Published on 12, July, 2020
With reference to the Twitter storm over Chris Packham's comments
here My assessment report said there have to be impairments in social communication, social imagination and social interaction
for an appropriate diagnosis to be made. Is impairment synonymous with disability though?
A thing that puzzles me. The criteria for diagnosis says there has to be impairments in 3 areas ,as I've previously posted ;yet there's people with the diagnosis who make out they have no problems .
Why do such people seek an assessment then? If they're given a diagnosis that suggests they have some degree of impairment , but such people don't think they're impaired in any way.
There have been plenty of situations in my life in which I've felt different and, to an extent, disabled as compared to my peer group. I don't think I ever saw myself as impaired, although this is something I'm now reflecting on. Perhaps i just don't like the word.
However, i sought a formal diagnosis both to confirm my own sense of identity and to give some indication as to what others in my family are facing and why. Given that, at least in our situation, the issues are longstanding and familial, to me it seems perfectly reasonable for one family member to present for assessment in order to understand the wider issues. As a parent I felt I could do no other. I decided a long time ago that whether the autism service then views it through the deficit model and calls it a disorder is entirely up to them. I don't have to accept their terminology. Plus I'm not a great fan of the DSM but access to services depended upon me going through this process.
Maybe they are of opinion that the impairment is from the NT viewpoint. So it's only seen as an impairment from people who are NT. You could make the comparison the other way, and say various traits of NT behaviour are an impairment of the ND viewpoint (hypersensitivity to senses for example) but the majority of people are NT, so it's ND that are compared to NT, not the other way around.