4 ms·

Having seen a lot of children, including my own, (10 years old and unable to speak), I think you should do a little more research on the entire spectrum the dis

by fecak 13y ago

Having seen a lot of children, including my own, (10 years old and unable to speak), I think you should do a little more research on the entire spectrum the disorder covers. This is one of the major problems with the autism community and the diagnosis. Someone who doesn't make eye contact and perhaps fixates on certain topics (maybe comp Sci) has the same diagnosis as my child who will require lifelong care and never live independently. We need the public to understand both sides. To some autism is considered a 'gift', and this study suggested 46% of their numbers were at or above average IQ. What they didn't highlight is that 31% have low IQ and are the ones (as I mentioned earlier) that will require lifelong care and put an unimaginable burden on families. Edit spelling

lettergram 13y ago
I agree, I have seen large differences in the disorder between people. For example, both may affect social behavior, but there is likely something else that triggers high vs low independence/IQ. My girlfriends brother has autism and he is smart, but will watch "finding nemo" for two months on repeat (he's 8 btw). A classmate of mine (who is extremely intelligent) also has autism, but functions normally, besides running everywhere and not making eye contact. Clearly, there is a large difference between the two and they have drastically different traits and I would argue different disorders. If this is the case, the autism spectrum should be split into different disorders. This would provide more information to parents, and teachers about what particular traits the child has.
- fecak 13y ago
  Leaders in the autism community are lobbying for a change in the terminology or diagnosis. You have charities trying to provide support for the most negatively impacted, and then you have the highest functioning members of the community saying "stop trying to change us". It's like using the term paraplegic to apply to true paraplegics and people with a sprained ankle. Both may struggle to walk, but the underlying issue is entirely different. Using the example above, my kid is closer to paraplegic. But being in the community, I know kids with the sprained ankle too. Based on the comments in this thread, it seems many here think that most in the community have a sprained ankle. From this one study 54% are below or average IQ, with 31% definitely below. These 31% are the ones that will require lifelong care. We need to change terminology to differentiate, so the debates about whether an increase is actually an increase don't happen. The CDC provides stats on several diseases in real time - autism numbers came out this week for kids born in 2002 and diagnosed before 2010. Doesn't anyone question why this is?
rogert 13y ago
As another parent of a child with autism who is barely verbal, I have to agree, this is not the same as Aspergers. In fact, I think you'll agree, we hope our kids will one day only be diagnosed with Aspergers! The problem with classifying autistic as "intelligent" and "obsessive" and "introverted" hides the truth that there are the other half of autistic people on the low-functioning end of the spectrum cannot live independently. And no, they're not exceptional at counting cards at Blackjack table either. Young autistic children require many hours of direct speech and behavior therapy everyday just to get them to basic level of communicating what they want. This is the only known effective treatment for autistic children, but it has to happen every day for years, and it is extremely expensive. Trivializing autism causes insurance companies to put caps and limits on covering direct therapy because they don't see it as essential, but parents of autistic kids know that direct intense therapy is essential and makes a big difference.
- fecak 13y ago
  This thread seems convinced that autism = intelligent and quirky. Maybe it is Rain Man, or the character on the show Parenthood or that other lawyer character (forget which show), or the prevalence of Asperger's in tech. People really don't seem to see it until it happens to them or their family. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, when the CDC chooses to highlight (1) that 46% of these kids are average to above IQ, it says "don't worry". Why didn't the CDC choose to highlight "31% of these kids are severely impacted, unemployable, and will require lifelong care at an incredible expense to their families (financial and emotional) and taxpayers"? 46% is not even a majority, yet the CDC chose that group to mention as a highlight. Why would the CDC make that choice?

by fecak 13y ago

lettergram 13y ago

I agree, I have seen large differences in the disorder between people. For example, both may affect social behavior, but there is likely something else that triggers high vs low independence/IQ. My girlfriends brother has autism and he is smart, but will watch "finding nemo" for two months on repeat (he's 8 btw). A classmate of mine (who is extremely intelligent) also has autism, but functions normally, besides running everywhere and not making eye contact. Clearly, there is a large difference between the two and they have drastically different traits and I would argue different disorders. If this is the case, the autism spectrum should be split into different disorders. This would provide more information to parents, and teachers about what particular traits the child has.

fecak 13y ago
Leaders in the autism community are lobbying for a change in the terminology or diagnosis. You have charities trying to provide support for the most negatively impacted, and then you have the highest functioning members of the community saying "stop trying to change us". It's like using the term paraplegic to apply to true paraplegics and people with a sprained ankle. Both may struggle to walk, but the underlying issue is entirely different. Using the example above, my kid is closer to paraplegic. But being in the community, I know kids with the sprained ankle too. Based on the comments in this thread, it seems many here think that most in the community have a sprained ankle. From this one study 54% are below or average IQ, with 31% definitely below. These 31% are the ones that will require lifelong care. We need to change terminology to differentiate, so the debates about whether an increase is actually an increase don't happen. The CDC provides stats on several diseases in real time - autism numbers came out this week for kids born in 2002 and diagnosed before 2010. Doesn't anyone question why this is?

rogert 13y ago

As another parent of a child with autism who is barely verbal, I have to agree, this is not the same as Aspergers. In fact, I think you'll agree, we hope our kids will one day only be diagnosed with Aspergers! The problem with classifying autistic as "intelligent" and "obsessive" and "introverted" hides the truth that there are the other half of autistic people on the low-functioning end of the spectrum cannot live independently. And no, they're not exceptional at counting cards at Blackjack table either. Young autistic children require many hours of direct speech and behavior therapy everyday just to get them to basic level of communicating what they want. This is the only known effective treatment for autistic children, but it has to happen every day for years, and it is extremely expensive. Trivializing autism causes insurance companies to put caps and limits on covering direct therapy because they don't see it as essential, but parents of autistic kids know that direct intense therapy is essential and makes a big difference.

fecak 13y ago
This thread seems convinced that autism = intelligent and quirky. Maybe it is Rain Man, or the character on the show Parenthood or that other lawyer character (forget which show), or the prevalence of Asperger's in tech. People really don't seem to see it until it happens to them or their family. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, when the CDC chooses to highlight (1) that 46% of these kids are average to above IQ, it says "don't worry". Why didn't the CDC choose to highlight "31% of these kids are severely impacted, unemployable, and will require lifelong care at an incredible expense to their families (financial and emotional) and taxpayers"? 46% is not even a majority, yet the CDC chose that group to mention as a highlight. Why would the CDC make that choice?