And then there are parents who are justifiably worried that the changes will result in the exclusion of children who would have met Aspergers or PDD-NOS diagnoses under DSM-IV. Studies suggest that the new criteria might exclude anywhere from 10 to 55% of this population. The intention of the committee, or at least one of the stated intentions, was that those who didn’t fall under the autism umbrella might fit with the newly introduced “social communication disorder.” The only problem? A study with DSM-V architect Catherine Lord as senior author seems to have found that children diagnosed with PDD-NOS who didn’t meet the new autism criteria often didn’t have social communication problems. If they don’t have these issues, how will these once-PDD-NOS folk who no longer fit autism criteria fit the criteria for social communication disorder? The social communication disorder diagnosis, by the way, currently carries no infrastructure in the education or services system that would trigger support or resources for someone who has it. Only time will tell whether or not the changes will bear out these concerns in practice.
California has laws and policies that get special education money for Asperger kids. Less money is available for autism, or so I am told, and no money is allocated for social communication disorder. The word is already out to parents group to fight against any diagnosis for social communication disorder, because it will lock the kid out of any special benefits.
Here is the UN WHO ICD-10 definition:
F84.5 Asperger syndromeThe ICD-10 codes are commonly used for insurance and other purposes, and given standard definitions of various physical and mental ailments.
A disorder of uncertain nosological validity, characterized by the same type of qualitative abnormalities of reciprocal social interaction that typify autism, together with a restricted, stereotyped, repetitive repertoire of interests and activities. It differs from autism primarily in the fact that there is no general delay or retardation in language or in cognitive development. This disorder is often associated with marked clumsiness. There is a strong tendency for the abnormalities to persist into adolescence and adult life. Psychotic episodes occasionally occur in early adult life.
Isn't it obvious that this definition is ridiculous? The word "nosological" means having to do with the classification of diseases, so I guess they are admitting that the definition is dubious.
The term "qualitative abnormalities of reciprocal social interaction" just means that the kid is a social outcast. A social outcast is not necessarily disordered. Maybe something is wrong with the others. By this criterion, there is something wrong with any kid who is bullied.
The next symptom is a stereotyped repertoire of interests and activities. The Wikipedia page on Asperger syndrome show a picture of a boy fascinated with molecular structure. So I guess the boy has a disorder because his interests match the stereotype of a boy with a disorder.
The main problem here is that Psychotherapy has been feminized and corrupted. Effeminate psychologists pathologize boys with masculine interests, and they are willing to rewrite their diagnoses to get state benefits. There is nothing wrong with a boy who wants to go his own way and pursue his own interests. The psychologists are bigots.
The diagnosis of disorders has always been a political hot potato. Good example is homosexuality which was declared "normal" in 1973 by the APA and then taken out of the DSM-II in 1974 as a mental illness. All thanks to protests by homosexual activists in the years before.
In this case it is the search to save money that's driving this. As the states get squeezed by their over paid employees and the golden pensions that are underfunded to a shocking degree they will try to squeeze out funding for those "special needs" children any way they can. Expect more to follow, it's not about science it's about politics and money.
Post a Comment