• Replies 60 replies
  • Subscribers 25 subscribers
  • Views 9781 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

People who self-diagnose gaining access to services

Shek

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

  • Hope, I take on board your last point: "then Government Agencies will assume that people who look "normal" and who appear to be high functioning can work" , because I think you are right - that is happening.

    Government Agencies are quite clearly, from reports and postings on here, misjudging disability on outward appearances or superficial assesment.

    I don't think it follows that this leads AS not to be taken seriously as a disability.

    I do think there is a real danger that NT led Government Agencies will be frustrated by apparent inability to work from people who cannot provide sufficient evidence. That is because there isn't enough understanding of the constraints on people with "lesser impairment".

    The poorer understanding may in part arise because the focus is almost entirely on "significantly impaired" criteria, though I am unclear where that divide lies. Should people with lesser impairment receive no help at all?

    I do worry about this statement in the first of your three latest postings:

    "But I get frustrated when I hear about incredibly successful and social people claiming that they have a condition like aspergers"

    Like your comments on your cousin's ADHD, I find that extraordinarily judgemental. Who made you judge and jury?

    Are OCD, panic attacks, constant anxiety and tension exclusively definitive of Aspergers? You do seem to be saying that ONLY people with OCD and depression can be considered to be on the spectrum

Reply

  • Hope, I take on board your last point: "then Government Agencies will assume that people who look "normal" and who appear to be high functioning can work" , because I think you are right - that is happening.

    Government Agencies are quite clearly, from reports and postings on here, misjudging disability on outward appearances or superficial assesment.

    I don't think it follows that this leads AS not to be taken seriously as a disability.

    I do think there is a real danger that NT led Government Agencies will be frustrated by apparent inability to work from people who cannot provide sufficient evidence. That is because there isn't enough understanding of the constraints on people with "lesser impairment".

    The poorer understanding may in part arise because the focus is almost entirely on "significantly impaired" criteria, though I am unclear where that divide lies. Should people with lesser impairment receive no help at all?

    I do worry about this statement in the first of your three latest postings:

    "But I get frustrated when I hear about incredibly successful and social people claiming that they have a condition like aspergers"

    Like your comments on your cousin's ADHD, I find that extraordinarily judgemental. Who made you judge and jury?

    Are OCD, panic attacks, constant anxiety and tension exclusively definitive of Aspergers? You do seem to be saying that ONLY people with OCD and depression can be considered to be on the spectrum

Children
No Data