Autism Numbers May Decline Under New DSM

[Spinosaurus kin]

The reason more people are being diagnosed at the moment is because more people actually look at this stuff! I mean, now we have the internet, we can research traits and symptoms, so the number of symptoms has to increase?

This is one of the moments i wish to kill things.

 

[Turnip]

Spinosaurus kin: that's a good point (I presume, and took your post as if the second use of "symptoms" was intended to say something like "diagnosed persons"), but I believe that the figures that are being decreased are the number of people in a sample population that would be diagnosed if the entire sample was tested, ie. I understand that something like the 1 in 88 figure I mentioned earlier in the thread is the people who are diagnosable as being on the spectrum, not the ratio of people with actual diagnosise.

 

[Tarragon]

This is a really good quality program (reputable source- BBC Horizon series has a really good reputation for accuracy and balanced content) about Autism, and it implies that autism traits may be present throughout the entire human population. It is the severity of the affect of these traits which lead to a diagnosis of autism for an individual.

Aspergers isn't "mild" autism, it is autism, just a different presentation. I can see why they wanted to reclassify it as under the "autistic badge" (which it already was?!!). But, as a way of describing the ways the autism presents itself, Aspergers is a good label for, well, aspies(!!). Just because they are mucking about with paper definitions doesn't invalidate us.

I find it hard to believe that anyone is trying to narrow the criteria for classification of autistic people in order to reduce the cost of helping people. Mind you, if it is true then I would rather believe its a case of bad judgement rather than deliberate design.

I'm sure if it is a mistake, it will get modified again.

But, I am glad to be now defined within a more inclusive autism umbrella. I did feel that Aspergers was possibly seen as a "mild form of autism" which set us apart. This is wrong, and I'd rather have the new definitions if it helps bind the autistic community together better.

I think that more work needs to be done to promote autism as something not to be scared of, especially with the possible implications of misinformation leading to calls for "screening" of pregnancies for autism. If it is something everyone has (to a greater or lesser extent) then there exists the possibility of having a greater acceptance of autism within the wider community. If NT's are shown to have autism traits, then they might have more understanding and compassion (and tolerance) of people further along the spectrum.

So, I think it's a good move to reclassify Aspergers - as long as it doesn't abandon those who need help.

 

[gouldgrl]

Source; Autism Numbers May Decline Under New DSM - Disability Scoop

I'm not surprised by this latest attempt to artificially decrease the number of diagnoses; however, I wonder if the DSM is considered a guide or a rigid, set-in-stone means of diagnosing? In other words, would a conscientious, knowledgeable psychologist diagnose someone strictly "by the book," or would he/she not take into account other sources of information and use his/her own judgment along with what the DSM criteria state?

 

[Judge]

I'm not surprised by this latest attempt to artificially decrease the number of diagnoses; however, I wonder if the DSM is considered a guide or a rigid, set-in-stone means of diagnosing? In other words, would a conscientious, knowledgeable psychologist diagnose someone strictly "by the book," or would he/she not take into account other sources of information and use his/her own judgment along with what the DSM criteria state?

I'd count on that given how fluid and subjective all these "disorders" are and how they seem to overlap each other in terms of symptoms, behaviors and traits. That it might be a science, albeit not an exact one to the medical community. Where the rules change with disturbing frequency.

Hard to respect "the book" when it can change in such a manner within a professional community. In comparison even our legal system has more intellectual stability IMO.

 

[King_Oni]

I'm not surprised by this latest attempt to artificially decrease the number of diagnoses; however, I wonder if the DSM is considered a guide or a rigid, set-in-stone means of diagnosing? In other words, would a conscientious, knowledgeable psychologist diagnose someone strictly "by the book," or would he/she not take into account other sources of information and use his/her own judgment along with what the DSM criteria state?

From what I understand, the DSM is initially around as a guide, though more and more this seems to be the go to way for anyone to diagnose. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that using the same book and criteria means all professionals "speak the same language"... even though interpretation, especially non-verbal cues, might leave something to be desired.

Also considering that there aren't a lot of other ways to diagnose, which don't rely heavily upon what's in the DSM books. Methods proven are often adapted into the DSM when a new version comes out.

On the other hand, the DSM is so expansive now, most disorders are covered now. By now I'm convinced they're just making some up to make it look like there are more disorders... last I heard the amount of disorders from DSM IV to V got almost tripled... I dont even want to think about the number of new disorders in the next iteration.

 

[Arashi222]

I'm not surprised by this latest attempt to artificially decrease the number of diagnoses; however, I wonder if the DSM is considered a guide or a rigid, set-in-stone means of diagnosing? In other words, would a conscientious, knowledgeable psychologist diagnose someone strictly "by the book," or would he/she not take into account other sources of information and use his/her own judgment along with what the DSM criteria state?

I good psychologist/psychiatrist who specializes in autism will always use experience and the book to guide them. They will also make use of how to get insurance to cover treatment which is what the insurance goes by is the DSM. So it is kinda a dance with a good doctor.

 

[Judge]

So it is kinda a dance with a good doctor.

That's what I'm thinking, Arashi. That if I ever choose to get a formal diagnosis I'm going to pay good money for someone with a reputation in the field and not simply nominal qualifications.

 

[Asterism]

The DSM is an attempt to classify, categorize and pigeonhole supposed conditions that often have no clear boundaries. It's like saying the sky is blue, when in reality the sky can be anything from a hazy white to a stormy gray to a brilliant ultramarine. As valuable as it might be, in my opinion, it should be viewed more as a set of generalizations rather than a manual to arrive precise diagnoses. What's really distorted the DSM, as Arashi mentioned, are insurance company procedures. They base their payments around the DSM, so everything gets pushed in the direction of arriving at diagnoses that maximize insurance payments.