2 ms·

I'm not, I'm in no way saying that explicitly or implicitly. I do not even remotely conflate these two things. It is possible to show symptoms as a child, not

I'm not, I'm in no way saying that explicitly or implicitly. I do not even remotely conflate these two things. It is possible to show symptoms as a child, not get diagnosed as a child, and get diagnosed as an adult. I have zero issue with that. Here's the exact phrasing of the criteria https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html >Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities, or may be masked by learned strategies in later life). There's nothing in the diagnosis that says you need to be diagnosed as a child. I adamantly do not believe that's required for a diagnosis in any way shape or form.

anotherman554 4y ago
There might be a difference between medicine as written and medicine as practiced. Suppose a psychiatrist talks to a patient and confirms they have every symptom. Clearly a textbook case, except the patient says "I was symptom free in childhood." Does the psychiatrist conclude the patient doesn't meet the criteria, or does the psychiatrist conclude the patient wasn't self aware enough in childhood to know if they exhibited symptoms so a diagnosis is warranted?
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  Well no, the psychiatrist has options here, they could try to interview the parents or the teacher of the child and ask them what they remember. It's always helpful if a psychiatrist goes through the trouble of making a stronger case than "They must just not remember how autistic they were as a kid, so therefore, they had autism symptoms as a child". They're making a diagnosis with legal weight, a diagnosis that entitles you to various forms of government assistance.
  - anotherman554 4y ago
    Perhaps I misunderstood what you were talking about above. I thought you were talking about a diagnosis for treatment purposes, if you were talking about a formal diagnosis for government assistance, that's a different conversation. A diagnosis for treatment purposes does not entitle you to government assistance. People are only entitled to government assistance if they meet a "legal" standard about the severity of the illness.

anotherman554 4y ago

There might be a difference between medicine as written and medicine as practiced. Suppose a psychiatrist talks to a patient and confirms they have every symptom. Clearly a textbook case, except the patient says "I was symptom free in childhood." Does the psychiatrist conclude the patient doesn't meet the criteria, or does the psychiatrist conclude the patient wasn't self aware enough in childhood to know if they exhibited symptoms so a diagnosis is warranted?

faeriechangling 4y ago
Well no, the psychiatrist has options here, they could try to interview the parents or the teacher of the child and ask them what they remember. It's always helpful if a psychiatrist goes through the trouble of making a stronger case than "They must just not remember how autistic they were as a kid, so therefore, they had autism symptoms as a child". They're making a diagnosis with legal weight, a diagnosis that entitles you to various forms of government assistance.
- anotherman554 4y ago
  Perhaps I misunderstood what you were talking about above. I thought you were talking about a diagnosis for treatment purposes, if you were talking about a formal diagnosis for government assistance, that's a different conversation. A diagnosis for treatment purposes does not entitle you to government assistance. People are only entitled to government assistance if they meet a "legal" standard about the severity of the illness.