Doctor stated that Autism is not a medical condition.

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.

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.