In England, are people with an ASD considered disabled and/or vulnerable under English Law?

what kind of vulnerable are we talking about here? You sound like you are refering to some sort of technical medical or legal definition of the word vulnerable? Could you refrence the definition?

The existing legislation needs to be examined very carefully by legal experts for any weaknesses and vulnerabilities with a view to improving same and closing any legal loopholes in conjunction with medical experts and others in the autism field - many public and private bodies are probably trying to avoid their legal (if not moral) obligations towards autistic people, of all ages and this is further being used as an excuse to withhold required funding - new laws need to get passed through Parliament to protect and improve the rights and entitlements of autistic people and this should be an ongoing campaign by autism groups - where same is found, this must be challenged in the courts as the basis for legislative changes through Parliament, including but not limited to, being based on case law 

Hello.  Are you AI AU?  What prompted you to make these writings here, and at this time?  Just curious.

Both legally and within the confines of vulnerability not all disabled people are considered to be vulnerable (1). There is no strict legal definition of vulnerability and intermittent vulnerability is not considered by many to be vulnerable, given that many vulnerable people do not appear to be vulnerable at first glance, and this can cause challenges even in enforcement (2). Children and the elderly are all considered vulnerable so this is always the case regardless of neurodiversity. I'm autistic and consider myself vulnerable but most people on the street would not deem me to be so. In short, it depends on the situation, specific policies, and the perceiver unfortunately.

Sources:
(1) https://www.autistica.org.uk/our-research/research-projects/why-are-autistic-people-more-vulnerable

(2) www.openaccessgovernment.org/.../

Ave atque vale.

Ego tibi gratias ago.

So we’ve got a bit of thread necromancy going on here. On the off chance that the op is still around I wrote a whole mini ‘book’ on this topic so I won’t repeat it here. But there is a link if you’re interested areyoualien.uk/Legal information guide.pdf

Ah but that’s not how the impact of disability is assessed for the purposes of the equality act. It’s the impact on your ability to do every day things (including socialising) compared to what it would be with out the disability. There are Paralympic athletes who could run rings around me but they’re still disabled because the comparison that the courts make is between them, without their special equipment, and a conventional Olympic athlete (except of course that Olympic sport isn’t ‘every day’ but you get the idea)

No problem. I am diagnosed with ASC, so I am definitely autistic. I was a research molecular biologist - or in more slang terms a 'genetic engineer' - until I retired. Because I am a geneticist, I know a lot about genetics, because I am autistic I have looked hard at the available information about the genetics of autism. Also, because I am autistic, I cannot let what I believe to be a misleading statement pass without comment. Autistics like things to be factual. I believe that the use of 'you are either pregnant or not pregnant' to support the idea that 'you are either autistic or not autistic' to be wrong. I also believe that people can have autistic traits but not enough, or of enough severity, for them to be diagnosed as autistic. Therefore, people can be 'slightly autistic' or a 'bit autistic'. This is my scientific opinion, backed by genetic research.

I understand that the idea of 'pregnant/not pregnant' being used to support 'autistic/not autistic' comes from a place of sympathy with autistic people. From people supporting autistic rights in society. They are trying to ensure that support and accommodations go to genuinely autistic people who need them, and that this support is not wilfully diluted by minimising the difficulty autistics face by saying 'everyone is a bit autistic'. Though they are doing this for good reasons, they are doing this by stating something that is not scientifically true.

While I sympathise as an autistic person with the aims of the people who claim that there is a strict separation between autistic people and non-autistic people, my scientific background and desire for the truth mean that I have to challenge this when I see it. I have no choice in the matter. Mea culpa is Latin for 'my fault', as formerly used in the Roman Catholic 'act of contrition' in confession.

Martin.  This is fascinating, but I must confess to not understanding your final paragraph.  Forgive my neediness, but could you try and express your last paragraph in a different form of words so that I can hopefully understand your point.  Thank you in advance for your time.

NAS81689 said:

All autistic people are 100% autistic. Like being pregnant, just because one pregnant human may appear more pregnant than another pregnant human doesn’t make you more pregnant - you either are or you’re not. 

That is very debatable. There is mounting evidence that autism as a phenotype, is produced genetically in two distinct ways, though there are people with a mixture of the two. 1) A small number of relatively large genetic variations associated with genes encoding various neurological and neurodevelopmental pathways. These tend to be relatively rare and are often associated with intellectual impairment and intellectual disability. 2) An unusually high concentration of small genetic variations associated with genes encoding various neurological and neurodevelopmental pathways, that are common and found throughout the population in general, a small number of which have been shown to be also associated with higher than average academic attainment.

