Category: Writers Block
Hi all. I have an autism spectrum disorder called PDD-NOS, or Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. The team that is creating the next Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) is planning to lump autism, PDD-NOS, and Asperger's into one category simply called autism. I don't agree with this. Let me know what you think. I created a petition on change.org to stop this. To view it and sign it go to
http://www.change.org/petitions/apas-dsm-v-task-force-dont-bunch-autism-aspergers-pdd-nos-into-one-category-in-the-dsm-v
Can you explain why you don't support this? What detriment to our society would it be for them to lump these three things together? Would it harm you, cause you to lose medical attention you would otherwise have been given had the three not been grouped together into one label? In short, why should I sign this?
i'll sign it tonight.
thanks...
If they're all lumped together, I won't be able to easily find others with the same type of autism as I have. Somebody could say they have mild autism like I do and have completely different problems than me.
And why is this a problem? I mean, I deal with this all the time. The word blindness ranges from legally blind, which I believe is 20-200, but don't quote me, to having prostetic eyes and no sight. I mean, I know people that can see well enough to read print, but are still legally blind. What purpose does it serve for me to sign a petition quelling scientific categorization for the easy use of psychologists and psychiatrists, so that you can find people who have the same symptoms as you? How does this make the medical field any better?
I mean, I can understand them taking the word retarded out of the manual; some people find that word offensive. I think the idea of getting offended at a word is idiotic, but whatever, take it out, its just a word. But what purpose would this serve?
The problem is, when you lumb various conditions into a single label, you lose clarity and accuracy in defining what that condition is. Depression for instance is a condition, but what does it really mean? There are various conditions which could cause symptoms of depression. Being blind is a blanket statement too. While the result may in some cases be the same, there are a wide variety of conditions which contribute to blindenss. For ease of conversation it's easy to say "I'm blind" or "I have depression". But for practicality's sake, and for ease of treatment, it's important people have a better idea of one's condition.
but this isn't going to make all the conditions into one condition, its just going to put them under the same label in a book. its a reference guide, not a medical dictionary, and its only for psychiatrists and psychologists. If you have questions about why your depressed, you should ask your psychiatrist.
Plus, depression is a symptom in most cases. Yes, it is caused by many things, that is why it is not defined sparately, because it is so broad.
In short, its just a book, they aren't trying to change the treatment of the disorder, just what page its found on.
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself very clear about what the aim of my petition is. Here is a link that shows just what the proposed changes to the DSM-V are and why people, including me, disagree with it. Also, If anyone has any suggestions for how to make my petition better or clearer, please let me know. I would really appreciate it.
http://autismandoughtisms.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/the-4-main-dsm-5-autism-controversies/
Thanks! I am against this, too. Heard about it in my rehab class. Going to sign it now!
Also, agreeing with Guardian, and in response to other posters, it will also make it difficult for service providers to know how to interact with each consumer on an individual basis. Also, even though blindness and deafness and CP are all kind of blanket terms, this is something that I believe is far more intricate and warrants separate categories. Degrees on the autism spectrum are so variant that you can't just say, "Oh, she/he has autism," and then know exactly how to provide for a consumer. Also, if a child is diagnosed with autism, the parents may feel at a loss and swimming in an ocean of just a big label. It's like all-in-one printers, which may not be a reality for some of you, but though they're a neat idea, let's face it--they fail all the time and are often less convenient than they were intended to be. I think lumping all these diagnoses together will only create more confusion amongst the community of people with autism, parents of people with autism, service and mecial providers, and the general public.
If you have a service provider whose knowledge extends no farther than the denotation marked in a manual, you desperately need a new service provider. That manual doesn't tell treatment, or therapy, or anything like that, its a dictionary, that's all.
I can understand it may be a bit overwhelming for parents, but as that manual isn't even meant for parents, I think that is a mute point. Besides that, it just lends creedance to my idea that you should ask more questions.
Points well taken. But you do realize, there are a lot of SP's who are quite inefficient. At my sister's school, she's covered because she's blind, but our friend with Asperger's is struggling because these people haven't the slightest idea what it is, and haven't researched it. And you'd be surprised that even SP's who know all the criteria often still don't know who to interact with their consumers. I'm advocating for a girl right now whose counselor is treating her in such a way that triggers her, and it takes a lot for that to happen in her case. Anyway, I'm rambling, but I guess no matter which way you look at it, any system has tragic flaws. In a perfect world, we'd all remember everything and know how to get along and treat people.
Treating people in a way that triggers whatever bothers them is a viable therapy. Its usually done with people how have phobias. if she isn't comfortable with it, she should tell her psychologist. They shouldn't continue therapy that is negatively effecting the client.
If you have a psychologist or psychiatrist who doesn't know what the disease is, or doesn't know how to treat it, you should get a different one. You wouldn't go to a doctor to treat your cancer if the doctor has no idea what cancer is or how to treat it would you? Keeping the title the same, or changing it, won't make the person know what it is. Its already in the manual, if they don't know what it is, they haven't read the manual, and I personally would not take another piece of advice from them, or pay them another dollar until I'd varified their license.
My bad, I meant a disabilities office counselor. So omeone who should know these things, but is condescending to her or doens't give clear-cut instructions or does a bunch of alphabet soup, etc.
Ugh stupid typos. My fingers have a mind of their own. But you get the jist.
But this manual has nothing to do with disability counselors. I hate disability counselors, few of them have any idea what they're doing or talking about, and all of them have their hands so tightly tied that they couldn't get us the help we need if they knew what they were doing.
This manual is for psychological professionals. Licensed psychologists and psychiatrists, its not for the general public. Most of what's in it wouldn't make sense to the general public.
Right. I know it's not. But rehabilitation professionals, and I know because I'm studying to be one, are exposed to it while studying. So they should know better. And they should also know more about etiquette. I agree with you wholeheartedly that there aren't enough people working social professions who actually give a crap about their consumers.