3 ms·

Aspergers was abandoned because the autism spectrum isn't cut-and-dry, and the difference between "high-functioning" autism and Aspergers was mostly arbitrary.

Aspergers was abandoned because the autism spectrum isn't cut-and-dry, and the difference between "high-functioning" autism and Aspergers was mostly arbitrary. If you have evidence citing that it was because of phony diagnoses, I'd be interested in seeing it. Anyhow, that change doesn't bother me in the slightest. As far as the scientific need for strict classification goes, I can see how high-functioning people could potentially throw a wrench in things, because milder cases can be confused with other conditions. Nevertheless, that type of confusion is hardly unique to autism, and the diagnosis many mental illnesses and neurological disorders can be problematic due to comorbidity. Anyhow, saying the science is not being done is just absurd. Just because the science is difficult and results are not easy to generalize, does not mean that it's not happening. The priority on severe autism (which is usually harder to misdiagnose) is understandable, and there's a possibility that findings related to severe autism may end up applying to milder cases as well. Either way, the label is helping many people, and I think you are over-estimating the negative impact of having a broader diagnosis spectrum.

lutusp 11y ago
> If you have evidence citing that it was because of phony diagnoses, I'd be interested in seeing it. Here's an article by Allen Frances, who you may recognize as the editor of DSM-IV: http://nypost.com/2012/04/24/americas-false-autism-epidemic/ http://nypost.com/2012/04/24/americas-false-autism-epidemic/ Frances is very outspoken about this issue, and interestingly, he was one of the primary advocates for the inclusion of Asperger's in DSM-IV. His outlook has, needless to day, changed completely, and the expression "phony epidemic" originates with him. > Anyhow, saying the science is not being done is just absurd. Not at all. Many people and organizations are still treating Autism as though it's a mental condition. Evidence strongly suggests that it's a physical condition with mental symptoms. Once we accept that it's an organic ailment, real scientific progress will begin, and people will be less likely to unfairly stigmatize those suffering from it as though they're "mental". As I said above, this process has scarcely begun. And "diagnosing" many bright people with Asperger's (including Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and Bill Gates) perversely turned the condition into a status symbol among impressionable young people. > I think you are over-estimating the negative impact of having a broader diagnosis spectrum. The issue is whether we're focusing on evidence instead of anecdotes. At the moment, opinion rules. Remember that the content of DSM-5 was established with votes, not scientific study outcomes. This is one of the reasons the DSM is being abandoned by the N.I.M.H.: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h

lutusp 11y ago

> If you have evidence citing that it was because of phony diagnoses, I'd be interested in seeing it. Here's an article by Allen Frances, who you may recognize as the editor of DSM-IV: http://nypost.com/2012/04/24/americas-false-autism-epidemic/ http://nypost.com/2012/04/24/americas-false-autism-epidemic/ Frances is very outspoken about this issue, and interestingly, he was one of the primary advocates for the inclusion of Asperger's in DSM-IV. His outlook has, needless to day, changed completely, and the expression "phony epidemic" originates with him. > Anyhow, saying the science is not being done is just absurd. Not at all. Many people and organizations are still treating Autism as though it's a mental condition. Evidence strongly suggests that it's a physical condition with mental symptoms. Once we accept that it's an organic ailment, real scientific progress will begin, and people will be less likely to unfairly stigmatize those suffering from it as though they're "mental". As I said above, this process has scarcely begun. And "diagnosing" many bright people with Asperger's (including Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and Bill Gates) perversely turned the condition into a status symbol among impressionable young people. > I think you are over-estimating the negative impact of having a broader diagnosis spectrum. The issue is whether we're focusing on evidence instead of anecdotes. At the moment, opinion rules. Remember that the content of DSM-5 was established with votes, not scientific study outcomes. This is one of the reasons the DSM is being abandoned by the N.I.M.H.: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h