8 ms·

> I have heard first hand that there is a general rule among psychologists that its wrong and unethical to diagnose someone with neurodevelopmental disorder whe

> I have heard first hand that there is a general rule among psychologists that its wrong and unethical to diagnose someone with neurodevelopmental disorder when there are no signs of impairments to the individual. I've always found this a bit funny. I kind of understand why this is done this way, but it does imply that a person with a given disorder could end up diagnosed, or not diagnosed with it, depending on what kind of society/culture they're in, which doesn't sound right. I would argue that things like autism should have a solid diagnosis regardless of how it influences a person's life in a given society. The reality seems to be that we're just very poor at diagnosing these things, so we diagnose by proxy.

monktastic1 9y ago
It doesn't seem crazy that there should be differing diagnoses by culture. Autism falls along a spectrum, and there are obviously varying degrees of anxiety, depression, attention deficit, and many other symptoms of diagnosable disorders. The question of when it crosses the line to "impairment" is pretty arbitrary.
belorn 9y ago
I find it similar to how a doctor diagnose malnutrition. The exact amount of vitamins, minerals, and proteins needed for each individual varies, so you can't be sure within the natural variance when a problem occur by just measuring each level in the blood. So you end up with lists of symptoms that may indicate a problem by malnutrition, but the existence of those symptoms (like fatigue, stress, sexual behavior) are all interpreted by the society/culture you are in. I think the most important part is that people should not end up diagnosed unnecessary. Rather than rigid diagnosis, I rather have solid professional standards that require the psychologist to have a similar education and use techniques that will reduce cultural and social norms as influences.
- projektir 9y ago
  But... you don't see a problem with this? I don't know if nutrition is the example you want to use. This is science we're talking about. It can't afford to be wishy washy like this and we don't change our ideas about how planets align based on which culture you're in. You suddenly not have appendicitis because you're screaming in pain below the acceptable cultural threshold. In one society, being gay causes immense stress, and may therefore be classified as a mental disorder. As it was. Yet it isn't a mental disorder, obviously. Problems caused by the difference itself, and problems caused by society's attitude towards the individual must be separated. On the other hand, certain problems, like autism, are fairly solid as to whether they exist or not. Whether you live in a society that mistreats autistic people or a society that idolizes them, there's a distinct difference people may possess. Confusing disorders with inability to cope with an unaccepting society is very dangerous, because it leads to precisely what you're saying: overdiagnosis, and using diagnosis as means to shut people up and avoid critiquing society itself, and other things.

monktastic1 9y ago

It doesn't seem crazy that there should be differing diagnoses by culture. Autism falls along a spectrum, and there are obviously varying degrees of anxiety, depression, attention deficit, and many other symptoms of diagnosable disorders. The question of when it crosses the line to "impairment" is pretty arbitrary.

belorn 9y ago

I find it similar to how a doctor diagnose malnutrition. The exact amount of vitamins, minerals, and proteins needed for each individual varies, so you can't be sure within the natural variance when a problem occur by just measuring each level in the blood. So you end up with lists of symptoms that may indicate a problem by malnutrition, but the existence of those symptoms (like fatigue, stress, sexual behavior) are all interpreted by the society/culture you are in. I think the most important part is that people should not end up diagnosed unnecessary. Rather than rigid diagnosis, I rather have solid professional standards that require the psychologist to have a similar education and use techniques that will reduce cultural and social norms as influences.

projektir 9y ago
But... you don't see a problem with this? I don't know if nutrition is the example you want to use. This is science we're talking about. It can't afford to be wishy washy like this and we don't change our ideas about how planets align based on which culture you're in. You suddenly not have appendicitis because you're screaming in pain below the acceptable cultural threshold. In one society, being gay causes immense stress, and may therefore be classified as a mental disorder. As it was. Yet it isn't a mental disorder, obviously. Problems caused by the difference itself, and problems caused by society's attitude towards the individual must be separated. On the other hand, certain problems, like autism, are fairly solid as to whether they exist or not. Whether you live in a society that mistreats autistic people or a society that idolizes them, there's a distinct difference people may possess. Confusing disorders with inability to cope with an unaccepting society is very dangerous, because it leads to precisely what you're saying: overdiagnosis, and using diagnosis as means to shut people up and avoid critiquing society itself, and other things.