Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

I think we're too quick to label things as disorders rather than just differences and go about finding ways to "fix" them instead of being more tolerant and flexible with each other.  In other words, the dominant culture will only accept a specific range of personality traits.  If you fall out of this range, you're going to be some combination of marginalized out of existence, labeled subhuman, or mercilessly tinkered with until you can be made more like everyone else.  I can understand if a person literally cannot function... but... poor social skills?  People can just fucking get over themselves.  If a person cannot communicate at all with other human beings, that's one thing.  Being a mild annoyance because you have trouble noticing social cues, on the other hand, is not sound basis for mental re-programming through brute chemical force.   Grrr.... this is one of my berserk buttons.

[G-Flex]

I hear rumors of a change in the medical definitions of certain mental illnesses that include a simplification that would make it so that people with mental illnesses will be declared ether to have aspergers or be normal, basically the stuff they used to be diagnosed with is no longer a thing.

I'm not sure if that fits this thread though, and I don't have any solid facts. But it does seem like something Vector would talk about.

Its not rumors its being done for DSM 5.


they are defining the line between Aspergers and autism. basically you can have aspergers but you aren't considered autistic. Frankly it needs to be done, autism is a little too strong label for some people with aspergers. frankly i don't want to cover the whole details cause right now its still a mess. Biggest change was combining ADD and ADHD together and just put it on a usual level from mild to serious.

The DSM-IV already has "a line between Aspergers and autism". Those with Aspergers aren't "considered autistic" any more than they will be in the DSM-V; they're separate diagnoses with (somewhat) different criteria. The definitions are changing for the DSM-V, but it's not as if there's isn't a distinction now.

If I'm wrong, though, please let me know.

[ChairmanPoo]

That's how I understand the consensus to be at the moment, as well.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I can understand if a person literally cannot function... but... poor social skills?  People can just fucking get over themselves.  If a person cannot communicate at all with other human beings, that's one thing.  Being a mild annoyance because you have trouble noticing social cues, on the other hand, is not sound basis for mental re-programming through brute chemical force.   Grrr.... this is one of my berserk buttons.

The issue that Aspergers and autism causes in the context of this argument is that it really does make some people unable to function. Socialization is very important. We, as a species, are primarily socially inclined. Humans are not really evolved in a way that allows us thrive in solitude. That's the whole point of civilization.

Certainly we shouldn't be unreasonable about it, but it is important to try and make sure those born with Aspergers, or in the autistic specrum, and whom are not severely effected enough that they may live a normal life are given whatever assistance is needed to ensure that they can exist in a social environment. It would be irresponsible not to, because that is one of the things you need for a normal life. Inability to notice social cues goes beyond the annoying. While it is certainly a frustrating thing, the bigger issue is that much of the time getting your point across to someone requires social cues and body language. Only what is spoken is sometimes insufficient to convey meaning, and some things in the tangled web of human interaction aren't spoken at all, just understood in a subconscious way.

Although I agree on the drugs angle. Chemical re-balancing isn't something that should really work for those with autism or Aspergers anyway. That's probably a better tool for those who have fallen into a mental disorder in the course of their lives rather than those who were born with a different kind of mind to begin with.

[Deadmeat1471]

I can understand if a person literally cannot function... but... poor social skills?  People can just fucking get over themselves.  If a person cannot communicate at all with other human beings, that's one thing.  Being a mild annoyance because you have trouble noticing social cues, on the other hand, is not sound basis for mental re-programming through brute chemical force.   Grrr.... this is one of my berserk buttons.

The issue that Aspergers and autism causes in the context of this argument is that it really does make some people unable to function. Socialization is very important.

In psychological terms, what defines a mental illness is something that makes people unable to function in regular life. I'd say this statement is very true.

[palsch]

The DSM-IV already has "a line between Aspergers and autism". Those with Aspergers aren't "considered autistic" any more than they will be in the DSM-V; they're separate diagnoses with (somewhat) different criteria. The definitions are changing for the DSM-V, but it's not as if there's isn't a distinction now.

If I'm wrong, though, please let me know.

