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

Hi,

This is obviously a pretty complex question so had a chat with a few people about our position. Done the best I can but if anything seems wildly wrong, that's probably down to me rather than our acutal position at the NAS! ;) 

On a purely legal level deciding if a person is disabled is handled by the Equalities Act 2010 (which replaced the Disability Discrimination Act). The act defines disability in the following way -

A person has a disability for the purposes of the Act if he or she has a physical or mental impairment and the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

There is a long document which aims to explain the Act in more detail which the following bullet points refer to -
http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/docs/law/ea/ea-guide-2.pdf

So the Act essentially says -

• the person must have an impairment that is either physical or mental (see paragraphs A3 to A8)
• the impairment must have adverse effects which are substantial (see section B)
• the substantial adverse effects must be long-term (see section C)
• the long-term substantial adverse effects must be effects on normal day-to-day activities (see section D)

Looking through section A5 of the guidance you can see that a wide range of possible impairments that could cause an impairment are mentioned including the following:

developmental, such as autistic spectrum disorders (ASD), dyslexia and dyspraxia

So in a legal sense a person isn't defined as disabled because of a particular condition, but because a condition has a particular effect.

To come back to your original point zone_tripper - what being disabled or being on the spectrum means people are entitled to, are they a vulnerable - this is where things become much more personal. For example you can, if you want to brace yourself, take a look at this link from the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which includes a detailed and at times overwhelming list of how a vulnerable adult is defined -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/47/section/59

Because of these complexities what we'd really recommend is that anyone who wants to understand their individual rights and explore the help they may be entitled to should contact our welfare rights and community care services.

Both can be contacted through our helpline and you can see details here -
http://www.autism.org.uk/welfarerights
http://www.autism.org.uk/communitycare

Okay bit of a long reply there. If people are interested in the wider understandings and questions around disability then our policy team are inclined towards the social model of disability.

This would suggest that whilst people may face limitations and impairments due to many factors, it's the way society fails to include people or take account of this that means people are disabled.

And just to horrify the team - here's a link to a description on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability

But again, that's probably part of the interesting debate taking place here around disability, rather than a specific legal definition.

Hope that helps a bit :)

I was diagnosed in my mid-fifties on NHS. I am probably at the abler end and was diagnosed as having developed good coping strategies.

So I recognise a lot of people coming on here have much more marked and much more limiting AS. I'm trying to avoid using myself as an example therefore.

A distinction that might be valid though is that I did not have a diagnosis through two university degrees and most of my career. I wasn't bad enough to get referred for the ways people now known to have As got treated in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but I did have to struggle a great deal to get anywhere.

During my education and employment I did not have an explanation. People like me were probably lucky we didn't get sectioned or put on wrong drugs, as did happen to a great many. I wasn't obvious enough to warrant that. But I was treated as being immature and inadequate, which the medical profession usually dealt with by telling you to grow up and not waste their time. And I was sent to counsellors and persuaded to read various psychologies about people who couldn't cope, and relaxation, and things like wearing an elastic band on your wrist to snap to break anxiety loops. The help was rather superficial and best avoided.

So I lived through those years on a sink or swim basis. I had to keep going or end up impoverished. Immaturity didn't get you any living support allowances.

One of the issues I have seen discussed is whether getting a diagnosis makes you give up. I was mature and coping when I got my diagnosis. I'm being wary here of using my own example, being at the mild end, but I wonder whether having a diagnosis stops people trying.

We are back to this thing about Einstein, Wittgenstein etc....... people who showed asperger traits, but because they succeeded at something does that mean they weren't aspergers? They didn't have an explanation either. But they lived in times when eccentricity and individual oddity was better tolerated.

You pose an interesting argument Longman, which concerns philosophy and ethics.

Should AS just be seen as negative? No, I don't think it should. Many AS individuals are very determined, conscientious and diligent,  and these are traits that I can claim as my own. I have been to my local uni and achieved a 2.1 History Degree, so it is possible to be academically intelligent and to have AS, indeed it is actually very common. But the question is whether or not we can cope in the real world and for most of us the answer we be 'no'.  I agree that Aspergers is a continuum, but normally the condition entails significant difficulties of one sort or another, or associated mental health problems. For example, I struggle with OCD and anxiety.

