DSM-V - Diagnosed But Would Now Not Be

I'm assuming with the DSM-V criteria, there are people out there who have been diagnosed but would now not be?

The reason I say this is that one of the criteria is that it must limit you on a daily basis; that means that all those on Youtube and on the forums who say they had no idea they were autistic would surely now not be diagnosed?

Where I'm going with this is I suspect I'm autistic but that the extent won't be enough for a diagnosis. So, is it therefore possible nowadays to be autistic but receive a formal diagnosis that you're not?

I'd have thought that you either are, or are not autistic, but of course it's a spectrum and it seems, (possibly because of increased awareness and pressure on the NHS) that the medical experts you see will know you are autistic but send you home with a diagnosis that you're not if it's mild.

Seems a shame but that's how it's shaping up to me.

Parents
  • I don't think you should take this too literally.

    Limiting you can cover all sorts of problems.  There are two models of disability, the social model and the medical l model.  And e medical model is being replaced in many oeganisations involved with disability, including the EU and the UN.

    Mist autistic people are socially disabled but not medically.  And thus hasnt changed one bit.  We have daily social misunderstandings, delayed comprehension, fixed ways, sensory overload.  The reason many of us havent realised we are autistic until later life is that we have always been that way and adapted to accept it.  But these things then manifest themselves in mental issues such as anxiety, depression and stress and withdrawal. 

    I have no doubt that if you have been assessed under the old criteria you would be under the new.

  • Sorry about the smellings, my fingers are two big for my tablet and the wrong letter appears!

Reply Children
No Data