Article in the Independent about this possibly becoming a new category:
Article in the Independent about this possibly becoming a new category:
I suddenly got the line from the Anglo-Saxon poem, 'The Battle of Brunnanburh' stuck in my head, "... and þæt græge deor, wulf on wealde". Deor, ancestor of the word 'deer', originally meant any sort of beast, including wolves.
There undoubtedly needs to be more, and more tailored, support for all autistic people and all people with non-physical disabilities. Perhaps the autistic spectrum is too broad a church to be useful in developing support strategies?
Agreed Cinnabar_wing
You've helped me see better.
And can answer Martin 's question better too to reflect my perspective on this based on personal observations
Profound autism is not defined in concert with intellectual disability, in my mind at least, these are separate issues.
Yes, you are right for the article. I was just trying to think of people who I think should be included in the term. It shows how important research is.
EDIT: It is such a shame that people will look down and assume low intelligence if one can't talk, but it's sometimes just a case of not being able to communicate your ideas. If Stephen Hawking didn't have the equipment to speak, the world would have missed out on his genius. I think there must be many autistic people like that.
This would go against the profound autism definition though. Low iq is one of suggested criteria.
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.
If I may speak as one autistic pedant to another Martin ?
I have never seen you so I accept your hair may be grey and that you and I as, like all animals, are a beast.
Unless you are unusually capable though, you are not a forest wolf. Although I appreciate the metaphor to explain .
Whilst naming does not always reflect reality I agree that scientific nomenclature should strive to accurately reflect reality in being precise, stable and universal.
However science is a human construct - although those doing it (mostly) strive to overcome errors, subjective choices and cultural bias it deals with probabilities rather than absolute certainties and it is rarely certain.
I acknowledge that in the IP article case it is driven by some of the problems just mentioned however it does say that the intention is to drive forward research into the topic. I agree that not least will be defining the need to define nomenclature further - as you so correctly point out.
At present I think it gratifying that there is a move to support people further and make further investigative studies and that is the point I think we might focus on.
Best wishes
Governments not listening to expert advice????? Hehehe, Whatever makes you think that might happen ArchaeC - oh apart from all the evidence that is.
To answer that question:
People who care can organise and lobby for government to do so within whatever restrictions are created or maintained by the government at that time . At present my suggesting anything to the contrary would be unlawful...
We can support organisations or indeed individuals that support such people or even do so directly ourselves. Or promise that when we are able to do so we will do.
From that government angle, beyond that, we can vote for those who do and not for those who don't.
If nothing else then hope?
Profound autism, is it real, or is it just intellectual disability with certain autistic features?
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."
maybe the mainstream autism research that is prompted by this will answer that question :-)
I would be surprised if anyone is society doesn't need support from it in some fashion.
The matters of fairness that are covered by the equality act means that reasonable adjustments by public services including to funding for care etc. must be made.
In 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.
using allistic rather than neurotypical,
Yes.
That's my point.
Neurotypical is too far ranging IMO for what then becomes a sweeping statement.
I find neurodivergent -v- neurotypical comparisons unhelpful.
NT is simply an umbrella term for a range of conditions with brain 'wiring' differences in common.
Autistic children who fit in the ‘profound’ category are deserving of more support, yet it is concerning that the sole purpose of the study and proposed ‘profound’ category is to help government and service providers plan and deliver supports to children who fit in the non-verbal category, while those with significant needs who don’t fit would be excluded.
So the criteria for diagnosis would be dependent on where children sit within a support system decided by governments. What happens if governments don’t listen to autism experts who have been commissioned?
If you take all the things that make someone ND and think of the opposites of them, then you have a normal NT, if you then amplify those things then you have someone very NT. Oddly they often seem to be the people who are supposed to help the ND and create a totally headscratching situation, by coming out with catch phares and words for things, like disregulated, a term I loathe as it seems to mean feeling strongly about anything whilst being autistic. They seem to exist in this strange world filled with jargon and self fulfilling prophesies never seeming to conest with anyone other than those of thier own kind.
I've wondered before why some people are not labled as very NT
NT = a person without autism, adhd, Tourettes, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, sensory processing disorder and so on and so forth.
How can a person be 'very' of that? How would you know them?
What do you see as the qualities that make a person neurotypical and then, very neurotypical?
I agree it is an interesting take, but I think it obvious that not everyone with autism is the same and maybe it would be better to acknowlege the differences? I've wondered before why some people are not labled as very NT, do other NT's find them difficult and exhausting to around?
The impact on mental health is significant.
Will it also cause people to make assumptions about non verbal autistics. Some are intelligent and have plenty to say, they just don't say it in words. I know the suggestion in that article for there to be a low iq score but I don't know how accurate iq tests are in such circumstances. Just another thing to be considered.
I think it's fair to say autism makes life for all autistic people more difficult, but also that there are some who are much more profoundly affected by the condition.
Suppose the question is whether the spectrum needs splitting, and if so for what purpose - how will it help? Who will it harm? I don't have the answers.
I agree - I hate when new diagnosed use those terms which I'm thinking their assessors are not diagnosing correctly: it's liek saying you're a bit Autistic
We mask our struggles. For many from the outside we have a normal life, some might view us of having a good "normal" life but they don't see what we think and feel and have to cope with day to day, we mask and even if we can or when we try to explain, they (NTs) just can't understand what we are trying to say.
Which then explains why I'm like many Autistics have great problems with DWP on PIP applications: yes I have a job, I can drive , gosh I can even answer your questions on the phone and yes I managed to fill all your forms in myself. But that doesn't make a meaningful life, all the compensation and avoidance I do to get through every day + week
