Worried about changes in how people see autism

Post Reply New Topic

They're saying 1:50 now for autism, or something of the sort... I keep thinking to myself, "If it's going to be so common now, does that mean it'll be considered unremarkable? Does it mean that I won't get the help I need because people will assume that I'm "just a little quirky" instead of truly disabled?

And yet I'm ashamed of thinking this way because as far as I can tell most of those new diagnoses are going to people who really need it--maybe people who aren't obviously and severely autistic, but if you're falling short of what's expected of the average person, does it matter that much whether you're falling short by an inch or by a mile? I don't think so.

Maybe I'm just scared of the unknown, scared of autism changing in the public viewpoint from something obvious and severe (which it mostly isn't) to something common and mild (which it often isn't)... It's like, I know how to deal with the old stereotype; I know how to get people to see me as an individual despite that; now I'm going to have to relearn it all under the new paradigm.

Just autistic transition anxiety? Maybe I'll look back on this and go, "Boy, you were silly to be worried about this." It's long overdue to recognize those milder cases as autism. It's a good thing. And yet I'm still scared of change.

The problem is that autism was ignored and now it is being ignored even more so. The diagnostic criteria are not well defind. Many people with autism do not need help. Many others need specific type of help. Also it depends on how the research on autism continues as to what exactly can help autistic people and what is just useless.

Wait until the new manuel comes out, that will be the end to the ASD Dx giveaway spree. Still its only 2% at best of the population.

The criteria for diagnosis in the UK are stricter than even the old DSM, let alone the new one.
Here in Britain we're at least a decade behind the USA in terms of general understanding and recognition of ASDs.

I just started reading about Asperger Syndrome/Autism this last year and in that time the count went from 1:100 (1%) to 1:88 (1.13%), and recently at 1:50 (2%) after browsing the net upon reading this post (though 1:54 was already the prevalency in boys, they may have changed it to the same for girls, and all the inclusion of PPD-NOS, etc. in the DSM-V). Part of this is due to changing criteria, more accurate diagnoses, and more people than ever are going to a psychiatrist (it held more stigma in the past). I don't think it is really a change in frequency of people having it, but people that have had it all along are now finding out and more and more children are being diagnosed and worked with rather than being sat aside and ignored because of their problems.

Here is a statement from the Autism Science Foundation:

"How Common is Autism?
In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network reported that approximately 1 in 88 children in the United States has an Autism Spectrum Disorder. This represents an increase in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders compared to earlier in the decade when prevalence was cited as 1 in 110 and 1 in 166. In the 1980’s autism prevalence was reported as 1 in 10,000. In the nineties, prevalence was 1 in 2500 and later 1 in 1000. It is problematic to compare autism rates over the last three decades, as the diagnostic criteria for autism have changed with each revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). In 1983 the DSM did not recognize PDD-NOS or Asperger's syndrome, and the criteria for autistic disorder (AD) were more restrictive.

ASDs are almost 5 times more common among boys (1 in 54) than among girls (1 in 252) and they are reported in all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Studies have been conducted in several continents (Asia, Europe, and North America) that report a prevalence rate of approximately 1 percent. A 2011 study reported a 2.6 percent prevalence of autism in South Korea."

In short, some things to keep in mind:

-When it was a rare diagnosis there were less services, now that is more common and better understood there are more services.
-The statistics are from the US, and most likely would also apply to Europe due to a similar ethnic/genetic population. 1% is still considered the worldwide prevalency.
-Services aren't likely to vanish, but could become in more demand. It might be bumpy, but I doubt they're going away anytime soon.
-Bipolar is as common as 1:50 in the US, Schizophrenia is as common as 1:100 in the US, PTSD is as common as 1:14 in the US, GAD is as common as 1:83 in the US (statistics taken from WebMD).

I don't think there is really anything to worry about overall.

I think I know what you mean ,OP. The 1 in 50 stat makes me cringe. Growing up AS was this odd unheard of severe neurological condition and now it's almost a fad and everyone's researching it and they're slowly revealing it to be more and more common. I was used to people thinking it was more severe than it was (the stereotype of a non-verbal autistic person constantly rocking or something). This new stereotype of a quirky smart person who doesn't really have anything seriously wrong with them is new and equally wrong but more disturbing bcs I'm not used to it. Yep, I understand.

Well, those data are not really worldwide.

For example, in Spain, 2008, it's reckoned to happen one or two cases every 1000 children. In France, it's about one every 150 children. In Mexico, one very 500 children.

Data inside US are highly variable:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/docume ... report.pdf

Besides, there's not a clear explanation about how they diagnose a kid. I was looking for the questions that are made. No way:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr065.pdf

And when you check the symptoms they look in austist children, http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/signs.html

[quote="xMistrox"]I just started reading about Asperger Syndrome/Autism this last year and in that time the count went from 1:100 (1%) to 1:88 (1.13%), and recently at 1:50 (4%) quote]

1:50 is two percent. Not four percent.

I think psychologically, 1:50 seems a lot more than 1:100, even though it isn't really- get 100 people and you've only got one more, and how often are you around more than 100 people?

I'm glad people are getting diagnosed. I'm optimistic people will come to see autism for what it is- a spectrum almost as varied as the general population.

NIMBY

NIMBY
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
An airport is a typical example of a development that can cause a NIMBY reaction: developers may claim economic benefits for the city, while locals may benefit from improved transport links and new jobs—but they may oppose it with objections to the noise, pollution and traffic it will generate.
Unfinished tower in Tenleytown, Washington, D.C. that was later removed as a result of complaints from the local neighborhood
Motorists requesting less car traffic in their street

NIMBY (an acronym for the phrase "Not In My Back Yard"), or Nimby, is a pejorative characterization of opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them, often with the connotation that such residents believe that the developments are needed in society but should be further away. Opposing residents themselves are sometimes called Nimbies.

Projects likely to be opposed include but are not limited to tall buildings, chemical plants, industrial parks, military bases, wind turbines, desalination plants, landfills, incinerators, power plants, prisons,[1] mobile telephone network masts, legal abortion clinics,[2] schools, kindergartens, nuclear waste dumps, youth hostels, wind farms, golf courses, sports stadiums, housing developments, and especially transportation improvement schemes (e.g. new roads, bridges, passenger and freight railways, highways, airports, seaports).

The NIMBY concept may also apply more generally to people who advocate some proposal (for example, austerity measures like budget cuts, tax increases, or layoffs), but oppose implementing it in a way that would require sacrifice on their part