People who self-diagnose gaining access to services

A major autism organisation is giving access to groups/services for adults with Asperger's and high functioning autism to adults who self-diagnose.

Those who self-diagnose are highly motivated, unlike many adults with autism where motivation can be an issue.  They are more likely to attend groups than those with significant problems. These self-diagnosed adults as service users have a say in how services are run.  In this organisation, they want groups set up that exclude those with Asperger's and high functioning autism who have more problems than they do.

This mirrors what has happened in some online groups for people with Asperger's that have been dominated by those desperately seeking a diagnosis.

What other condition allows those that self-diagnose to be given access to services?  It could be argued that everyone as some autisitic traits i.e. is on the autism spectrum.  But surely the point of diagnosis is to identify those that are in need of support services.  To be given a diagnosis, there must be 'significant impairment'.  Many of those desperate for a diagnosis do not meet the criterea.  For many 'Asperger's Syndrome' seems a trendy diagnosis - it doesn't have the baggage of many conditions linked to the mind/brain.  They have little awarenees of the many difficulties faced by those living with Asperger's/high functioning autism.

I believe allowing people who self-diagnose access to services makes diagnosis meaningless.  In the long term, it is likely to have a negative affect on funding for services for adults.

What are your thoughts?

 

Parents
  • Are there really problems with the private diagnosis route? Evidence rather than  hearsay would be welcomed in order to put this debate on an informed footing.

    What law are professionals breaking?

    Sorry if I seem to be being pedantic, but these posts do seem to be following the line that autism diagnosis is for a private club, and something needs to be done to stop somehow unworthy persons getting in.

    What I think also ought to be considered here is the notion that "real" aspergers is devoid of any chance of improvement (as distinct from cure), so older people who show signs of their asperger traits ameliorating have to be excluded from the definition. It hints at pepople arguing their right to be helpless and have everything done for them. Except a lot of people don't have that advantage.

    I agree for some the severity of the aspergers means they need lifelong support. But are you saying "real" aspergers cannot ameliorate with age, so anyone showing signs of amelioration is "borderline" or has been let in by sub-standard diagnosis?

Reply
  • Are there really problems with the private diagnosis route? Evidence rather than  hearsay would be welcomed in order to put this debate on an informed footing.

    What law are professionals breaking?

    Sorry if I seem to be being pedantic, but these posts do seem to be following the line that autism diagnosis is for a private club, and something needs to be done to stop somehow unworthy persons getting in.

    What I think also ought to be considered here is the notion that "real" aspergers is devoid of any chance of improvement (as distinct from cure), so older people who show signs of their asperger traits ameliorating have to be excluded from the definition. It hints at pepople arguing their right to be helpless and have everything done for them. Except a lot of people don't have that advantage.

    I agree for some the severity of the aspergers means they need lifelong support. But are you saying "real" aspergers cannot ameliorate with age, so anyone showing signs of amelioration is "borderline" or has been let in by sub-standard diagnosis?

Children
No Data