Right now both Asperger's and autism (along with Rett's, CDD and PDD-NOS) fall under Pervasive Developmental Disorders, also known as the Autistic Spectrum. The proposed revision is to roll this into a single Autistic Spectrum Disorder, which includes Asperger's. The thing is, the new ASD is likely to exclude at least some current Asperger's diagnoses. The rationale page on the Asperger's page explains why they are doing this.


For the record, I don't think any of this is about drugs at all. It is about making resources available to those on the edge of needing them. I was eligible for a moderate salary for mentioning an undergraduate student who had Asperger's when I was a post-grad. I never claimed and hours because he needed very little help and we ended up meeting in bars more often than formal meetings. However, had he or another student who was on the very edge of the spectrum needed more substantial help it might not have been possible without those funds being available . All too often only those with official diagnoses qualify for such funding. My preference is to go with the DSM-V changes but push to make such help more widely accepted to students considered neutrotypical (or at least clinically neutrotypical, allowing for self-identification rather than depending on diagnosis).

[Criptfeind]

Well. I dunno much about this technical talk.

All I know is that it could fuck me. Ether fuck me by making me unable to get what I need, or fuck me by forcing me to get to much. Ether way I am fucked.

[SalmonGod]

My brother has mild aspergers.  His main symptoms are he tells really bad jokes, doesn't notice when people are no longer interested in what he's saying, hums to himself, and doesn't like to be touched.  As a result, he got picked on by his classmates and marginalized by his teachers, so he lost interest in school and performed poorly.  I watched them try various drug cocktails on him throughout his teen years, mainly looking for something that would get him to focus on school and get his grades up.  They all made him miserable and prevented him from learning how to really handle himself because he was never allowed to actually be himself. 

The one my parents and the doctors liked the results from the most made him barely human.  He had no appetite and zero personality at all.  He did what he was told and then he slept.  That was it.  He was like a robot that could be turned on to perform tasks and would then shut itself off.  He was on that for most of his senior year in high school, and then started refusing to take anything.  Now he's a near total recluse who is failing out of college because of emotional baggage and having 6 or 7 years of catching up to do on actually discovering himself.

So I'm kind of biased.

Plus, I look at the stuff small children are medicated for today, and I think I probably would have been put on something if I'd been born just a few years later.  Today I have more self-control than most people I know.  Hiro's not even as bad as I was, and I had to fight through some serious family drama, when my wife and parents thought that he needed to be put on something.  He was rescued at literally the last second by a very caring social worker bursting into the room and declaring that he did not need to be medicated, as the doctor was just finishing up the paperwork.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It sounds like your brother's doctor was extremely incompetent and unethical, and like your parents weren't very concerned about his actual health. I'd need to know more about him to really make my own opinion of weather or not mild aspergers is a fair diagnosis, but it definitely doesn't warrant what you're describing even if it is. I reiterate that my personal position is that in the field of mental health, for the most part, individuals who develop disorders benefit more from medication and individuals who are born with disorders benefit more from learning how to live with them.

Also, SalmonGod, given that your parents also went after medicating your own child, it sounds like they have a serious problem with using medicine as a club. You might want to consider distancing yourself from them.

[SalmonGod]

I really have very few conflicts with my parents.  Just a couple major ones that are now all in the past.

And it's not just them.  Medication to manage every undesirable emotion or behavior seems like such common accepted practice these days, regardless of whether there's anything actually medically wrong, especially for children.

[Tellemurius]

I hear rumors of a change in the medical definitions of certain mental illnesses that include a simplification that would make it so that people with mental illnesses will be declared ether to have aspergers or be normal, basically the stuff they used to be diagnosed with is no longer a thing.

I'm not sure if that fits this thread though, and I don't have any solid facts. But it does seem like something Vector would talk about.

Its not rumors its being done for DSM 5.


they are defining the line between Aspergers and autism. basically you can have aspergers but you aren't considered autistic. Frankly it needs to be done, autism is a little too strong label for some people with aspergers. frankly i don't want to cover the whole details cause right now its still a mess. Biggest change was combining ADD and ADHD together and just put it on a usual level from mild to serious.

