Autism Being over diagnosed?

I have seen some other stuff related to this.

It suggested the main reasons for increases are women and older people.

There is no particular reason to think ASD is a male thing. The realisation women present slightly differently has changed the ratio from 10 to 1, to 3 to 1. If you consider a lot will have been missed or misdiagnosed in the past, you would expect a lot of women.

If you think prevalence has not really changed, and if you think children are not being excessively over diagnosed at present,  then a lot got missed on the past. This means there are lots of older people . It is estimated maybe 90% of autistic people over 50 may be undiagnosed.

If you consider minorities might be underrepresented for whatever reason, you would also expect them to contribute additional number if they have access.

You can make a case for increasing the numbers, even if the criteria had not changed.

So the question really becomes where  do you draw the line and what is the point of diagnosis.

In any other area of medicine diagnosis is separate from treatment. You don't refuse to diagnose conditions people can manage with. If knowing allows the person to live more comfortably what is the harm. It only really seems a problem if people are looking to use it as an easy way out.

I have seen some other stuff related to this.

It suggested the main reasons for increases are women and older people.

There is no particular reason to think ASD is a male thing. The realisation women present slightly differently has changed the ratio from 10 to 1, to 3 to 1. If you consider a lot will have been missed or misdiagnosed in the past, you would expect a lot of women.

If you think prevalence has not really changed, and if you think children are not being excessively over diagnosed at present,  then a lot got missed on the past. This means there are lots of older people . It is estimated maybe 90% of autistic people over 50 may be undiagnosed.

If you consider minorities might be underrepresented for whatever reason, you would also expect them to contribute additional number if they have access.

You can make a case for increasing the numbers, even if the criteria had not changed.

So the question really becomes where  do you draw the line and what is the point of diagnosis.

In any other area of medicine diagnosis is separate from treatment. You don't refuse to diagnose conditions people can manage with. If knowing allows the person to live more comfortably what is the harm. It only really seems a problem if people are looking to use it as an easy way out.