What will DSM 6 decide?

[SusanLR]

I was annoyed at the strong reliance put on diagnostic tests. I was first given some very long personality psych test which had only little boxes to check for an answer and many of the questions were so vague I didn't know how to answer with no way to give an explanation. Example: "Do you take drugs?" I ask the clinician in the room what do you define as drugs? Her answer was what ever YOU define as drugs.
When I got the test evaluated, the psychologist told me it showed I had Schizoid Personality Disorder. I ask how did it come to that conclusion for I disagree.
She replied that questions like the Do you take drugs? Do you often see things others don't? Do you often hear things others don't? I had answered yes to those type of questions.

Then I told her I was supposed to be getting Aspergers tests and take another view of those answers.
I said look at them through Aspie eyes.
Yes. I take prescription drugs.
Yes. My keen hearing allows me to hear things others often say they can't or convos they can't hear.
Yes. My visual perception of everything around me is so sensitive I have people say things like I didn't see that. How did you notice it and your driving. etc.
The way she interpreted the questions were different to me. She thought I was hallucinating and a druggie.
Then she started looking it over again and got excited over my interpretations compared to the majority.

They rely so heavily on these standardized tests to label you. Like the empathy many have spoken of on here. We get a low score and it's like we're going around hiding the bodies somewhere!
The DSM is not a one size fits all IMO. Each person is unique and a filled in box answer doesn't show that.

 

[wight]

There are so many things that need to be fixed relative to autism spectrum that they couldn't possibly fix them all, in addition to the things discussed above:

differential diagnosis for girls v boys
diagnosis criteria for adults v children
not to rely on standardize testing data for diagnosis

for starters.

 

[Divrom]

I don't feel the DSM writes off Autistic people at all.

I didn't say it wrote off Autistic people. I said it defined aspies out of existence.

They wrote off the label "Asperger's" and I agree with them: autism comes in many different forms, and just having Autism and Asperger's is too simplistic. It's more complicated than that, which is why it's now a Spectrum.

There was never just autism and asperger's. And there are plenty of ways to acknowledge the spectrum, without completely removing all diagnoses except for the broadest one possible. All that does it make it possible for e.g. those conditions classed as Level 1 to be dropped completely in future editions.

There is no reason that they could not have classified things as ASD: Aspergers, or ASD: PDDNOS, etc. No diagnostic criteria is going to be perfect but just lumping everyone together under one label and then making the only difference between them the level of support required seems ridiculous to me.

Autism comes in many different flavors, a spectrum is more appropriate.

You can easily have a spectrum without making the spectrum the actual diagnosis.

 

[Streetwise]

it does in the uk if they can't deny you for being able to breathe

I don't feel the DSM writes off Autistic people at all. They wrote off the label "Asperger's" and I agree with them: autism comes in many different forms, and just having Autism and Asperger's is too simplistic. It's more complicated than that, which is why it's now a Spectrum.

I never thought I'd be defending the DSM considering how badly they screwed up the definition of something else I have (HPPD) but I agree with them on this one. Autism comes in many different flavors, a spectrum is more appropriate.
I also highly doubt it affects disability benefits. I was awarded disability after they changed the definition, and it didn't screw me over.

 

[Streetwise]

thats why it should be scrapped so lazy!!!!! doctors not all doctors have to look passed outward signs

Yeah, I feel bad for people that need the help that can't get diagnosed because they are off by one or two DSM criteria.

 

[Streetwise]

it's like we must suck up to America or suffer what a lovely relationship

I agree. I was somewhat saddened by how the international market went along with DSM's decision. To me, there are clear distinctions between Asperger's and other ASCs and the level of support needed (1, 2 or 3) is a horrible way to distinguish things.

 

[Mr.Puffin]

I personally think Asperger Syndrome should be brought back into existence in the 6th one. I can see where they're coming from when they think that Asperger Syndrome is too similar from regular autism, but I don't think so much that they should remove it. I still stand by having Asperger's.

