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

In fighting and diffabiity, well in respect of our humanity we can soon degenerate into dissagreement like any other people group but the fact that we are all part of a spectrum that is soursed from a way of thinking that is significantly different from the mental processing and experience of the mass population.

The semantics of how much we blend mimic or can show to be capable as a measured performance and the simple and "easy ticket" of accepance, if only. let us celebrate that we as significantly different people posses a uniqu understanding and ability's that mean we are different and that diffability menas we are often marginalised espaecially the more a homogenised society becomes and the more this is seen as a measure of collective safety and the "way" to be if you are OK. and to be thought of as such.

I have no idea if Mr Speilburge is on the AS but he is tallented in a considerably unique way and continues to invoke the impressions of radical new mindsets in those who observe his work. He breaks down expectations and introduces new perspectives with a fervent impression that is unshakeable when viewed, a master of his art indeed.

Would that we were all able to venture to such a position. If it was a fair wind that got him there then would it blow me in such a way that I might so elequently demonstrate the hidden things I understand.

WB

I am who I am. I am different and I have a courage and edge that has rendered my vulnerability a matter to be recconned with, but if I am entreated to conform and comply then I am at the mercy of the smal values and fears of those who make such requests and their approvals and dissaprovals along with all the fears they are driven by make me very vulnerable indeed. It is their fear that inhibits my standing tall and the true extent of my abilities. For I am not timid in my own clothes, or nakedness and it is only the emporors expectations that render me naked in the streets of life, such is the nature of social expectation.

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.

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.