Were you privately diagnosed or were you diagnosed on the NHS? I was diagnosed on the NHS, although I was considering the private option because of the long waiting lists, but I came to the conclusion that NHS diagnosis is more objective and it is accepted by all authorities.

Agreed ALADDIN, we have rather hi-jacked your original question, and I was the last to steer it off course, for which apologise.

However I don't think your original question can be answered by a discussion group as such.  It is one for NAS to answer on the web pages, though a browse through hasn't brought anything up that solves this.

We had a debate a few months ago about whether AS/aspergers could affect a driving licence. The answer seemed to be that it was up to you to declare if you thought your AS affected your driving, but if you didn't think so you didn't have to.  That tells me two things. It's a grey area and we are deemed capable of choice.

Whether we are considered to have a disability depends on whether our AS traits/symptoms meet the criteria for the Disability Discrimination Act, though we should consider definitions under the Autism Act.

I couldn't claim to be disabled because I can get around and hold down a job and look after myself. The fact that I am inconvenienced by social limitations, some noise sensitivity, and focus/obsession doesn't constitute disability under the DDA.  Some people clearly will meet the DDA criteria.

The problem is then whether the authorities consider us disabled which is why we have the whole rumpus over whether people are entitled to DSA and benefits (now costing us more in Appeals than what is supposedly being saved).

The other legal issues relate to mental health, mental capacity and social care - whether we need decisions made for us. Again it depends whether our circumstances place us in those categories.

What we are still stuck with is whether AS/Aspergers defines a disability (or in some circles a mental health condition), or whether AS/Aspergers defines a set of circumstances which for some are disabling/incapacitating, but for others are just inconvenient/unpleasant.

To be able to answer your question we need to determine whether AS/Aspergers only applies if you are disabled, or whether we recognise AS/Aspergers separately and then whether some people's AS/Aspergers is disabling/incapacitating.

I suspect, considering the driving licence question, that having AS/Aspergers does not itself constitute a legally governed issue, but if it is disabling or incapacitating then legal factors come into play.

Many people suffer from arthritis. But not all people with arthritis are disabled.

Either NAS needs to come in on this, or else the discussion is likely to go off in all directions.

ALADDIN said:

Not everyone on the autistic spectrum is disabled.

True enough.  However, I was wondering how people with ASD / Autism / Asperger are legally defined as under English Law.  Not so much how we define ourselves, but how we are defined as under English Law and what are our rights / benefits if we are defined as having a disability. 

This is a debate I find difficult as I don't fit Hope's criteria. I was diagnosed seven years ago mid-fifties, but as having developed good coping strategies. My formal interface has improved greatly. The informal non-verbal relational world is limiting, and that caused problems fitting in at work, and also with aspects of the work, particularly where I have seemingly unresolvable gaps. It also means having to be pretty independent and manage everything on my own.

But on Hope's terms I probably don't have aspergers. I found the diagnosis gave me closure and helped me improve my coping strategies a great deal which improved my self esteem and self confidence, and has enabled me to be more relaxed about myself. So aside from my solitary side, and lack of a social/emotional/romantic life, am I cured?

I've a degree and PhD, have managed two careers, the first ending in the 1991/2 recession, now a retired university lecturer, have published several books. My puzzle is does that mean I don't really have a diagnosis of aspergers? 

Is there no point in getting a diagnosis if your problems can be overcome? I'm not saying AS is curable. I just wonder at people being completely negative - maybe that's an asperger attribute I don't have.

Apparently Daniel Tammet, who wrote "Born on a Blue Day" claims he doesn't now think he is on the spectrum. How does that help people on the spectrum?

Also what's the point in claiming Einstein, Newton, Bartok etc had asperger traits if the fact they were successful means they are not really on the spectrum?

I do not have any difficulties socially, but I am not an excellent communicator. However as a child I was weaker as a communicator, because I did not have the opportunity to make friends.

I have mild dyspraxia. I am disabled with dyspraxia. I passed my driving test at the 10th attempt, I cannot remember instructions, I have problems with short term memry, clumsy & have poor coordination.