It is logical to conclude that people who are autistic because of the second type of genetic variation are autistic because they have a higher number of small common genetic variations than average, and that there must be a diagnostic cut off beyond which the accumulation of autism-linked variations results in a person showing enough traits to be deemed to be autistic. So autism, at least when caused by common genetic variations, is not like pregnancy and is more like height. The clinician is deciding who is tall (autistic) and who is of average height or short (allistic) by judging the individual against diagnostic criteria - the criteria are making the equivalent of deciding that any man over 6ft is 'tall'. It follows that people with sub-clinical autistic traits are indeed 'a bit autistic', just like a man who is 5ft 11'' is 'tallish'. This is in no way an argument that people who have been, or that potentially could be, diagnosed as autistic are not often very negatively impacted, or that specialised services and accommodations are not needed.

As a clinically diagnosed autistic former 'genetic engineer', I find the use of the sort of 'pregnant/not pregnant' argument, which comes from a sociological viewpoint, laudably concerned with 'autistic rights and advocacy', too illogical for me to ignore and let pass unchallenged, unfortunately for me and any interlocutors. Mea culpa.

I am Autistic- adhd and have just passed my 2nd year (PgDip) in Autism with SHU.
All autistic people are 100% autistic. Like being pregnant, just because one pregnant human may appear more pregnant than another pregnant human doesn’t make you more pregnant - you either are or you’re not. 

IMO- as for suffering - it’s not the autism that we suffer but the anxiety triggered by an ever unpredictable and ill accommodating world- that’s not to say no autistic people suffer but don’t all humans, creatures suffer at some point in their life? I can be seen to be coping one day when actually I am drowning it’s just I am so good at masking my struggles due to being conditioned not to share my feelings because they bring discomfort/inconvenience to those around me. Yes I have the intelligence to create those masks but the masks lead to much harm and are so deeply ingrained that my needs go unmet yet the expectations remain.

Then there’s those who appear more autistic because of differences in intellectual, mental and physical abilities who struggle to be heard, seen and respected because their worth is decided by how they present and their ability to contribute to what society expects. Either way we all suffer, but it’s not the fault of the autism but the expectations of society and the infrastructure/environment which includes the people within it.

I prefer to use the term ‘autistic brain’ than ‘autistic person’ - it seems to simplify and reduce thing being personal. 

what I’m trying to say is comparing suffering is of no ise, just meeting need on a case by case, unique individual basis is best imo. 

Longman, I experience similiar self-doubt and confusion. Although diagnosed with AS, I often feel an 'inbetweener' ,as you put it, because I am very high-functioning in some areas (self-awareness, higher thinking abilities) and so I often feel distanced from other aspies who might be less aware. But I don't fit into the NT world either and I fit all the AS diagnostic criteria. My mental health problems are more disabling than my AS, but they are clearly neurological and there is no doubt in my mind that my OCD/anxiety stems from my AS complex.  If I did not have OCD I would probably not have obtained a diagnosis. It was only because my OCD was not being treated right, because of my AS thinking patterns, that I was finally diagnosed. Because my OCD is neurological, I am not in denial that I will always have it to some extent, just as I will always find it hard to relate to other people due to my AS. Like I said, we are all affected differently and each person has their own reason for diagnosis. But there is still a debate worth having about what it means to have AS in todays society and where the cut-off points are between AS and normality.

We've gone off the original thread a bit, and apologies to zone tripper yet again for misusing this opportunity.

I struggled through childhood, teens and  twenties, and even when things got better gradually, have stiill felt marginal to the NT world - "borderline".  Now it appears that, though a diagnosis of aspergers seemed to provide the answers and make things better, I'm now not just mild but "borderline" there too.

I suspect I'm not alone in this middle ground, neither NT nor Aspergers. Perhaps we need to form a new group for in-betweenies?

Seriously though, I recognise that lack of empathy is part of the diagnosis, even though there is some debate as to what this means exactly and whether it is definitive. But I am familiar with behaviours that lack any notion of empathy.

I am a realist, neither optimistic nor pessimistic. Longman, I do not believe there is a private members club. We all come to this discussion with different life experiences and therefore different perspectives. Everyone has the right to their own opinion and so we will quite naturally disagree.

