Doctor stated that Autism is not a medical condition.

Well I have argued before that the storyline that we are all somewhere on the spectrum has diluted public regard for the condition.

The thing about disability is that some of them don't look that big to the general public. Having a stammer for example can be horrendous, but not many think of it as a disability. Adult dyslexia isn't taken seriously enough, because you can get supportive technology. However the main manifestation of adult dyslexia is poor memory rather than spelling which has great impact and isn't so easily resolved. Adult ADHD is another misunderstood condition.

People tend to look on disability as a scale, and they put being blind or deaf, or confined to a wheelchair as the epitomy of disability, and anything else diminishes in comparison. Invisible disability particularly is not taken seriously enough and that includes diabetes, brittle bone syndrome, and various heart conditions.

Now I do mean to be careful saying this because some manifestations of autism just aren't as easy as it looks to NTs but people are likely to take the view that having social difficulty and finding it hard to make friends isn't a disability. And the public view of mental health, including anxiety and depression, is far from reassuring. You often get people saying if they were in your shoes they wouldn't be so helpless. It isn't just autism that is misunderstood.

The argument often raised is that some aspects of autism seem to be down to personality and will power. That's uppermost in the minds of the DHSS and Job Centre Plus, though it is good that NAS seems to have convinced them there are disabling aspects they haven't perceived (even if they still aren't on the website descriptions of what autism involves).

It may be difficult to resolve many aspects of autism, but the possibility that you can supposedly achieve something by self help and self determination probably underlies the perceptions of heath professionals. People see regaining sight, walking again after years in a wheelchair etc as fighting disability. You always will have that comparison being made.

Until NAS and others manage to move away from just the triad of impairments towards a better understanding of what disables many people on the spectrum from day to day, there will still be the argument that if you are not manifesting enough of the triad you aren't disabled.

The Equality Act should certainly cover all people with a diagnosis on the autism spectrum by dint of the fact that autism is a recognised disability. It could be argued that autism is a difference, but I do not think that 'difference' adequately captures the problems people on the spectrum face. I am struggling to understand why people do not consider themselves disabled by autism. What is wrong with the word 'disabled'? Are you not 'disabled' by the fact you find it hard to make friends, read other people, struggle to process information and experience anxiety because of this? Even those few people with Asperger's who have careers and relationships are surely disabled compared to their neurotypical peers?

Autism is surely both a difference (conceived positively or negatively according to personal bias) and a disability.

Another problem is that the public are hardly going to take our cause seriously if they get told that autism is not really that big a deal, simply a difference that ought to be accomodated. Are we not all different they might quite rightly say?

Even whereas a person does not consider themselves disabled by their neurology and are accepted as fully functional by society, the Equality act should still apply. I consider ASVs to be an ethnicity of the mind and as such improper grounds for discrimination.

So people who are currently managing and don't need intervention shouldn't be diagnosed? Even if giving them a diagnosis would help them manage their lives better. Indeed if giving them a diagnosis might relieve them of interventions for the wrong diagnosis previously

Also while I find the barriers to diagnosis and support, currently in the system, are disadvantaging many people, I can understand how some of the health professionals' odd ideas come about.

To them some of the issues experienced by people on the autistic spectrum don't count as disability, rightly or wrongly. That I think is why health professionals seem to think they've solved the problems with a bit of medication or CBT, and the person on the spectrum they suppose ought now to be able to manage.

Often what is being treated as autistic spectrum is depression and OCD, unless other direct characteristics are clearly disabling. Professionals don't seem to understand how restrictive are the difficulties with social interface and environment. So they pronounce someone "cured" and able to manage in the community without proper understanding that the individual is suffering ongoing damage.

Therefore there is a case for separating "difference" as you call it (which lets face it is a lot more restrictive and disadvantageous than just difference) and "disability" (actual clinical impairment). As long as health professionals underrate the former, they'll keep on assuming some pills and some CBT is all many of us need.

And this is what I struggle to understand as someone who is disabled by the Asperger's condition. I have never not been disabled by this condition, although it was only diagnosed when I was 21 years old. I was labelled as a disabled child at school, and only got into the secondary school of my choosing because I was on the disabled child list - the school ( a faith school) had a duty to include a small number of disabled children who did not attend church. At school I was disabled because I was socially excluded, experienced chronic anxiety and stress, and could not live life to the full. As an adult I am disabled because I still experience anxiety, cannot maintain full time mainstream employment, cannot live without support, and struggle with executive function and planning. If I was not disabled and life was hunky dorey, I would not have sought a diagnosis. I was not aware that diagnoses are now given to people without a clinically significant impairment? If that is the case, then maybe my Dad qualifies because he has hardly any friends, has obsessive interests, and is not the most social of people. But I don't think anyone would think he has Asperger's - he has managed life well, has never suffered because of his traits, and functions completely normally.