 

[Manuheleku]

I was annoyed at the strong reliance put on diagnostic tests. I was first given some very long personality psych test which had only little boxes to check for an answer and many of the questions were so vague I didn't know how to answer with no way to give an explanation. Example: "Do you take drugs?" I ask the clinician in the room what do you define as drugs? Her answer was what ever YOU define as drugs.
When I got the test evaluated, the psychologist told me it showed I had Schizoid Personality Disorder. I ask how did it come to that conclusion for I disagree.
She replied that questions like the Do you take drugs? Do you often see things others don't? Do you often hear things others don't? I had answered yes to those type of questions.

Then I told her I was supposed to be getting Aspergers tests and take another view of those answers.
I said look at them through Aspie eyes.
Yes. I take prescription drugs.
Yes. My keen hearing allows me to hear things others often say they can't or convos they can't hear.
Yes. My visual perception of everything around me is so sensitive I have people say things like I didn't see that. How did you notice it and your driving. etc.
The way she interpreted the questions were different to me. She thought I was hallucinating and a druggie.
Then she started looking it over again and got excited over my interpretations compared to the majority.

They rely so heavily on these standardized tests to label you. Like the empathy many have spoken of on here. We get a low score and it's like we're going around hiding the bodies somewhere!
The DSM is not a one size fits all IMO. Each person is unique and a filled in box answer doesn't show that.

Wow, you had a worse experience than I had with my insurance company approved "diagnosis." At least I got social anxiety as a diagnosis.

 

[Alaska]

It seems as if most people are missing what is going on with the DSM. It is actually a tool for giving practitioners a way to exclude people from receiving a diagnosis they should have. This is a cost-cutting method that does not account for human suffering it causes. If we let this continue, each DSM will exclude a few more people than the last.

Just picking off a few people at a time makes it easier to get away with it as long as we keep our narrow focus on our own needs and those of a few others similar to us. It is just another version of divide and conquer. I do think there are solutions to our problems, but only if we can face the problems and say what they are.

Extremely wealthy people are amassing most of the world resources and encouraging us to fight each other over the scraps they leave the rest of us.

 

[WittyAspie]

It seems as if most people are missing what is going on with the DSM. It is actually a tool for giving practitioners a way to exclude people from receiving a diagnosis they should have. This is a cost-cutting method that does not account for human suffering it causes. If we let this continue, each DSM will exclude a few more people than the last.

Just picking off a few people at a time makes it easier to get away with it as long as we keep our narrow focus on our own needs and those of a few others similar to us. It is just another version of divide and conquer. I do think there are solutions to our problems, but only if we can face the problems and say what they are.

Extremely wealthy people are amassing most of the world resources and encouraging us to fight each other over the scraps they leave the rest of us.

The amassing of wealth was done ages ago. The goal of the wealthy today is to keep it that way.

 

[Alaska]

The amassing of wealth was done ages ago. The goal of the wealthy today is to keep it that way.

I mostly agree with you except that amassing wealth has not stopped. The extremely wealthy are still taking up an increasingly larger share of all available resources, leaving less and less for the rest of us.

List of countries by distribution of wealth - Wikipedia The article includes a link to the definition of GINI, which is a way of measuring the inequality of the distribution of resources. I read it, but it slid right off this time, so I still do not understand enough about it.

This is a Concept that is important to our survival, so I hope to be able to make sense of it in a little while. Meanwhile there are other articles that are easier to understand. I will go look for one of them to add here.

Global Inequality - Inequality.org
I have not finished looking at this one yet, but it seems to be closer to plain English, than the last one.

 

[HermanHesse]

Human neurology doesn't change appreciably from one continent to another.

Consequently it seems only right for the world to have a single medical protocol relative to autism, IMO.

Take politics and economics out of the equation and just focus on humanity.

Sorry to tell you the bad news but economics and politics are inescapably wrapped up in humanity.

 

[HermanHesse]

I mostly agree with you except that amassing wealth has not stopped. The extremely wealthy are still taking up an increasingly larger share of all available resources, leaving less and less for the rest of us.

List of countries by distribution of wealth - Wikipedia The article includes a link to the definition of GINI, which is a way of measuring the inequality of the distribution of resources. I read it, but it slid right off this time, so I still do not understand enough about it.