Because I am a realist, I understand that due to our present society, which has only has room for a few at the top,  most people (with or without aspergers) will not find fame and success, if by that we mean a job  with high responsibility, plenty of control and security. Britain is one of the most unequal societies in the world, so what hope is there for a marginal group with significant difficulties to make it to the top? I am not denying the fact that there are individuals within this group who do succeed, but it would surely be a massive overstatement to say that aspie high-achieving, let alone fame, is the norm. Einstein was a remarkable individual, but it is not clear whether or not he was autistic. He might have been but we just don't know. And if he was, he is not representative of most people with ASD. However, it is possible for people with ASD to succeed in a smaller sense by overcoming some of their fears/anxieties, securing any form of employment, and finding a partner. In other words, it is possible for people with ASD to lead a more or less normal life.

While I suspect it is the case that I'm mild,  I'm conscious of being distanced into the "mild ASD and borderline cases often have more empathy" previously posted as "to have AS proper and not be a borderline case" and "maybe clinicians are becoming more liberal in their approach to diagnosis". I'm getting the feeling I've intruded into a private club. 

My milder AS aside, I've read widely on this and been involved helping others. I'm not aware of there being a neat divide between "real" and "borderline". Im not convinced as to what qualifies being a member of the "real" club.

This is important because there are a lot of parents reading these postings who have children or teenagers or young adults and are looking at the long term prospects for them coping through life. The picture being painted is that most people with Aspergers will be helpless and dependent most of their lives. I know many with quite marked aspergers who do lead independent lives.

Also I do keep coming back to this. What is the point of using Einstein, Wittgenstein, Newton etc as exemplars of people who had asperger traits if the interpretation offered is - oh well they were marginal cases, because they were successful?

The picture is too deppressing, unless NAS can come up with some suggestions as to how to inform discussions.

I understand where Longman is coming from. People with mild AS or borderline cases often have more empathy than those  who are more severely affected and so they can provide understanding and support. Longman, we need more people like you in Universities and other institutions in order to raise awareness of ASD.

I also agree that ASD is not all negative, and that we should not be seen as helpless victims but as active agents with the ability to improve ourselves. But I still think we are disabled because of the disadvantages we face,compared to NTs, in our day to day lives, no matter how successful we become.

I agree with the social model of disability. We have potential but sadly  most people with AS are unemployed or in jobs that are beneath their ability. Only a very few people with AS (and you are very lucky Longman) obtain decent employment, which is why we need to provide more opportunities for people with ASD.

I would add to that I'm extremely grateful for the opportunity it provided to help others on the spectrum going through University. Without my own understanding I could never have properly understood what those I've worked with were going through.

Thanks Jim V- Mod for clarification. I was not eager to try and find my way through the maze, so valuable to have an official statement from NAS to give us points of reference.

Thanks Hope for reiterating the point about "significant impairment" - but I think that is also an issue of definition.

I do wonder whether my diagnosis amounts to significant impairment. I had real trials when younger. I seem to be getting better as I get older. The lack of close friends or relationships bothers me sometimes but I seem to get by. My biggest problem as I get older is the difficulty of having anyone to seek help from. Relatives will help but i'm 150 miles from my nearest. I'm just disasterously bad at getting to know anyone enogh to ask for help, even though I know a lot of people who I daresay would help if I wasn't so inclined to put up needless barriers.

My concern too, from what I understand about diagnosis, is that it risks people giving up and not fighting it. I don't think I could just give up and admit to being helpless, but then I'm fortunate in being a long long way from being helpless.

Does that make my diagnosis folly? I'm extremely grateful for the insight it has given me, and the means to make things better.

To come back to Longman's point. I am not denying at all that you can have mild AS and be very successful, do well at uni, get a degree and Post-Grad and be a teacher. Everyone is affected by AS differently. But to have a diagnosis, as stated in the DSM and other manuals, you need to have a triad of impairment in the social, communicative and imaginative areas of development. You also need to have repetitive behaviours and need for routines, or have obsessive and narrow interests. If diagnosed in adulthood, the psychologist/psychiatrist will check to see that these behaviours were present since early childhood, and they will also look at your current behaviours to see if enough autistic features persist to warrant a diagnosis, while understanding the coping mechanisms that the person has learnt over the years. All good clinicians will take this developmental profile. However,  to have AS proper and not to be a borderline case, the person must be significantly impaired in their day to day functioning. Yet many individuals are diagnosed with AS even if the condition does not adversely affect their life anymore.  Maybe clinicians are becoming more liberal in their approach to diagnosis or they disregard the part of the diagnostic manual that mentions significant impairment.