diagnosis. So, I would say all of the spectrum should remain within the DSM. However, the DSM is primarily used by doctors who can still really do virtually nothing about the actual autism.

The same kind of question came up in relation to alcoholism many years ago. Some people wanted it to be recognized medically so they could gain some specific benefits from that, but others said it needed no such recognition since doctors can do nothing about it anyway and would thus only try to get involved (and maybe even make things worse) because it *had* become medically recognized.

Last edited by leejosepho on 04 Nov 2011, 9:43 am, edited 7 times in total.

For some people it needs treatment and for some it doesn't, especially if it doesn't interfere with their life.

In general I see the mental health profession as a way to punish people for "thinking wrong". That's just from my own experience. I realize some people need it or are helped by it.

I view my Asperger's as a difference rather than a disorder. Is there really any difference in those terms? Probably not too much in my opinion of how I see it. The main difference is the connotation of the terms. Difference sounds more positive to me than disorder. Disorder sounds negative to me. I tend to focus more on my positives of Asperger's rather than the negatives, so therefore I adhere to a positive connotation of a "difference." If I focused more on the negatives, then I might call it a "disorder."

So...after I was professionally diagnosed, I underwent therapy. I had some things I wanted help with. So I went through therapy. It helped some. I have had some very challenging times in my past. But after my diagnosis of Asperger's, I began to research into the condition and understand it more and try to make the strengths it gave to me work for me.

I think the way some of us view our autism in terms of "difference" or "disorder" is just our personal preferences. Although I try to focus on the positives, I have plenty of challenges---sensory, social, anxiety, occasional depression, etc.

I believe our condition that we now call Asperger's should definitely remain in future revisions of the DSM. When I was in school we did not have Asperger's in the DSM here in the US. Would it have made a difference to me to have been diagnosed back then? Probably so. I would have been understood better by my teachers, that's for sure. I wouldn't have been criticized for having roller coaster books and drawings on my desk while I attended to academic classes. My pencil collection that my first grade teacher took away from me may have been allowed to remain with me. My awkwardness in PE class could have been made better with accommodations. Oh...there are a lot of things.

I don't think it should be removed from the DSM, but I also don't see it as a disease or disability. But that's me, and I function just fine & successfully in life; just with a totally and radically different view of social situations than NTs, and of course very bizarre interests in the eyes of NTs. For those who have more debilitating places on the Spectrum, perhaps treatments (if such a thing comes about), would be wanted.

I'm a lot happier with a diagnosis of HFA, because now I don't feel like I'm wrong to be weird . I would not want it cured or changed though. I'm happy with things exactly the way they are in that regard.

Charles

No, giftedness should be added.

We should stop using whether we consider a difference to be a 'bad thing' as the reasoning for including it in the DSM. Instead, a condition should be included if negative outcomes can occur due to treating the person as an NT, meaning that it would serve the good of that person and/or others to treat that person differently. No value judgment needed.

What? This isn't even remotely logical.

First you say the reason it's there is so that people can be diagnosed in order to receive treatment.

Sooo.... That's the reason it's there, according to you. Right?

So based on THAT reason for it's existence there, you are asking us if we think it ought to be removed?

Sooo....

What you are suggesting, it seems, is that if it is not a disorder, then no treatment is necessary, therefore why don't we just do NOTHING?


OMG!

STOP THE PRESSES! SHUT DOWN ALL THE WEBSITES! AUTISM IS JUST A DIFFERENCE THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE DEALT WITH ANYWAY! NO NEED FOR ALL THIS TALK ABOUT IT. EVERYONE GO ON ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS AS USUAL!

NOTHING IS WRONG HERE! NOTHING AT ALL!!

Whew! Thanks for clearing that up for me. I almost wasted a huge amount of time trying to figure this all out.

Autism is a DIFFERENCE in the way your brain is wired. If this doesn't make it a DISORDER because your brain isn't wired like the typical one, causing several problems in several areas of life, I don't know what a disorder is anymore. Having such deficits is definitely something that needs attention and treatment, though, so taking it out of the DSM would be a bad thing.

Just because there are bad things attached to disorders, doesn't mean there aren't good things, either. I think people are so hell bent on "Not having a disorder" because they can only focus on their negative traits.. EVERYONE has negative traits, NT's, too. We're not all that different, so stop calling it a difference.


Just my opinion.

No. Autism is both a difference and a disorder.

An autistic brain is still a healthy brain, not a diseased NT brain. It's kind of the way a tall person is not a diseased short person, even though he might bang his head on the top of the door frame.

However, teaching the tall person to duck when going through doors, or to construct doors that are higher for his house, makes sense even though being tall is only a difference and not an illness. Similarly, accommodation and education for autism makes sense even though an autistic brain is still a healthy brain.

Autism does cause disability; and because autistic people can be helped by a diagnosis, they should be diagnosed. But a diagnosis does not imply that the condition should be eradicated. It only means that the condition exists, causes impairment of some sort, and is relevant to a doctor.