• Replies 13 replies
  • Subscribers 84 subscribers
  • Views 4551 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

DSM-V - Diagnosed But Would Now Not Be

NAS61891

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

  • Hi, 

    Don't most NHS places use the icd10?  

    But yes people have been diagnosed not autistic but continue to identify as autistic because they feel the diagnosis is wrong, alot of places fail miserably with the quality of assessment and as such people slip through, some go on to be re-evaluated and do receive diagnosis some choose not to put themselves through the process again 

  • in reply to NAS39248

    Mine used the DSM-5 but then referred to the ICD10 code in the letter back to my GP.  Either way, I still got the impression it was highly subjective.  Some of this was offset by being seen by several different professionals for each stage of the assessment, plus my case then going to a team meeting for discussion before the final decision.  But, in the absence of any blood test, I don't think the subjective element can be ruled out.  

    That being the case, I'd probably still have chosen to identify as autistic, irrespective of what they told me.  Either that or gone for a second opinion.

Reply
  • in reply to NAS39248

    Mine used the DSM-5 but then referred to the ICD10 code in the letter back to my GP.  Either way, I still got the impression it was highly subjective.  Some of this was offset by being seen by several different professionals for each stage of the assessment, plus my case then going to a team meeting for discussion before the final decision.  But, in the absence of any blood test, I don't think the subjective element can be ruled out.  

    That being the case, I'd probably still have chosen to identify as autistic, irrespective of what they told me.  Either that or gone for a second opinion.

Children
No Data