Do you think autism is a meaningless diagnosis?

It's not meaningless at all. It's a valid disability that causes people, myself included, to have difficulties not just in learning, but also in everyday life. It is not something to be marginalized.

 

No, I don't think so, but there's a chance it might be over-diagnosed. Same goes for ADD.

 

No, Autism is very plainly a real and diagnosable disorder. If you've ever worked with a child with actual ASPERGERS (where they have to wear ear protection and such), you'd be able to see.

The problem with psychology/psychiatry as a whole is that the mass majority of "diseases" are actually a collection of behaviors or "symptoms" which is not actually what a disease is. In actual medicine, the act of psychologically analyzing somebody is like making constant diagnoses of exclusion. That is to say, this person has these "symptoms" and not these symptoms (or causation), therefore they have this blanket term/diagnosis. For example, irritable bowel syndrome is a diagnosis of exclusion after ruling out all known diseases with similar symptoms (e.g. crones). A doctor will listen to your symptoms and use those to narrow down potential ailments you might have, but eventually scientific tests are used to actually verify which you have (or don't). The only time a doctor will make a diagnosis based purely on symptoms is through a diagnosis of exclusion. That is all a psychologist ever does, and will rarely if ever verify anything physiologically. Explain to me why people will be put on a cocktail of psychotropes and kill themselves before a psychologist would ever refer them to a neurologist or endocrinologist.

I wonder how long people are going to listen to these quacks. Once geneticists, biochemists, endocrinologists etc. all agree and can verify clinical observations, it basically gets removed from the field of psychology and enters the realm of actual medicine.

 

I agree with this.

 

Autism definitely isn't a meaningless diagnosis. Autism is a spectrum, and there are many people who fall on the lighter end of the spectrum may not be effected as much as someone so badly effected that they can barely talk, but there are still many people who are effected a lot by Autism. I don't think the rise in the number of autism cases is something to be worried about either, I simply believe it is a case of more accurate diagnoses over the years.

 

Other disorders are in spectrums as well, and the people with those diseases who may not be totally effected don't get called "lazy". For example, people with Bipolar I Disorder have 3 or 4 depression episodes for every one manic episode, but they're still considered bipolar. People with Bipolar II or greater can have upwards of 40 depression episodes for one manic. There are also some people who have non-mental disorders that are classified by a spectrum. Just because a person suffers less than another person with a disease/disorder doesn't invalidate that they still have that disease/disorder.

 

No...I work with autistic children and I can tell you there is a definite set of characteristics that simply an "introverted" child would not have. Autism exists and is a real disorder: there is emerging evidence that it is hereditary and people are working on finding specific genes for autism. It is complicated to see autism in some children since it is a spectrum..symptoms less severe in some people than others. On the other hand, perhaps it IS overdiagnosed- there is no clear explanation for the sudden spike in diagnoses since the 90s... OR maybe the new DSM-IV criteria for autism expanding (ie. "widening the spectrum") means more children who flew under the radar for having autism are now being recognized and treated.

It's a shame that there is kind of a stigma on autism. It's a real struggle for the kids who have it and everyone assumes they just haven't been "disciplined enough" or want attention. And the way higher functioning people with autism are portrayed in the media as "awkward geniuses" doesn't help either.

 

It depends which treatments you are talking about.. if it's medication, that's probably true. But in the case of behavioural treatments like ABA therapy (which is very effective), it totally DOES work for children who aren't even officially on the spectrum. Since the aim is to eliminate the symptoms, it works just as well for a kid with a pragmatic language disorder or behavioural issues.

 

Could you perhaps elaborate on that? All the evidence I see shows that it's absolutely not harmful. I don't really understand how it could be.

 

Hmm well that's definitely not what it should be like at all. If that's the way ABA is wherever you are, I wouldn't support it either. The way I've been trained to do ABA is to reward behaviours that are helpful to the child (ie. using words to communicate instead of hitting/screaming) and ignoring or preventing unhelpful behaviours (like if the child tantrums to avoid putting on their shoes, wait out the tantrum and still hold the expectation that they put on their shoes). The kids I see go through the therapy where I am having amazing changes! And are genuinely happier and less distressed.

Yeah, true, it doesn't work for every single one of them but I have never heard of a case where it did harm to a child. Also, with any behavioural/cognitive therapy, yes it's not going to irradicate the disorder since it IS genetic, BUT the symptoms are the PROBLEM that are making the child's life worse, so getting rid of the symptoms will certainly improve their lives and won't make them resentful or anything as opposed to ex-gay therapy where you are trying to get rid of feelings- feelings that are not harmful for the person in any way. Being gay is not a disorder, it does not affect how you function and therefore you don't need help. Having autism IS and children do not ENJOY having those symptoms.