This is one of the most widely believed and most easily disproved belief about economics. It simply isn't true that when the rich get richer the poor get poorer. Take the life of a factory worker during the 1910s. Work was dirty and dangerous, healthcare was bad for everybody because nobody knew how to fix anything and some workers did suffer from hunger. That level of poverty simply doesn't exist outside of homeless people with severe mental illnesses. Our society became much better at producing stuff so now we all have more stuff.

More empirically, worldwide rates of absolute poverty are going down according the World Bank. The GINI coefficient is a measure of income inequality rather than poverty.

 

[Rasendra]

There are so many things that need to be fixed relative to autism spectrum that they couldn't possibly fix them all, in addition to the things discussed above:

differential diagnosis for girls v boys
diagnosis criteria for adults v children
not to rely on standardize testing data for diagnosis

for starters.

It is possible I misunderstand your meaning here but I do not think anything should be classified based on age or gender. In fact that is part of the problem in the first place, when one starts out gender specific. Many females, including myself, were thought not to have aspergers/autism due to being female and the predominately 'male' traits can present differently.

It seems more beneficial to put that females often present with traits 'abc' and males with traits 'xyz' with overlap in traits 'lmnop' with a mention that of course any gender can have any of the traits. There will always be exceptions and separating based on gender will leave people left out due to a female showing male traits or a male showing the female traits.

The same could be said for age that a child could have what could be considered a trait more common in adults and an adult could show traits more common for children. So if this is what you mean then I agree! But if this is not what you meant then this is why I disagree.

 

[wight]

what you are explaining is what "differential diagnosis" means.

 

[WittyAspie]

This is one of the most widely believed and most easily disproved belief about economics. It simply isn't true that when the rich get richer the poor get poorer. Take the life of a factory worker during the 1910s. Work was dirty and dangerous, healthcare was bad for everybody because nobody knew how to fix anything and some workers did suffer from hunger. That level of poverty simply doesn't exist outside of homeless people with severe mental illnesses. Our society became much better at producing stuff so now we all have more stuff.

More empirically, worldwide rates of absolute poverty are going down according the World Bank. The GINI coefficient is a measure of income inequality rather than poverty.

Our society reduced poverty by stripping the third world of its resources and leaving those people in dire conditions. There are still millions around the world who do not have access to clean water or healthcare.

Also, the wealth gap between the richest and everyone else, particularly the poorest, continues to increase. The select few people in the world who own the majority of the earth's resources have a monopoly on the global economy. Developed countries look alright until you find the kids who only eat breakfast because their school provides it. Developed countries look alright until you get to know families with both parents working full time who still need food stamps to afford food.

I won't even go into developing countries. I would be here all day. But did you realize 863 million people live in shanty towns? That's 11.5% of the world's population living in abject poverty.

 

[Rasendra]

Well maybe I explained it wrong but maybe it's also better to not even mention the gender part at all. I don't want a different diagnosis for female and male versions of anything. What I meant is that I want the diagnosis to include both male and female traits. If a psychologist wants to mention to a patient that certain traits are typically male or mostly seen in females then fine. However it seems when things are defined by gender or age then problems arise.

Males with female traits or females with male traits could be left out or you find males with female traits suddenly diagnosed with 'female autism.' That doesn't seem like a positive outcome.

On the other hand I can see benefits to separate diagnosis for genders but overall I think the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.

As for age, we don't stop having autism as we age and it doesn't turn into something different so I don't understand the need for a different diagnosis based on age. Some traits may change a bit but other than saying I am an adult with autism or aspergers how would it benefit anyone to have a different diagnosis for adults and children? I would be afraid with different diagnosis based on age that it would give the impression that there is a cure or that one can grow out of autism.

 

[isthisreallife]

Yeah, I feel bad for people that need the help that can't get diagnosed because they are off by one or two DSM criteria.

Depending on where you live, even with a diagnosis, you can't get any help

 

[wight]

the diagnosis isn't different,

the criteria for psychologists is expanded so they can make a correct diagnosis, instead of being only given behavior and criteria for male children, they are also given them for female children and information about diagnosing adults that were never previously diagnosed.

 

[Rasendra]

So maybe we just weren't communicating well or I wasn't understanding very well because that is what I was trying to say. But you explained it much better in that last post lol.
From your previous posts it seemed as if you wanted two different diagnosis based on gender.