With a chance of getting the advice like "making a thread will get more people to respond" I'll keep headstrong and try the blog first 
Quite often I ramble about employment, education, social services and how that all ties in (or depending what your stance is "messes") with autism in the broad sense. And right now, is one of these moments again where I'm at a crossroads and a discussion like this comes at hand again.
Now, the 1 million dollar question is, and mind you, I cannot phone a friend, ask the audience of remove 2 out of 4 answers out of the equation... also, the answer does not have to be formed like a question, but I have that tune going on right now. The question is;
Should it be mandatory to have kids tested on a broad spectrum of psychological disorders at birth, maybe as say.. 8 year olds, and then somewhere in their mid-teens?
The reason this came up is because; I've spoken to people who filed for disability benefits because unemployment benefits regulations are getting tight, as well as that it's becoming impossible for people on any spectrum to "just get a job". Reports already pointed out that due to those regulations more people will end in poverty(and especially the ones who can't get a job due to being "disabled", if I go to a job agency, give them my diagnosis and ask them "do you have anything for me, or any advice". The most sound advice they give me is "file for disability, we can't help you for a job. Not now, and not in the long run"). And as far as I know, my city does not deal in foodstamps, nor have any homeless shelters (why should they, with that one hobo who scours the streets each day), nor proper support to help the "less fortunate". People will eventually end up in the street, where they'll get fined over the silliest reasons like "sleeping on public property". The one homeless guy I know, has been in and out of the local policestation way too often. And with that he gets fines, he'll do time again, get out and then end up getting arrested for well.. "being a hobo". Of course I don't know his deal entirely. But I'm drifting away again.
Now, when talking to people who filed for disability recently I've heard a story where a doctor who had to assess his situation told him "because you can't prove that you were autistic when you were 18 years old (that's a requirement to file disability if you're not having a job), you're denied". That's where I cringe a bit inside. Therapists agree that autism is a disorder with which you are born. Yes, how that manifests itself is different for everyone, but still, if the conditions are right, it can be an impact in your education and your employment. With that, some people can function halfway decent at a certain age, but it can improve, as well as deteriorate. My mom told me that as a kid I was "weird", but now I'm totally out of my mind. I don't want to be a victim here, but I feel that this issue should be the one of social services who, to my information, together with me should look for a solution. Meet eachother halfway and work it. Now it seems like I'm going all the way just to end up waiting for a closed door because "no budget" or "no time" or "no options".
With that, comes the question to mind. I'm 29 now, recently diagnosed. Yes I have an extensive history of therapists, but no one ever diagnosed anything. The first time I saw a therapist was when I was 6 or 7. They thought I had anger issues, while in fact my most recent therapist told me "you were having meltdowns". But because nothing was diagnosed, I can see them pulling this on me as well. Thus comes the question to mind if all kids should be tested on a broad spectrum of disorders, just to make sure people will get labeled correctly over time, and thus IF... the big word... IF they need support, they are decently backed up. For what it's worth, my parents did not have a clue what my problem was, nor did they have any clue where to go with me. They figured that I was quiet and ok, if I got my toys and spend time in my room... each day. They made sure they knew how to handle me, yet we all grow up and with that come responsibilities, which some people based on how they were raised, cannot handle, don't understand or never learned, yet that is totally neglected.
A small jump back, about a paragraph. "just to make sure people will get labeled correctly over time...". I remember talking to a girl during NYE. Yes there was booze and there were girls, so that might get me to talk to someone. But I digress, we didn't talk about "hey, nice shoes" we talked about policitics and cutbacks. She was a socialworker in training. She still was in school for it. We got in talks about benefits for artists, to where I told her "so, they're cutting back on those" to where she said "that's good, if they can make art, they can have a job"... I was quite surprised that she wasn't aware that a fair share of artists (but then again; the ones I know) are people who are totally not fit to function in the world. Most never finished high school and make art just for the sake of keeping a bit sane and busy (and doingt something they love). Heck, even if you're having autism and you go to an "activitycenter" they'll ask if you want to paint or do other arts. Thus, I rest my case in the sense that a lot of artists, and even the ones that actually make money of it, are good at one thing... making art. No, not all of them are good enough to sustain a living, but they surely aren't fine to sustain a healthy and sane mindset without it. Anyway, when I told her that she said "isn't that a problem in how they're being assessed". She is right. If you cannot function, then you should be labeled correctly. But if doctors who assess if people are actually disabled, do not act objectively and pretty much get told "9 out of 10 people will need to be cleared and 1 can be disabled, regardless of what his condition actually is", you're not assessing it correctly. Also; people who lived OFF the grid for while. Think squatters. Their lifestyle is far from "normal" so to say. More recently they outlawed squatting, and as a result people who choose to be "outcasts of society" themselves, are being put IN the system again. Then comes income and jobs, which they might not have, and that's how you get more people into an already wonky system of benefits, which might not have been labeled correctly. Especially if you look at a fairshare of squatters I've talked to in the past. The most common stories you hear is "I left my parents house when I was 14 or 15". Which most of time is because they had a hard time in "adapting" to the expectations of society (and the paternal house).
A little disclaimer here; this is all from a someone in Holland, not the US, and as such, this is not "advice", this is a rant, some food for thought and a weird little analysis I made by observing what's going on in this small country I live in, as well as some actual conversations I had with people in the past.
