Published on 12, July, 2020
This might be one for the Moderators to look into, but I wonder if others have insight on this.
I've had several conversations recently with professionals dealing with adults on the spectrum who've just spouted the triad of impairments, or who've said its all in the triad of impairments.
With all the literature on theories about autism and various interpretations, and approaches to treatment, I could quite understand professionals looking for the easiest synthesis to hand. But what is to hand? Is it just too easy to read up on the triad and related summaries? Or is there nothing else to hand for professionals to use.
The Triad of Impairments, as far as I can see, is of no more value than for diagnosing children. It has little relevance to the everyday lives and experiences of adults, and is hardly appropriate to helping professionals understand adult needs.
It doesn't explain a lot of issues facing adults.
But just what are the main texts used by professionals? And how useful are these texts for supporting adults?
Trouble is you have to prove that some law or governance has been breached.
Everything is hedged round with conditions and lots of things are necessarily vague.
It intrigues me that if I appear to have dropped some litter in the street I am likely to get an on-the-spot fine, and would have real difficulty trying to prove it wasn't me.
If a government or local authority or health authority official lets down a disabled person, a law team will come out of nowhere and you'll have a really hard time proving anything.
An example is archaeology (one of the least regulated of professions). There is actually very little set down about what an archaeologist is obliged to do in law, there's a few very woolly guidelines. If an archaeologist fakes the evidence for an excavation there is virtually nothing anyone can do about it. Because bizarrely there's nothing set down that says he cannot.
There's a difference between what you think the Autism Act says, and what you can actually expect from it. At the last review of progress, local authorities that had done nothing were applauded because there were pprovisions of one sort or another before the Act that sort of did the right thing.
You might be the bearer of a bank note that says it entitles you to the equivalent in money. But being the bearer of autism in the light of the Autism Act gets you precisely nowhere.
Its a bit like the argument that those who take the highest responsibilities in the land should be paid commensurately. So if they mess up you might suppose that correspondingly they ought to get sacked. Mostly it is too expensive to sack them because they have a contract that says they must be paid compensation (often in the £millions) if they have to be sacked, whatever the reason.
You can be sacked for just not fitting in because of your autism and an employment tribunal that will cost you a fortune may well not work in your favour.