It's far more stress inducing and hard to cope with than being part of the severe mental illness and the high IQ communities.
It's far more stress inducing and hard to cope with than being part of the severe mental illness and the high IQ communities.
I’m not sure where the autistic “community” is. This forum has a community of sorts but I don’t think it’s representative of the wider autistic population as members are overwhelmingly level 1 but not 2 or 3. My personal biggest challenge is that almost everyone here seems to be married, in a relationship and have family. These are all things I’ve never had and would love to have so it’s very invalidating for me, especially when everything I read suggests that the overwhelming majority of autistic people remain single.
But the forum has provided a useful place exchange information and learn more about autism and it’s nice to have somewhere to chat to people who share some of my life challenges. In my experience almost everyone here has good intentions.
But ASD is a spectrum condition. We are all different.
I don't know what all the levels mean, are they really helpful for anything other than assessing the level of support you need? I was given no level when I was assessed and I seem unable to get any further assessment to find out, I think as I'm too old for education and am on long term incapacity I'm not a priority.
If I get on with someone then the last thing on my mind is what level of support they need, I just know that it's someone I connect with.
The levels aren’t included in UK assessments and I agree with you - they can be misleading, especially given the spiky nature of ASD.
I can work, feed myself etc and so would likely be considered level 1, but if each of the ASD criteria were levelled separately, I suspect I’d be well inside level 2 for social communication difficulties.
Unless you've accidentally got these the wrong way around, I don't understand your logic
I did get these back to front - thank you for correcting me.
This to me means that there are a lot of diagnosed autists out there who would not meet the newer requirements however. Before under DSM-5 you only had to match one of the criteria whereas now under the replacement DSM-5-TR, you have to match all criteria.
The replacement for these (IDC-11 if I recall correctly) also has a very long list of criteria - some 18 in total) that need to be met for a diagnosis).
https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#437815624
This does set off some alarm bells - if the government get wind of this then they may decide they can get rid of loads of potential PIP claimants by making them re-test and fall out of diagnosis.
The reason I raise this point is the government (of whatever political leaning) seem to be always pushing to reduce claimants for benefits, so this would be a low hanging fruit for them. Kick someone off, make them wait years for a re-diagnosis and at worst they save years of PIP payments.
It is only hypothetical but I think the logic is there, and from the governments behaviour towards disabled people, I think this quite within their grasp.
To me it does indicate that a number of the people who didn't reach the criteria under DSM-5 may reach it under DSM-V-TR.
Unless you've accidentally got these the wrong way around, I don't understand your logic.
Under DSM-5, if their assessors had misunderstood the meaning of the text, some people could have been wrongly diagnosed as autistic if they only met one or two of these requirements, all of which form part of criterion A, and all of which should have been met ...
"deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, and in developing, maintaining and understanding relationships"
... along with meeting all of the other criteria (B, C, D, and E).
The DSM-5-TR revision clarifies that a diagnosis requires (and was always intended to require) that they meet all of the points in criterion A.
To me it does indicate that a number of the people who didn't reach the criteria under DSM-5 may reach it under DSM-V-TR.
Unless you've accidentally got these the wrong way around, I don't understand your logic.
Under DSM-5, if their assessors had misunderstood the meaning of the text, some people could have been wrongly diagnosed as autistic if they only met one or two of these requirements, all of which form part of criterion A, and all of which should have been met ...
"deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, and in developing, maintaining and understanding relationships"
... along with meeting all of the other criteria (B, C, D, and E).
The DSM-5-TR revision clarifies that a diagnosis requires (and was always intended to require) that they meet all of the points in criterion A.
Unless you've accidentally got these the wrong way around, I don't understand your logic
I did get these back to front - thank you for correcting me.
This to me means that there are a lot of diagnosed autists out there who would not meet the newer requirements however. Before under DSM-5 you only had to match one of the criteria whereas now under the replacement DSM-5-TR, you have to match all criteria.
The replacement for these (IDC-11 if I recall correctly) also has a very long list of criteria - some 18 in total) that need to be met for a diagnosis).
https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#437815624
This does set off some alarm bells - if the government get wind of this then they may decide they can get rid of loads of potential PIP claimants by making them re-test and fall out of diagnosis.
The reason I raise this point is the government (of whatever political leaning) seem to be always pushing to reduce claimants for benefits, so this would be a low hanging fruit for them. Kick someone off, make them wait years for a re-diagnosis and at worst they save years of PIP payments.
It is only hypothetical but I think the logic is there, and from the governments behaviour towards disabled people, I think this quite within their grasp.
