What would have happened if we had even more autism labels?

Page 1 of 1 [ 8 posts ] 

MalchikBrodyaga
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 348

16 Jul 2018, 4:59 pm

Some posters on this forum said that Kanner didn't want his condition to have a spectrum but, instead, he wanted it to cover just the most low functioning cases (as evident from him rejecting 90% people from his clinic). Personally, I am still rather skeptical: I mean Kanner DID mention that they have "high intellectual potential". But, regardless of whether that was actually Kanner's idea or not, I think the idea of having a separate diagnosis for the most severe cases would be a good idea (and then we can discuss whether to name it after Kanner or after someone else). I mean, if the most high functioning cases are being separated away into Asperger Syndrome, it would only be "symmetric" for low functining cases to be separated as well. And then of course we can separate out middle functining ones too.

Now you might ask: isn't it the same thing as breaking autism into levels of severity, the way it is currently done in DSM 5? No, not quite. If you break autism into levels of severity, what you are implying is that the most important thing is that they all lack social skills; and the fact that some of them happened to be profoundly retarded and other ones happened to have high functioning is just a side issue. But that attitude is quite misleading. I think if you are talking about profoundly autistic person who can't even take care of themselves, saying their main problem is social skills is ridiculous. So yeah, instead of breaking autism into levels of severity I would just name them all differently.

Some of you were saying that Kanner not admitting 90% of autistics into his clinic somehow slowed down autism awarenness. But that doesn't have to be the case. So Kanner decided to "specialize" in some narrow group of autistics. Fine. Someone else would specialize in some other group. He isn't stopping them. Saying that he did is akin to saying that some doctor that studies cancer is at fault for the fact that people didn't find more effective ways to treat flu.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,889
Location: temperate zone

16 Jul 2018, 6:20 pm

MalchikBrodyaga wrote:
Some posters on this forum said that Kanner didn't want his condition to have a spectrum but, instead, he wanted it to cover just the most low functioning cases (as evident from him rejecting 90% people from his clinic). Personally, I am still rather skeptical: I mean Kanner DID mention that they have "high intellectual potential". But, regardless of whether that was actually Kanner's idea or not, I think the idea of having a separate diagnosis for the most severe cases would be a good idea (and then we can discuss whether to name it after Kanner or after someone else). I mean, if the most high functioning cases are being separated away into Asperger Syndrome, it would only be "symmetric" for low functining cases to be separated as well. And then of course we can separate out middle functining ones too.

Now you might ask: isn't it the same thing as breaking autism into levels of severity, the way it is currently done in DSM 5? No, not quite. If you break autism into levels of severity, what you are implying is that the most important thing is that they all lack social skills; and the fact that some of them happened to be profoundly retarded and other ones happened to have high functioning is just a side issue. But that attitude is quite misleading. I think if you are talking about profoundly autistic person who can't even take care of themselves, saying their main problem is social skills is ridiculous. So yeah, instead of breaking autism into levels of severity I would just name them all differently.

Some of you were saying that Kanner not admitting 90% of autistics into his clinic somehow slowed down autism awarenness. But that doesn't have to be the case. So Kanner decided to "specialize" in some narrow group of autistics. Fine. Someone else would specialize in some other group. He isn't stopping them. Saying that he did is akin to saying that some doctor that studies cancer is at fault for the fact that people didn't find more effective ways to treat flu.

Youre not making any sense.

Aspergers is already dissolved as a separate label, and the hard core low functioning autistics already have their own classification. And actually -so do HFAs and so do folks formerly labeled with aspergers.

The way they do it now is to divide the spectrum into three grades. Level I (needing minimal support), level II (needing moderate support), and level III (needing significant support).

The level III work out to being basically the same folks who would have been accepted by Kanner as truly autisitic (classic autism, or Kanner type autism- not official labels- but unofficial labels that mean the same thing as level one).

So your classic Kanner types do have their own seperate label now.

Folks like me (I apparently was one of the last Americans to be officially anointed as having aspergers) are now called "Level one autistic without speech delay" ( ie you are "high functioning now, and you learned to speak at the normal time babies learn to speak"). Just a long winded way to say the same thing as "aspergers". Lol!

If youre high functioning, but were delayed in learning speech as a child, you are "level one with a speech delay". Basically the same thing as what they used label "high funcitioning autistic" (youre like an aspie now, but were different from an aspie when you were a toddler).

Actually this modern "level" system is a pretty good way to slice it(now that I think about it). And it covers the very stuff youre concerned about in pretty good systematic way (as imperfectly well as any system of labels can, even if its a bit wordy a system).



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,446
Location: Stendec

16 Jul 2018, 6:46 pm

MalchikBrodyaga wrote:
What would have happened if we had even more autism labels?
You would have even more material to criticize and get wrong.