I heard an interview with Simon Baron Cohen where he said that diagnoses are only given to people with a clinically significant impairment. The DSM and ICD have this as a criterion, but maybe this clause has been removed?

Of course you can be more or less disabled depending on your environment. Now I have the correct support in place, I am not as disabled as I was in my early 20s, when I only ventured out as far as the corner shop. However if my support was removed, I could easily become a recluse and would not be able to function. Admittedly my Asperger's is complicated by having OCD and mental health problems, but then Asperger's hardly ever occurs in its 'pure' form anyway. Maybe Asperger's should be further sub-divided into 'type 1' and 'type 2' forms because it strikes me that the condition is so variable in its effects, that quite different protocols should be in place for the different types? It would clearly be simpler if it was taken for granted that all diagnosed cases of Asperger's fell under the Equality Act because it is a registered disability; but if Asperger's is now diagnosed when there is no disability present, then further sub categorization of Asperger's might be needed.

It seems that there is a stark divide in the Asperger community between those who only have a 'difference' and those with a 'disability'. Historically Asperger's was always conceived as a disability, so something must have changed.

I recall we had discussions on here several years ago about this. Diagnoses are being given to people who don't have a clinically significant impairment, as well as those who do.

I don't think I have a clinically significant impairment. I was given a diagnosis on the basis I could benefit from knowing and had good coping strategies already. I've never had to take advantage of any support, other than half a dozen post diagnosis councilling sessions, and I did get some workplace adjustments which I treated as a safety net as I managed mostly without them. I have always been and still am independent and self supporting.

That is a statement about myself and makes no other imputation.

I know I've got problems stemming from the Asperger's, some mild, some much more impacting. I'm just very fortunate that i'm not disabled by it. I'm just inconvenienced. Recalling the debate on here two years ago we are likely to end up back on this argument that if you are managing and successful you cannot be on the spectrum - so I've struggled over a delusion?

I'm managing but I don't know what is "round the next corner". Earlier in life, especially teens and twenties it did me a lot of harm. It is clear that if circumstances led to heightened stress it could make my difficulties more significant again.

The degree of disablement can vary over a lifetime and sometimes people can fall out of the disabled category. I suppose there's an argument that if you're doing OK you should have the diagnosis taken off you, and have to start the process again next time you have a crisis?

I think there is a distinction between a diagnosis and actually being disabled by it. So there could well be questions whether a diagnosis is in itself sufficient under the Equality Act. You are disabled if significantly impaired in what you can do, but you can be diagnosed as being on the spectrum and not definitively disabled.

Hi Hope,

I think, in practice, a diagnosis means that you are covered by the equality act. There isn't a piece of legislation that makes it so. I think you could theoretically go to the doctor for a diagnosis out of curiosity but you might not want to go the extra step and ask for a declaration with respect to the equality act.

Personally I lived with the condition for 56 years without realising it. I could have got through my whole life without needing the protection of the equality act but I have ended up working for a firm that was so hostile to people like me that I had to get a diagnosis and declaration for my own protection.

It is totally weird for me to think of myself as "disabled". I don't know what to make of it as I am the same person that managed (albeit with a few scrapes and a few major upsets) in other contexts to survive without this label. I'm not just slightly autistic but scored highly in the tests and the doctor had no hesitation in making the diagnosis. It is a significant condition but I do prefer to think of myself as "different" rather than catastrophically and irredeemably pole-axed by the diagnosis.

I am surprised - I thought that autism was always covered by the Equality Act because it is defined as a disability and all disabilities are one of the nine protected characteristics covered by the act. Autism (including Asperger's) is only diagnosed  if someone has 'a clinically significant impairment' that negatively affects some or all areas of daily functioning, such as social relationships, work and occupational functioning, mental health; etc. A 'clinically significant impairment' by nature is a disability!. Can someone please enlighten me as to why the Equality Act might not cover the serious and disabling condition that is Autism?

Thanks to you both for your replies.

Daisy that is a great idea and I will get on with that today thanks. You are right, if a doctor doesn't understand Autism how can he have the ability to state what adjustments I need.

Recom, I am in the very same situation, all I want as adjustments are, (personally I don't even think that they should be called adjustments, just human considerations really)  clear unambiguous instructions not just instructions such, as 'you haven't done that right' or 'do it differently' and good notice of any planned changes. I agree with you, I do not want to be any different from what I am and if they invented a cure for Autism tomorrow, I would not take it.