I doubt whether Speilburg can have ASD. In our unequal, competitive society  it is hard for someone with ASD to be that successful. And why would Speilburg want a diagnosis if he is coping so well in the first place? It seems like anyone can claim they have AS nowadays  if they are a bit eccentric or odd, and it annoys me because most people with AS proper, no matter how able and high-functioning, no matter how  social and chatty, live with Theory of Mind difficulties, anxiety, rigidness and a social disconnect that can lead to low-self esteem. I am very high-functioning, social, chatty, and can pass for NT. But I cannot live a normal life because of my TOM difficulties, anxiety, obsessions and difficulty with unstructured social interactions. I hope to get a decent job in the future and to find a partner, but I am not in denial about my difficulties. I will always have them even if  with support they can be modified.

I don't wish to be dogmatic in my assertions, but I am stating how I feel, and of course everyone has different opinions.

I disagree with the Broader Autism Phenotype hypothisis which argues that we are ALL a bit autistic, or, if not going that far, that anyone who is a bit eccentric has ASD.  I think that this has done a great disservice to those who get diagnosed because they have unresolved difficulties and problems that are in the main neurological, but are compounded by the ignorance of society. There is no point getting diagnosed if your problems can be overcome; ASD cannot be cured.

If the traits can be overcome then I struggle to see how they have a condition in the first place as on that basis the concept of ASD would become a meaningless construction.  It is true, we are all different and we are all affected differently, some more so than others. I am very high-functioning and I am very self-aware, articulate, and my social difficulties are not obvious. But I have struggled all my life with severe anxiety, low self esteem, social isolation and obsessions. I know other people with ASD  who are very high-functioning but who struggle every day, get very tired and frustrated, and  feel excluded from society.

Everyone with an ASD is different, a person can have borderline traits which can be overcome and eliminated which can be compensated by a high intelligence, having ASD can be advantageous. A perso can be an excellent communicator, an excellent socialiser but may like familiarity, routine. Steven Spielberg has aspergers.

See,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_autism_spectrum_disorders

They may be different but not disabled, the environment may exaggerate their problems.

I would have to disagree ALADDIN. I think that all people with ASD have a disability because our difficulties with understanding other people, lack of social connections, anxieties, and the very real exclusions we face every day all amount to  one massive obstacle. I agree that we may debate what term to use, and it is possible that a new word will replace 'disability', but at the moment 'disability' is the one widely used word that describes our exclusion from society. Certainly we have ability, which is why the term 'disability' can be confusing, but that ability is restricted because of our difference. We want to change this which is why we campaign and raise awareness, but we can only seek to change our lot if we are aware of our limitations in the present. For if we have no difficulties then there is no point in campaigning

Not everyone on the autistic spectrum is disabled.

trouble is in some parts of the uk social services dont seem to have any idea what they are doing. take cheshire for instance, currently autism is not classified as a learning disability so there is little to no chance of getting any aid from them. There is also the fact that they dont give a damn where they house you and if it provides any support at all.

Section 6 (1) of the Equality Act says that a person has a disability if they have a ‘physical or mental impairment’ and ‘the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect’ on the person’s ‘ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’.

 So if you can show that you have a physical or mental impairment, and that this has an adverse effect on day to day activities, and that the effects are substantial and long term then under the Equality Act 2010 you would be described as having a disability.

As regards legal rights and entitlements, public bodies have a duty to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ and not treat people ‘less favourably’. There are also definitions of ‘unlawful discrimination’.  I suggest you look on the Equality and Human Rights Commission's website www.equalityhumanrights.com and perhaps call their helpline for more detailed information.

 Hope this helps.

Jenniferwave

Well, ASD is such a huge spectrum that these terms are probably all individually specific: Some people with ASD suffer from learning disabilities and they would be classed as 'mentally disabled', but not people with asperger's, who are always of sound intelligence. All autistic people have a disability because we all struggle with areas of life that are natural to most people, but how severely disabled we are is very individual: Some people with ASD will be more disabled than others. The same applies to vulnerability: We are all potentially vulnerable, but clearly a severely autistic person is more vulnerable than an able person with asperger's, so again, it is a matter of degree. And some people with asperger's are very vulnerable, often because of complicating mental health issues and social naivety. I think how vulnerable we are depends on the context: In some situations we can be secure and safe (like when we are in a familiar environment and engaging in our routines), but we can be unsafe and therefore vulnerable in situations that we cannot manage and that might cause us to react in ways that are potentially dangerous.