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.
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.
So basically some people go for an assessment , that includes impairment as a criteria for a diagnosis, already denying they are impaired in any way ?!
Which comes back to the point of- If you don't see yourself as impaired why seek out an assessment in the first place?
I think we're basically saying the same thing. My point is I could equally say ND's are impaired because they can't hear everything I can, or they take emotions over fact and reason