Aspergers Syndrome/ Asperger/ Asperger's Syndrome?? Any preferences?

[Ste83ph]

I'm writing a thesis (about counselling and Aspergers). My supervisor just pointed out that most charities are using the word 'Asperger' not 'Asperger's'... Does anyone have an opinion on which is best to use?

Thanks,
Steph

 

[AGXStarseed]

I prefer Asperger Syndrome myself.

 

[unsurewhattoname]

Don't they all mean the same thing?

 

[Ste83ph]

Don't they all mean the same thing?

Yeah... Some people have strong preferences over specific wordings. Personally it wasn't something I had considered as important but I thought I'd better check before I just went for 'Asperger's Syndrome'.
Thanks for replying

 

[DogwoodTree]

I believe Asperger's Syndrome is more technically correct, since the syndrome is named after Hans Asperger. But people get lazy and drop the 's off of a lot of other terms, too. But you wouldn't say "Einstein Theory of Relativity", you'd say "Einstein's Theory of Relativity."

ETA: I personally don't have a preference either way. But I do some technical writing, and when you're writing something for publication, it's important to be accurate on terms (especially one that represents the main topic of your thesis). The general public might not notice the difference, but people who are educated on the issue will think less of your paper if you don't use the correct form of the term.

 

[Judge]

Perhaps it would be most logical to associate whatever you choose to call it in accordance with chronology first and foremost.

It's my understanding that in the US, if you were formally diagnosed as of May 2013, under the provisions of the DSM-V it's "Autism Spectrum Disorder". However if you were formally diagnosed prior to that date, subject to the terms and conditions of the DSM-IV as of 1994, it would be formally referred to as "Asperger's Disorder".

To my knowledge, historically speaking it was referred to as "Asperger's Syndrome" or Asperger Syndrome when first professionally acknowledged in general by the medical community in 1981, although Dr. Asperger's research was released in 1944.

Whatever one chooses to call it, my concerns are a bit more complex in pondering the real intent of the DSM-V's reclassification of Asperger's Disorder to Autism Spectrum Disorder. Given a likelihood that it carries not only the influence of the scientific and medical community, but politicians and insurers as well. Those whose interests may be more grounded in fiscal reasoning than mental health.

 

[unsurewhattoname]

Perhaps it would be most logical to associate whatever you choose to call it in accordance with chronology first and foremost.

It's my understanding that in the US, if you were formally diagnosed as of May 2013, under the provisions of the DSM-V it's "Autism Spectrum Disorder". However if you were formally diagnosed prior to that date, subject to the terms and conditions of the DSM-IV as of 1994, it would be formally referred to as "Asperger's Disorder".

To my knowledge, historically speaking it was referred to as "Asperger's Syndrome" or Asperger Syndrome when first professionally acknowledged in general by the medical community in 1981, although Dr. Asperger's research was released in 1944.

Whatever one chooses to call it, my concerns are a bit more complex in pondering the real intent of the DSM-V's reclassification of Asperger's Disorder to Autism Spectrum Disorder. Given a likelihood that it carries not only the influence of the scientific and medical community, but politicians and insurers as well. Those whose interests may be more grounded in fiscal reasoning than mental health.

I was diagnosed this year with Asperger's syndrome.

 

[Ste83ph]

Perhaps it would be most logical to associate whatever you choose to call it in accordance with chronology first and foremost.

That's sensible, that leaves me with Asperger's Syndrome. I think technically it would be 'Disorder', but I don't like that and academics never use it.

Whatever one chooses to call it, my concerns are a bit more complex in pondering the real intent of the DSM-V's reclassification of Asperger's Disorder to Autism Spectrum Disorder. Given a likelihood that it carries not only the influence of the scientific and medical community, but politicians and insurers as well. Those whose interests may be more grounded in fiscal reasoning than mental health.

Yes indeed. My understanding is it was a clinical/academic decision based on the theory that Asperger's is on a spectrum with autism, rather than a categorically distinct diagnosis. But I agree that the implications for funding/support could be significant. Not to mention the implication of removing a name that many people are proud to identify with.

