DSM-V Question

Post Reply New Topic

I heard that AS and PDD-NOS are being eliminated from the DSM-V. Is that true, and if so, when does DSM-V go into effect?

It is not necessarily true or not true. It has yet to be finalized in any form and is based on a meeting of the APA. Whether or not it will happen is still up in the air. There is also discussion of breaking NLVD and AS into a seperate subgroup. There is multiple possibilities at this point, but there has yet to be any clarity with exactly what WILL be done.

By the APA do you mean the APsychologistsA or APsychiatristsA?

Psychiatrists.

Here's an article on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/healt ... erger.html

DSM-V comes out in 2012 (but the apocalypse will have already happened so we don't really need to worry about it)

When I was diagnosed the psychologist told me the only thing they differentiate between regarding autism and AS is early language development. So I'm assuming AS being eliminated means everyone diagnosed will fall into the autism category. I'm not being kicked off the spectrum, am I?

I was just speaking to a Mental Health Professional about this yesterday, and that is the general assumption at this time, that all will be included under the umbrella of ASD, meaning AS will be considered identical to HFA.

My question was answered while I was still typing it in the link by heliocopter. Thank you!

I have to admit I prefer saying I'm autistic but high-functioning to saying I have Asperger's. Somehow the term Asperger's seems to trivialize things. I told a friend my son has autism and she remarked: "But it's only like Asperger's right?" And of course he is pretty high functioning, but the fact that Asperger's is being viewed as "not so bad" makes me think people use it because they'd rather not face "autism".

I'm probably a little paranoid, but it seems to me that if I tell people I have Asperger's it's like telling them I'm from a different country, they can see the difference, but not the problem. If I say autism, they realize that I in fct struggle with things that most people take for granted and I do see things differently. The only problem is I think people still associate the word autism with generally diminished capacity and they might treat me as inferior intellectually.

I wish they (whoever "they" are) would define "functioning" once and for all. Does it refer to IQ or managing practical aspects of life? Personally I think it should refer to the level of independence as an adult, whereas low IQ should be an additional diagnosis (which I think it sometimes is), i.e autism with or without mental retardation.

In that case I'd be a highfunctioning autistic without mental retardation.

I agree on that. They use PDD-NOS the same way. Adding Asperger's to the spectrum should be good for both sides--it will eventually make it known that autism includes a wide range of functioning; and that Asperger's really is a kind of autism, not just an ignorable fad diagnosis or personality quirk.

What worries me about it is that they may try to divide things along the functioning level lines--judge people by which category they fall into. Almost all currently diagnosed Asperger's will be mild or moderate, and most of those mild; will we use being labeled "high-functioning" as a reason for elitism? Will they use it as a reason to say, "Yeah, but you don't know what it's like for me raising my low-functioning child"?

At least it will be harder to divorce Asperger's from autism. I'm really very tired of people insisting that autism is a tragedy if the disability is severe but a gift if it's mild. If you decide to rank people by level of disability, you can only have it one way--either having any deficits is bad, or else having deficits is irrelevant to everything but how much help you need.

I have to give huge credit for this article for getting something right...most people with autism don't have severe autism spectrum disorders, and the overwhelming majority have normal to high intelligence. It is something the media FREQUENTLY misrepresents. In this case...they got it right, and they framed the debate rate...bravo NYT.

I like the idea of one autistic spectrum. Really like it, till genetical proof.

I was asking because I have very mild AS, and I was wondering if the DSM-V's reshuffling of things would knock me down to NT status.

I don't want to lose the respect of everyone on here if that happens.

No way, Tim. You will always belong here NT or not. They should say they are thinking of incorporating Asperger's into the larger Kanner's Autism category instead of saying they are getting rid of it. The way that's worded it sounds like they are going to say "Good News, we decided you don't need help."

Yes, it's under consideration but no, it hasn't been finalised.

Tim, you don't have mild aspergers, it's about the same as many people here. Maybe you have better coping mechanisms.

And no, it won't knock anyone down to "NT Status".

My main concern is that I don't want to have to describe everything as "autism" because it's a tainted word. Everyone gets the wrong impression. If the criteria is to be merged, I'd rather see High Functioning Autism and PDD-NOS called "Aspergers" and severe autism left as "autism".

my autism specialist along with autism experts and psychologists ive met said in 2010 this will come in affect the new dsm(thats what they said), and that wont matter if ur pddnos or aspergers or autistic itll all be lumped under ASD then. I think its alil good in a way cuz that u wont be labelled as well he has this not that, because right now for example ppl think pddnos, they automatically think mildly affected, cant count how many pddnos individuals ive met who are def not mildly affected who are one or two symptoms away from classic. ITll be either very mild, mild, moderate, or severe. How that will be based i guess would matter how well you function in society by yourself, then count in cognitive, iq, self help skills, how well you can communicate in this world, how much assistance do you need, and whether or not stimming is jus apart of your life and is a huge part of your life or is your life. Then I would be guessing that it will also take in affect sensory how it affects u, anxiety, depression, etc. And your prob be placed appropriately. IF you have symptoms of autism, doesnt matter if their mild or severe, if u have problems socializing, communicating and inappropriate responses to the environment i.e. how you live in this world due to something related to autism, i dont think anybody be bumped off the ASD. If the only symptom you have is social problems, thats it, idk maybe ud be classified only as social phobia(if that is true doesnt matter u would still understand what its like being autistic due to that alone even if that diagnosis or label changes), but if u have that and communication problems meaning nonverbal and verbal is what makes u have the diagnosis of ASD one way or another. Just my 2 cents. I think itll help and not help to tell u the truth because its also generalizing all individuals and that is hard considering how different each individual is and how their stims and behavior and their emotions and how they live is so differently from each other. Anyways so idk how it will all go, guess we gotta see if its better or not. My feelings are up in the air with it all.

I hate the whole value judgement of what is "high functioning" or low. Im diagnosed Aspergers NOS/PDD... I do consider myself autistic. I DO NOT think my little friend who is nonverbal is "intellectually disabled" NOR does he have a low IQ just because he wont partake in their testing!
On many levels he functions more highly than I do, and Im labelled "high functioning". Which is VERY depressing when I sometimes cant even get myself together to face the world or people! Yet, everyday, Max manages a routine....committed to his rituals. Low functioning? Not. And he seems alot happier too....most of the time!
I think aspies,auties,ADD even....we are all on that rainbow spectrum. Some of us are higher up in the clouds, in different colour bands.... We are all different, yet part of the same.