Reclaiming our diagnosis despite the DSM 5

[Soup]

Most of us are now aware of the changes to our diagnosis in the new DSM. In short, with a few pen strokes, we Aspies have been erased & merged into the ASD category. The diagnostic criteria have also been changed, many say, in ways that seem disturbingly unscientific & arbitrary. Theories abound as to the 'true' motivations behind these changes. Many say it has to do with the costs of treatment & the influential pharmaceutical industry. In short, if you would require more therapeutic-type (VERY expensive but not profit-generating) interventions, you are likely to conveniently fall off the new spectrum & lose access to the support you require. If you have the kinds of symptoms for which drugs are (allegedly) available (cheap, cost-effective & very profitable), you're welcome to the spectrum.

Recent emergent scientific research supports what many of us know already: Asperger's, while related to Autism is not quite the same & is a distinct condition. This research (& others as well) will, hopefully, soon result in a DSM 5 (revised) that reinstates us despite the balking pharmaceutical companies whose claim, in effect, is: if we do not have a profitable drug (cheap to produce, costly to consumers & therefore profitable to us) to peddle to them, they do not exist!

Fresh fuel reignites Asperger's debate

 

[King_Oni]

This is what bothers me about healthcare in general. It's becoming a risk assessment rather than a tool for support.

Also, APA is slightly under fire because of some disorders they label and diagnose with their "ancient" methods by, if I'm not mistaken the NIMH. There are plenty of disorders you can detect through a brainscan of sorts. That would seem like a way more serious tool to state someone has disorder X. Tools similar to the DSM should be in place to see how these people can get support for whatever they need. Now we're doing an easy to cheat questionaire and assume that because you check all the boxes you should qualify for something in a medical sense. Resources are a totally different issue. You apparently can claim to be disabled and still not get the support you need in this world. Why should I even go out and look for this label? I could just as well not pursue a diagnosis and act unpredictable and erratic through life then. Chances are I'm at least enjoying myself more.

And let's not forget that while meds might work for a fair share, they don't work the exact same way for everyone. And as long as they cannot predict the outcome I rather not change my brain around with these kind of chemicals. I could just as well request a few blows to the cranium and hope I get my stuff sorted out.

To me, medication is only a viable tool if it can do magic with surgical precision, can address only that specific part in the brain AND if there is plenty of support and service (and perhaps other resources) to start over. The way they do it now, seems equally barbaric as decades ago. We just commercialized lobotomy and changed it with a pill, because lobotomy and similar treatments are frowned upon by human rights organisations.

I for one, have never spoken to anyone who was on meds and because of the meds actually ended up in a position in life he/she wanted. It's more like "this is wrong... here, try this, it's still wrong, but less wrong and in a different direction".

Closing with a quote from a dutch stand-up comedian "In Nederland is 70% chemisch vrolijk" (In the Netherlands 70% of the population is chemically happy). Well, the aspie in me says, everyone is chemically happy, because dopamine is still a chemical, but his quote as intended is quite spot on if you ask me. I think you can apply this to most Western countries even.

That's my soapbox rant for today... onto breakfast!