I've wanted for so long for there to be more recognition of autism and ADHD. And now I want nothing more than for it to stop. I'm sick of our existence being questioned in the way that it is. How about they start trying to support people rather than try and find ways to make less of us "exist".
Whilst that sounds positive. Stating that autism and ADHD is at risk of being over diagnosed does not sound to me like they intend to support people. It sounds like they will tighten up the diagnostic process so less people are diagnosed. Then with lowered numbers can say look we are providing better support. Maybe I'm just cynical but I don't trust what is going on surrounding autism and ADHD at the moment.
To be honest I think the debate over diagnosis is neither here nor there.
However, I do hope that this report does cause change within youth services and schools such as improved, practical support for anxiety, sensory issues and learning difficulties.
Adult social services can be really effective whereas youth services seem to struggle in building independence and support.
Indeed it does, but within context, not out of context. The context is about supplying support and the report makes the comment that relative numbers are not increasing. The report also mentions underdiagnosis, along with misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis as contributing problems to supporting people.
Look, I understand if you want to see the report in negative terms. I see it as a positive thing for ND people, so further dialogue is probably pointless.
I don't think they'd be able to refuse support for people already diagnosed so if they increase support it would have to include them. But I do think there's a real danger that if they relook at the criteria they could actually tighten it up to make it so those they see as having lesser need are not diagnosed. As I said earlier, I may just be being cynical.
I'm talking about the BBC article that is linked as the topic of this thread. It is the first sentence of the summary and then again in the first section.
I agree the whole diagnostic criteria needs to be looked at again and not just outdated nonsense like the ability to make eye contact. The need for a witness, some one who's known you since childhood is ridiculous for adults and what about young people in care who many not have anyone either?
I think there's still a lot of old fashioned ideas arounf it not effecting women are still around too, those need addressing as women often mask heavier and present differently.
I honestly dont' think they'd be able to get away with offering more support to fewer people, the need is so huge and the current resourses so miniscule. They may be able to do it with children, but I doubt it and that still leaves all the adults in need of support and the school leavers. They need to rememeber adults and school leaver vote.
I agree the whole diagnostic criteria needs to be looked at again and not just outdated nonsense like the ability to make eye contact. The need for a witness, some one who's known you since childhood is ridiculous for adults and what about young people in care who many not have anyone either?
I think there's still a lot of old fashioned ideas arounf it not effecting women are still around too, those need addressing as women often mask heavier and present differently.
I honestly dont' think they'd be able to get away with offering more support to fewer people, the need is so huge and the current resourses so miniscule. They may be able to do it with children, but I doubt it and that still leaves all the adults in need of support and the school leavers. They need to rememeber adults and school leaver vote.
I don't think they'd be able to refuse support for people already diagnosed so if they increase support it would have to include them. But I do think there's a real danger that if they relook at the criteria they could actually tighten it up to make it so those they see as having lesser need are not diagnosed. As I said earlier, I may just be being cynical.