Quite often I ramble about employment, education, social services and how that all ties in (or depending what your stance is "messes") with autism in the broad sense. And right now, is one of these moments again where I'm at a crossroads and a discussion like this comes at hand again.
Now, the 1 million dollar question is, and mind you, I cannot phone a friend, ask the audience of remove 2 out of 4 answers out of the equation... also, the answer does not have to be formed like a question, but I have that tune going on right now. The question is;
Should it be mandatory to have kids tested on a broad spectrum of psychological disorders at birth, maybe as say.. 8 year olds, and then somewhere in their mid-teens?
The reason this came up is because; I've spoken to people who filed for disability benefits because unemployment benefits regulations are getting tight, as well as that it's becoming impossible for people on any spectrum to "just get a job". Reports already pointed out that due to those regulations more people will end in poverty(and especially the ones who can't get a job due to being "disabled", if I go to a job agency, give them my diagnosis and ask them "do you have anything for me, or any advice". The most sound advice they give me is "file for disability, we can't help you for a job. Not now, and not in the long run"). And as far as I know, my city does not deal in foodstamps, nor have any homeless shelters (why should they, with that one hobo who scours the streets each day), nor proper support to help the "less fortunate". People will eventually end up in the street, where they'll get fined over the silliest reasons like "sleeping on public property". The one homeless guy I know, has been in and out of the local policestation way too often. And with that he gets fines, he'll do time again, get out and then end up getting arrested for well.. "being a hobo". Of course I don't know his deal entirely. But I'm drifting away again.
Now, when talking to people who filed for disability recently I've heard a story where a doctor who had to assess his situation told him "because you can't prove that you were autistic when you were 18 years old (that's a requirement to file disability if you're not having a job), you're denied". That's where I cringe a bit inside. Therapists agree that autism is a disorder with which you are born. Yes, how that manifests itself is different for everyone, but still, if the conditions are right, it can be an impact in your education and your employment. With that, some people can function halfway decent at a certain age, but it can improve, as well as deteriorate. My mom told me that as a kid I was "weird", but now I'm totally out of my mind. I don't want to be a victim here, but I feel that this issue should be the one of social services who, to my information, together with me should look for a solution. Meet eachother halfway and work it. Now it seems like I'm going all the way just to end up waiting for a closed door because "no budget" or "no time" or "no options".
With that, comes the question to mind. I'm 29 now, recently diagnosed. Yes I have an extensive history of therapists, but no one ever diagnosed anything. The first time I saw a therapist was when I was 6 or 7. They thought I had anger issues, while in fact my most recent therapist told me "you were having meltdowns". But because nothing was diagnosed, I can see them pulling this on me as well. Thus comes the question to mind if all kids should be tested on a broad spectrum of disorders, just to make sure people will get labeled correctly over time, and thus IF... the big word... IF they need support, they are decently backed up. For what it's worth, my parents did not have a clue what my problem was, nor did they have any clue where to go with me. They figured that I was quiet and ok, if I got my toys and spend time in my room... each day. They made sure they knew how to handle me, yet we all grow up and with that come responsibilities, which some people based on how they were raised, cannot handle, don't understand or never learned, yet that is totally neglected.
A small jump back, about a paragraph. "just to make sure people will get labeled correctly over time...". I remember talking to a girl during NYE. Yes there was booze and there were girls, so that might get me to talk to someone. But I digress, we didn't talk about "hey, nice shoes" we talked about policitics and cutbacks. She was a socialworker in training. She still was in school for it. We got in talks about benefits for artists, to where I told her "so, they're cutting back on those" to where she said "that's good, if they can make art, they can have a job"... I was quite surprised that she wasn't aware that a fair share of artists (but then again; the ones I know) are people who are totally not fit to function in the world. Most never finished high school and make art just for the sake of keeping a bit sane and busy (and doingt something they love). Heck, even if you're having autism and you go to an "activitycenter" they'll ask if you want to paint or do other arts. Thus, I rest my case in the sense that a lot of artists, and even the ones that actually make money of it, are good at one thing... making art. No, not all of them are good enough to sustain a living, but they surely aren't fine to sustain a healthy and sane mindset without it. Anyway, when I told her that she said "isn't that a problem in how they're being assessed". She is right. If you cannot function, then you should be labeled correctly. But if doctors who assess if people are actually disabled, do not act objectively and pretty much get told "9 out of 10 people will need to be cleared and 1 can be disabled, regardless of what his condition actually is", you're not assessing it correctly. Also; people who lived OFF the grid for while. Think squatters. Their lifestyle is far from "normal" so to say. More recently they outlawed squatting, and as a result people who choose to be "outcasts of society" themselves, are being put IN the system again. Then comes income and jobs, which they might not have, and that's how you get more people into an already wonky system of benefits, which might not have been labeled correctly. Especially if you look at a fairshare of squatters I've talked to in the past. The most common stories you hear is "I left my parents house when I was 14 or 15". Which most of time is because they had a hard time in "adapting" to the expectations of society (and the paternal house).
A little disclaimer here; this is all from a someone in Holland, not the US, and as such, this is not "advice", this is a rant, some food for thought and a weird little analysis I made by observing what's going on in this small country I live in, as well as some actual conversations I had with people in the past.
