Proposed changes in the definition of autism would sharply reduce the skyrocketing rate at which the disorder is diagnosed and might make it harder for many people who would no longer meet the criteria to get health, educational and social services, a new analysis suggests.
The definition is now being reassessed by an expert panel appointed by the American Psychiatric
Association, which is completing work on the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the first major revision in 17 years. The D.S.M., as the manual is known, is the standard reference for mental disorders, driving research, treatment and insurance decisions. Most experts expect that the new manual will narrow the criteria for autism; the question is how sharply.
The proposed changes would probably exclude people with a diagnosis who were higher functioning. “I’m very concerned about the change in diagnosis, because I wonder if my daughter would even qualify,” said Mary Meyer of Ramsey, N.J. A diagnosis of Asperger syndrome was crucial to helping her daughter, who is 37, gain access to services that have helped tremendously. “She’s on disability, which is partly based on the Asperger’s; and I’m hoping to get her into supportive housing, which also depends on her diagnosis.”
The changes would narrow the diagnosis so much that it could effectively end the autism surge, said Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, director of the Child Study Center at the Yale School of Medicine
and an author of the new analysis of the proposal. “We would nip it in the
bud.”
“Our fear is that we are going to take a big step backward,” said Lori Shery, president of the Asperger Syndrome Education Network. “If clinicians say, ‘These kids don’t fit the criteria for an autism spectrum diagnosis,’ they are not going to get the supports and services they need, and they’re going to experience failure.”
Adapted from the New York Times.
This is a serious change, no? Do you agree with the last paragraph? How do you think this
will affect our generation as we mature into adults? How about the generations to come? Do you think the government influenced this change, suggesting that it has been over-diagnosed? What happens if someone who genuinely needs aid because he cannot support himself as an adult is not provided with benefits because he “doesn’t fit the new criteria”? Who is liable?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
This is quite the serious change that can possibly cause problems in the future for the children of our generation especially. I understand that some people may be "overprotective" of their kids, and may be convinced that their perfectly healthy child has autism, despite what doctors say. These situations are few and far between because doctors can be sure if a child has a mental disorder and if treatment is necessary. However, deeming that the mental disease of autism is over-diagnosed and that people who do not meet the criteria should not receive is ridiculous. It is similar to saying that a person should not be treated at a hospital because he only has a gashed knee, and this is not serious enough to be properly treated. It worries me that autistic children may be losing all chances of aid, this could possibly destroy families. If someone has a mental disorder, even if it is not overly severe, they should not receive zero aid whatsoever, that is a sickening way to handle the situation. I understand it may cost a lot of money to help almost everyone, but we can do better than only aiding the severely mentally handicapped. Autism is serious, and if someone that needs aid doesn't receive it, they should go ahead and sue whoever denied them aid.
This is a huge change in diagnosing Autism, but I do not believe it will necessarily cause people that actually need aid to not receive it. I think it is a positive step, as this will prevent any possibility of people abusing the system and gaining federal aid even if they do not have true Autism. Obviously, I would hope that the system would ensure that any candidate that has true Autism would receive the aid that they need. I do not think the government's step here is too out of control, as they will not take it too far as to deprive Autistic citizens. If something like this happened, the nation would be up in arms. The government would not make the mistake of allowing this to happen. Instead, this is a good way to ensure that only the truly Autistic Americans can play the "Autism card," which is the way it should be.
This is a huge change in diagnosing Autism, but I do not believe it will necessarily cause people that actually need aid to not receive it. I think it is a positive step, as this will prevent any possibility of people abusing the system and gaining federal aid even if they do not have true Autism. Obviously, I would hope that the system would ensure that any candidate that has true Autism would receive the aid that they need. I do not think the government's step here is too out of control, as they will not take it too far as to deprive Autistic citizens. If something like this happened, the nation would be up in arms. The government would not make the mistake of allowing this to happen. Instead, this is a good way to ensure that only the truly Autistic Americans can play the "Autism card," which is the way it should be.
I completely agree with Jack taht this is a huge change in the way Autism was definied before, however I do not see health officials turning those with mental disabilities away from getting help and being treated. Although they are trying to redefine what it means to be autistic, their job is to ultimately make sure that these patients receive the help and care that they need in order to be successful in their life. I can only hope that the doctors in this country would have enough respect and sense to know what is appropriate to treat their patients with regardless of what they might be labelled as. Whether someone is autistic or struggling with some other mental disability they will always be able to obtain the help they need.
I too believe that change the requirements for diagonsis for Autism will be a major step backwards for society. Although, parents may be pressuring doctors into treating their children uneccesarily, I believe that changing the requirements will shaft some children who actually need the treatment and special help that a positive diagnosis will give them access to. By changing these requirements we will be further disabling future citizens and therefore handicapping our nation.
I too believe that change the requirements for diagonsis for Autism will be a major step backwards for society. Although, parents may be pressuring doctors into treating their children uneccesarily, I believe that changing the requirements will shaft some children who actually need the treatment and special help that a positive diagnosis will give them access to. By changing these requirements we will be further disabling future citizens and therefore handicapping our nation.
I definitely agree that this stricter interpretation of autism diagnoses is extremely negative. People with learning disabilities, such as Asbergers Syndrome, who will lose their diagnoses, are in extreme danger if this occurs. These people need their diagnoses in order to live their lives and to be able to have the support and guidance that they deserve. For example, people with Asbergers, who in my opinion, without a doubt have developmental disabilities, would no longer be considered as part of the Autism spectrum, and would experience significant difficulties in their ability to survive. If this tighter interpretation is passed, it will affect our generation as we mature into adults by throwing these kids with Asbergers into “the real world” where most of them would certainly see failure. I do not think it is fair to enforce this stricter interpretation of autism diagnoses, especially in a time when recognition for mental disabilities has been so successful. It would most certainly be taking a step backwards, damaging the progress that has been made in standing up for the rights of the mentally disabled.
The system is clearly taking a step backwards by trying to reduce the number of candidates that are eligible to receive support and service. While changing the definition of autism may help save money and create better standards of autism diagnosis, we need to treat all the problems of mental illness. While I hope these changes are not put into place, if they are, doctors need to have enough respect to mention signs of mental illness rather than completely turning down a potential autistic child.
Post a Comment