 

[Judge]

I was diagnosed this year with Asperger's syndrome.

Yes, I've heard a number of people formally diagnosed using any number of the terminologies out there. While the DSM standardizes it, there's no guarantee of a physician complying with that standard. Which further convolutes it all.

If professionals are unwilling or indifferent to conforming to professional standardization, what does that reflect about the process in general? Small wonder whatever one calls it, they're likely to find some degree of controversy somewhere.

 

[unsurewhattoname]

Yes, I've heard a number of people formally diagnosed using any number of the terminologies out there. While the DSM standardizes it, there's no guarantee of a physician complying with that standard. Which further convolutes it all.

It's almost as though there's this different method of diagnosing outside the US called the ICD 10, isn't it? Very strange.

 

[Ste83ph]

It's almost as though there's this different method of diagnosing outside the US called the ICD 10, isn't it? Very strange.

Well yes, that is another complication, I don't think the ICD-10 has followed suite yet, although it probably will.

 

[Judge]

It's almost as though there's this different method of diagnosing outside the US called the ICD 10, isn't it? Very strange.

The World Health Organization's ICD-11. It's why I always refer to the DSM in terms of the USA and not necessarily everywhere else. Although there are some nations using both standards...which again further complicates it all IMO.

At times it leaves me with a somewhat poor opinion of medical professionals. That whatever standards they have created and don't uniformly conform to actually reflect more of a professional "vote of no-confidence".

Leaving people like ourselves very frustrated over those who have so much influence and control over whatever our neurological profile actually is- or isn't.

 

[unsurewhattoname]

Well yes, that is another complication, I don't think the ICD-10 has followed suite yet, although it probably will.

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2015/en#/F84.5

Yeah, still on there. Maybe someday it'll disappear though.

 

[unsurewhattoname]

The World Health Organization's ICD-11. It's why I always refer to the DSM in terms of the USA and not necessarily everywhere else. Although there are some nations using both standards...which again further complicates it all IMO.

At times it leaves me with a somewhat poor opinion of medical professionals. That whatever standards they have created and don't uniformly conform to actually reflect more of a professional "vote of no-confidence".

Oh right, cool. Thanks, never knew there was an ICD 11 - I was diagnosed under ICD 10 I think.

I found it: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/437815624

 

[Judge]

Sometimes I think of these constant updates of classification systems like Photoshop 5.5...or Windows 10.

I guess if the DSM ever skips a number like Microsoft we'll know we're in trouble.

 

[unsurewhattoname]

Why would that mean we're in trouble? I like windows 10.

 

[Judge]

It's almost as though there's this different method of diagnosing outside the US called the ICD 10, isn't it? Very strange.

Ahhh. Just noticed you were from the UK. To my knowledge the NHS uses the ICD as their standard. But even then, do all physicians in Britain uniformly follow the ICD ?

With socialized medicine I'd assume so...but you never know.

 

[Judge]

Why would that mean we're in trouble? I like windows 10.

LOL. No. Windows 10 was an improvement. So much so that they just skipped a number to make it seem like an entirely different- and new product. A marketing technique used to mask a disaster called "Windows 8".

But IMO professional medical bodies and their standards should never reflect marketing, let alone disasters.

 

[clg114]

Yes, I've heard a number of people formally diagnosed using any number of the terminologies out there. While the DSM standardizes it, there's no guarantee of a physician complying with that standard. Which further convolutes it all.

If professionals are unwilling or indifferent to conforming to professional standardization, what does that reflect about the process in general? Small wonder whatever one calls it, they're likely to find some degree of controversy somewhere.

On my diagnosis it says "Asperger's Syndrome", so I thought that was the correct term. I should confess that I could not remember what term they used on my diagnosis and had to find it to see. To me, it really does not make any difference, but you are right. The pros do not seem to agree on any one term.

 

[unsurewhattoname]

LOL. No. Windows 10 was an improvement. So much so that they just skipped a number to make it seem like an entirely different- and new product. A marketing technique used to mask a disaster called "Windows 8".

I thought they skipped 9 because 9x would refer to windows 95-2000 and it might get confused with them or something.