The DSM-IV already has "a line between Aspergers and autism". Those with Aspergers aren't "considered autistic" any more than they will be in the DSM-V; they're separate diagnoses with (somewhat) different criteria. The definitions are changing for the DSM-V, but it's not as if there's isn't a distinction now.

If I'm wrong, though, please let me know.

In DSM IV aspergers is considered a autistic disorder.

[Vector]

You seem not to understand that the Asperger's diagnosis is being removed entirely.  They're not saying "Okay, we're folding the autism spectrum into one thing, and then we're making a new diagnosis for borderline cases that used to be dx'd under Asperger's."  A lot of people who had a diagnosis will now be ineligible for help at all.

[Tellemurius]

You seem not to understand that the Asperger's diagnosis is being removed entirely.  They're not saying "Okay, we're folding the autism spectrum into one thing, and then we're making a new diagnosis for borderline cases that used to be dx'd under Asperger's."  A lot of people who had a diagnosis will now be ineligible for help at all.

i keep hearing about the removal but its not gonna happen. Problem with the spectrum is aspergers is nickpicky on what autistic symptoms  you are afflicted or whether you even have them. it is considered no difference with HFA (highly functioning Autism) and thats why they want to remove it. Autism is also labelled due to the 'tick' people have and most asperger diagnosis don't have one or even that severe compared to OCD.

[palsch]

A lot of people who had a diagnosis will now be ineligible for help at all.

This is the point I want a way of challenging.

A lot of people^* might lose their diagnosis but the only real reason that they would lose help is because secondary systems tie that help to the diagnosis rigidly. While in some areas this can work that doesn't make sense to me. The first rule in dealing with anything of this sort should be flexibility and adaptability to each case. Actually that should be the approach to any human being.

In a sense I do sort of hope there are some who risk being cut off in order to raise awareness of this and expand such services beyond the bright-line clinical needs of often fuzzy diagnoses and onto a more inclusive basis.

Spoiler: * (click to show/hide)

How many I'm not sure; the DSM-V is meant to include all 'clinical' symptoms and I personally strongly disagree with giving people a clinical diagnosis based on how they identify - the group explicitly mentioned as losing their diagnosis under the change. I don't have a problem with identify as being Asperger's, but that shouldn't be anywhere near a clinical determination.

For these diagnoses to be useful they should determine the level of clinical care advised for the individual. The only levels of Asperger's to be cut off should be those who require no clinical care - and even then not all those would be excluded - even if they require additional non-clinical services in later life. I think that many of these services should be more available to the neurotypical and -atypical alike, regardless of diagnosis and self-identification.

[Tellemurius]

A lot of people who had a diagnosis will now be ineligible for help at all.

This is the point I want a way of challenging.

A lot of people^* might lose their diagnosis but the only real reason that they would lose help is because secondary systems tie that help to the diagnosis rigidly. While in some areas this can work that doesn't make sense to me. The first rule in dealing with anything of this sort should be flexibility and adaptability to each case. Actually that should be the approach to any human being.

In a sense I do sort of hope there are some who risk being cut off in order to raise awareness of this and expand such services beyond the bright-line clinical needs of often fuzzy diagnoses and onto a more inclusive basis.

Spoiler: * (click to show/hide)

How many I'm not sure; the DSM-V is meant to include all 'clinical' symptoms and I personally strongly disagree with giving people a clinical diagnosis based on how they identify - the group explicitly mentioned as losing their diagnosis under the change. I don't have a problem with identify as being Asperger's, but that shouldn't be anywhere near a clinical determination.

For these diagnoses to be useful they should determine the level of clinical care advised for the individual. The only levels of Asperger's to be cut off should be those who require no clinical care - and even then not all those would be excluded - even if they require additional non-clinical services in later life. I think that many of these services should be more available to the neurotypical and -atypical alike, regardless of diagnosis and self-identification.

what i been trying to say ^^

also, who considers Aspergers a detrimental effect on them? i always considered it the same as like ADD and ADHD