I am just glad that I had legal cover on my home insurance and am now challenging my employers treatment of me, through court. If you don't have it already I would recommend getting the legal cover added to any house insurance, it only costs about £15-£20 per year and has been well worth it in my case. My own union sold me out because they didnt want to pay to fight a discrimination case, even though the odds are very much in my favour.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the widely used psychiatric manual that defines all mental disorders, uses the term general medical condition to refer to all diseases, illnesses, and injuries except for mental disorders.

My opinion is that autism isn't a thing that can or should be cured so it doesn't have to be treated by a doctor. Arguably, therefore, it isn't a mental disorder in and of itself. It does make us more susceptible to mental disorders that can be treated but even these are resistant to drug therapy so are arguably just "states of mind" or badly programmed and confused minds rather than diseased minds.

It takes a doctor to diagnose it and I understand that this really means that he has decided that one doesn't have any other genuine mental disorder. Only a qulaified doctor is qualified to make such a differential diagnosis.

Thanks for the clarification about what a doctor can say, I was a bit puzzled by my doctors' slightly tentative declaration about whether I was subject to the equality act.

What reasonable adjustments do you think you should have and what have they actually allowed? I am going through similar arguments with my employers who seem hell bent on putting me on a disciplinary track for my failure, in their eyes, to achieve the completely non-SMART objectives they have set for me. It seems to me that a reasonable adjustment would be to hev extremely clear and non-subjective objectives.

Isn't it just b hard work having to get into these arguments and to then have to argue oneself out of corners continually? It's another situation where our communication difficulties turn molehills onto mountains.

Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder. It is categorically not a learning disability or a mental health disorder. The printable pages on this website can be used to show this.

Get the name of the doctor, find if he is registered to practice on the GMC (General Medical Council) website. If he is then he has to abide by the Good Medical Practice rules (you can read these on the website), these state that a doctor must be qualified to assess or treat you. That means that if he does not know what autism is he cannot be qualified to assess you.

Get him to explain why he thinks that autism is a mental health condition or a learning disability. Make sure you get everything, including the report he sends about you in writing, do not rely on phone conversations, they can be denied. Also as communication is part of the triad of impairments you can ask for communication to be in writing rather than face to face or on the phone. Then check how you can challenge it, and the ignorance of this doctor.

You can complain about the doctor to the GMC, check their website.

Thanks for the replies. I do fall under the equality act and I understand that workplaces have no legal obligations to implement adjustments unless the worker falls under the equality act.

The act only comes into play in a court/tribunal as it is ultimately for a Judge to decide if someone is covered by the act. A doctor can only state that a person 'may' fall under the act or that in 'their opinion' they do fall under the act, but they cannot definitively state that a person does fall under the cover of the act.

The barrister at my case stated that it would be rare for any Judge to deem that anyone who falls within the spectrum of Autism, not be covered by the equality act 2010.

Sorry I went off on a bit of tangent then and didn't explain myself clearly before, I really only wanted to know if Autism was not considered a medial condition amongst medical people. I know that it isn't a learning difficulty nor a mental health issue as the doctor stated, but what does it come under, does anybody know?

It depends. I believe that you can have a diagnosis without falling within the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. This requires that you gave a substantial impairment (or similar words). The doctor that diagnosed me refused to make this declaration and it was left to an occupational health doctor to define that my difficulties were severe enough to warrant this category. If you are covered by the act then you are entitled to 'reasonable adjustments '

He actually stated that Autism was a learning difficulty or a mental health problem not a medical condition and I have just found on the NHS website that it is not a learning difficulty or a mental health condition.

How are these people in such positions when they clearly know nothing about things which they should know? It astounds me!!

GPs seem to be able to come up with all sorts of nonsense, without any attempt to regulate their behaviour.

I was at a meeting today looking at dementia care strategies. Apparently there is a widespread problem with GPs not giving people dementia diagnoses on the grounds that as it is incurable it is better for sufferers not to know. This in the face of a national programme trying to roll out support so people can "live well" with dementia, whereby having a diagnosis would enable people to manage their futures.

If this sounds familiar, its the problem with autism as well. GPs give various excuses like this for not referring adults for diagnosis, including that it may not be in their best interests to have one, or as in this case, denying people on the spectrum access to evidence needed to help them in the workplace.

This despite assurances from the GP professional bodies to improve the situation on diagnosis and post diagnosis support for adults.

Too many GPs are playing gatekeeper, and abusing positions of power. There have to be stronger complaints from charities supporting the disabled about the high handed attitude of the medical profession. NAS needs to speak up on this louder.

Mentioning dementia here is relevant. One of the issues surrounding dementia is comorbidity with other disabilities, and autism is one disability which could greatly complicate dementia and conflict with the medications. Yet treatment of both is being obstructed by the conceited arrogance of GPs. 

It is time GPs were vastly better regulated as they appear unable, though their own professional bodies, to manage themselves.