Article in the Independent about this possibly becoming a new category:
Article in the Independent about this possibly becoming a new category:
Profound autism, is it real, or is it just intellectual disability with certain autistic features? People with intellectual disability, who are also talkative and extrovert and keen on social interaction are not called 'profoundly neurotypical'.
This sort of thing, like assignment of species in human evolution, tends to switch between 'lumpers' and 'splitters'. The 'spectrum' saw lumpers in the ascendant, perhaps the pendulum is swinging the other way?
Profound autism, is it real, or is it just intellectual disability with certain autistic features
I was thinking about this, I think you want to see an example to prove it's existence?
I would reccommend viewing 'Inside our autistic minds', I think the first episode, it features Murray, who is I think, profoundly autistic, non-verbal but it is obvious he is also highly intelligent and thoughtful too.
This would go against the profound autism definition though. Low iq is one of suggested criteria.
Understood ArchaeC
Personally I think that scientists and clinicians alike need to be a bit more creative about what they diagnose and call out social problems by it. Say for example a GP who regularly sees an individual with depression and anxiety might join the dots for wider social issues for that person, e.g. for some this might be a diagnosis "out-of- work-itiss" and prescribe that the person should be supported to find meaningful and worthwhile employment that they are happy and able to engage with...
Or "undersupport-itis" maybe...
There is an amusement park game called "whack a mole" that springs to mind as a useful metaphor for this situation.
There has been a push from parents of as they define profoundly autistic children that the support for them isn't great enough as they can't leave their child alone at any point ever, not even to go to the toilet. Not being able to gain the necessary supportive equipment due to their current diagnosis not meeting the criteria e.g. for sleep safe beds so that they are safe at night. I think it is probably for this reason it is now being considered.
But I agree, it does seem to overcomplicate autism. And as I've said before. What happens to the support for everybody else concerns me if this is brought in.
I think the point is those with autism that are non verbal and have significant intellectual disability need round the clock care and supervision to keep them safe etc.
I completely agree - for this reason
does it matter in this context? - to quote the article "The category is intended to help governments and service providers plan and deliver support, so autistic people with the highest needs aren’t overlooked. It also aims to re-balance their under-representation in mainstream autism research.what counts is are they treated fairly and appropriately supported by society."
n so far as it is necessary to make personal, valid assessments of what a fair adjustment is then each individual and their circumstances one would have thought would be different and furthermore need updating over time.
I too am concerned that it might mean cut off definitions for who gets support might leave some excluded who have more "invisible" disabilities but for whom support of a different type and scope is necessary for social equality.
However making a blanket definition that has inclusion and exclusion criteria might make the case for adjustments stronger and easier to enforce for people and I really wouldn't want to put anything in the way of that.
I think the point is those with autism that are non verbal and have significant intellectual disability need round the clock care and supervision to keep them safe etc.
I completely agree - for this reason
does it matter in this context? - to quote the article "The category is intended to help governments and service providers plan and deliver support, so autistic people with the highest needs aren’t overlooked. It also aims to re-balance their under-representation in mainstream autism research.what counts is are they treated fairly and appropriately supported by society."
n so far as it is necessary to make personal, valid assessments of what a fair adjustment is then each individual and their circumstances one would have thought would be different and furthermore need updating over time.
I too am concerned that it might mean cut off definitions for who gets support might leave some excluded who have more "invisible" disabilities but for whom support of a different type and scope is necessary for social equality.
However making a blanket definition that has inclusion and exclusion criteria might make the case for adjustments stronger and easier to enforce for people and I really wouldn't want to put anything in the way of that.
