• Replies 20 replies
  • Subscribers 25 subscribers
  • Views 6673 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

When AS is not "significant impairment"

longman

I would like to introduce a thread that deals with AS/ASD with lesser impairment - when those diagnosed do not strictly meet the requirement of "significant impairment". These are the people with ASD/AS who are able to manage their lives or who have not been successful in claiming support or whose access to support is being challenged under the new constraints.

From other dialogue here, there is clearly some concern amongst those with significant impairment that too many people are being diagnosed who are perceived as not fitting the "significant impairment" criteria.  That includes people who have improved/ "been cured" since original diagnosis.

Some of this may otherwise belong under "Living on the Spectrum", but I feel there are a lot of concerns under diagnosis and assessment that need addressing where people are managing to cope with impairment and have some degree of fulfilment. This includes socialising, relationships, travel, work etc. However the reason I bring this up is that there are maybe significant issues for those who do not meet the "significantly impoaired" criteria that differ from the latter. I don'r feel these get a fair hearing.

If the moderators want to move this to "Living on the Spectrum" fair enough, but can you please do it so that there is an opportunity to discuss issues affecting those with "lesser impairment"

Parents

  • Also read the discussion sequence under Living on the Spectrum - re people with ASD being disabled. There was a lot of contention therein that people who had any kind of success in their lives couldn't possibly be "significantly impaired".

    I'm glad that we seem to have got back to the idea that if people are diagnosed with an ASD it is because they have some recognised disability even if that doesn't clearly fit the requirements to claim for having a disability. As we know people are getting declined support because the NT establishment decides there's no case.

    I don't think it is fair to make out that there is over-diagnosis going on, unless some evidence can be presented (other than a personal opinion whether a relative's ADHD diagnosis was bought).

    But I guess the debate could go on and on.

    Merry Christmas everyone.

Reply

  • Also read the discussion sequence under Living on the Spectrum - re people with ASD being disabled. There was a lot of contention therein that people who had any kind of success in their lives couldn't possibly be "significantly impaired".

    I'm glad that we seem to have got back to the idea that if people are diagnosed with an ASD it is because they have some recognised disability even if that doesn't clearly fit the requirements to claim for having a disability. As we know people are getting declined support because the NT establishment decides there's no case.

    I don't think it is fair to make out that there is over-diagnosis going on, unless some evidence can be presented (other than a personal opinion whether a relative's ADHD diagnosis was bought).

    But I guess the debate could go on and on.

    Merry Christmas everyone.

Children
No Data