The Cracker Jack company called ... they're rescinding your psychology degree. :lol:


_________________
Fnord, the Metasyntactic Variable -- Keeping it real
since '57 by explaining the obvious to the oblivious!


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,689
Location: Long Island, New York

16 Jul 2018, 6:49 pm

As per the current knowledge, the Autism diagnosis should not be broken up into separate diagnosis but into more subcategories and more accurate subcategories.

Mentally Retarded autistics are covered in the DSM 5 with the diagnosis of "Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 3 with accompanying intellectual impairment".

Diagnostic labels should be based on science not based on whether the people receiving them do not want to be associated with other people with the same diagnosis for whatever reason.


_________________
Every idea is an incitement - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Recovering from tongue cancer, somewhat verbal.
Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity


MalchikBrodyaga
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 348

16 Jul 2018, 8:47 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
As per the current knowledge, the Autism diagnosis should not be broken up into separate diagnosis but into more subcategories and more accurate subcategories.

Mentally Retarded autistics are covered in the DSM 5 with the diagnosis of "Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 3 with accompanying intellectual impairment".

Diagnostic labels should be based on science not based on whether the people receiving them do not want to be associated with other people with the same diagnosis for whatever reason.


I am well aware of those subtypes. What I am trying to say is to call them by different names entirely rather than using those subtypes.

Take for example Schizotypal Personality Disorder. If they wanted to, they could have expanded schizophrenia so as to include it there: thus, Schizotypal people would be diagnosed with Schizophrenia (mild), while schizophrenics would be either Schizophrenia (moderate) or Schizophrenia (severe). But they didn't do that did they? The closest thing to that is European classification where they call it Schizotypal Disorder (instead of Schizotypal Personality Disorder) and classify it among psychotic disorders (as opposed to personality disorders). But even then they aren't calling it schizophrenia. And I agree with this: I think it would do schizotypals a disservice to be lumped together with schizophrenics. The same goes for the autism spectrum.

Incidentally, when you said that ASD type 1 is an equivalent of Asperger it wasn't quite right. The whole purpose of DSM 5 was to elevate diagnosting threshold, so that not all people who were diagnosed with Asperger under DSM 4 would qualify for the DSM 5 ASD diagnosis. The rest of aspies can be diagnosed with Social Communication Disorder under the DSM 5, which is formally separate from autism spectrum. Well I wish they were to separate out the rest of the labels.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,446
Location: Stendec

17 Jul 2018, 7:55 am

MalchikBrodyaga wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
As per the current knowledge, the Autism diagnosis should not be broken up into separate diagnosis but into more subcategories and more accurate subcategories. Mentally Retarded autistics are covered in the DSM 5 with the diagnosis of "Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 3 with accompanying intellectual impairment". Diagnostic labels should be based on science not based on whether the people receiving them do not want to be associated with other people with the same diagnosis for whatever reason.
I am well aware of those subtypes. What I am trying to say is to call them by different names entirely rather than using those subtypes...
Why? What would you gain by shifting labels around? Probably the same thing the crew of the Titanic gained by re-arranging the deck chairs...


_________________
Fnord, the Metasyntactic Variable -- Keeping it real
since '57 by explaining the obvious to the oblivious!


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,689
Location: Long Island, New York

17 Jul 2018, 5:47 pm

MalchikBrodyaga wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
As per the current knowledge, the Autism diagnosis should not be broken up into separate diagnosis but into more subcategories and more accurate subcategories.

Mentally Retarded autistics are covered in the DSM 5 with the diagnosis of "Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 3 with accompanying intellectual impairment".

Diagnostic labels should be based on science not based on whether the people receiving them do not want to be associated with other people with the same diagnosis for whatever reason.


I am well aware of those subtypes. What I am trying to say is to call them by different names entirely rather than using those subtypes.

That is what I meant by more accurate subcategories


_________________
Every idea is an incitement - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Recovering from tongue cancer, somewhat verbal.
Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,446
Location: Stendec

17 Jul 2018, 6:56 pm

MalchikBrodyaga wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
As per the current knowledge, the Autism diagnosis should not be broken up into separate diagnosis but into more subcategories and more accurate subcategories. Mentally Retarded autistics are covered in the DSM 5 with the diagnosis of "Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 3 with accompanying intellectual impairment". Diagnostic labels should be based on science not based on whether the people receiving them do not want to be associated with other people with the same diagnosis for whatever reason.
I am well aware of those subtypes. What I am trying to say is to call them by different names entirely rather than using those subtypes.
That would be like calling cow manure "Organic Fertilizer" -- it may have a better-sounding label, but the end result is still the same. Why don't you petition the people who publish the DSM to put you in charge of label-making? That way, not only would you be able to affix the labels you want, but you might get your own label-making machine, as well!


_________________
Fnord, the Metasyntactic Variable -- Keeping it real
since '57 by explaining the obvious to the oblivious!