Category Archives: ICD-10

“Autism Spectrum Dependency Classification System v 1.0” -proposal-

[Rev.] Romulus Campan, FDScMH (Forensic), LTh (Hons), CertEd, QTS,
PgCert Religion, Spirituality & Mental Health,
PgCert Special Psychopedagogy,
PgCert Autism & Asperger’s
Chair, Disability & Neurodivergence Staff Network – BSMHFT

Previous attempts to classify the Autism Spectrum (AS), failed to understand the ‘trees’ within the ‘forest’ of unknown dimensions, which has become generally known as Autism Spectrum Disorders.

I am unwilling to concede ‘disorders’ to ‘conditions’ simply because after countless episodes of bullying and harassment from mostly ignorantly unqualified individuals and groups, in this case having found in their “autism activism” a venting platform for complex seemingly psychological issues, I have decided to initiate and maintain liaison only with academically and/or experientially qualified entities, willing to participate in existing efforts to rescue and restore the Autism narrative from the chaos caused by such incompetent “movements” and individuals, the vast majority of whom have spawned from Judy Singer’s disastrous, “NeuroDiversity” brain-child, born as an “idea” explained by the book’s Amazon abstract as follows:

“The word itself was just one of many ideas in this work, her 1998 Honours thesis, a pioneering sociological work that mapped out the emergence of a new category of disability that, till then, had no name.” (italics mine)

Surprisingly, however, as I have detailed in a previous essay, Singer’s careless inference with the medical field mutated into an increasingly conflicted understanding of disability, revealed in a recent article as “The problem with the expression “People with Neurodiversity” is that it turns Neurodiversity into the latest fashionable synonym for Disability.”

The necessity to re-classify the AS should be obvious to all ‘navigators’ of a “system” which could be best depicted as a beach playground where infantile participants more and more aggressively, try to destroy and rebuild their newer and newer sand-castles of a derailed activism, fortunately washed away by oftentimes feeble, but nevertheless professionally and/or experientially much more accurate attempts to defend the Autism narrative from becoming another defunct sociological experiment.

The real reason in my opinion for this constant threat for the wellbeing of millions of autistic individuals and their families worldwide, including my own, is the collapse of observational behaviourism as exclusive instrument in understanding Autism from its ontogenesis throughout its lifetime progression, having left behind a Medi-Social Model identifiable void, where oftentimes hazardous and dangerous psychiatric interventions are being argued against by an equally hazardous reactivist revisionism, frightened apparently that “as long as autism – which is not a mental ill-health condition – remains in the psychiatric diagnostic manuals, there will continue to be those who use this to justify their attempts to find a cure.” (italics mine) (Chown & Leatherland, 2018).

I cannot, in all honesty, understand how and why would 25 autistic individuals, many of whom academics, be afraid that millions of individuals with autism, living themselves, their families and/or care environments under the constant threat of self-harm, wandering and uncontrollable violence, would be offered a treatment, a cure?

I have developed the Autism Spectrum Dependency Classification System, as a response-proposal against the confusions caused by the changes in the past years to the two, main disease categorisation systems, the DSM and the ICD, also the chaos in the less formal use of “functionality-based labels”, the now literally demonised HFA or High-Functioning Autism and LFA or Low-Functioning Autism.

As I have already hinted throughout my social-media presence, I consider dependency the most practical means of conveying the level of functional autonomy of an Autistic -or any other- individual, integrated with a simple, universally applicable sub-categorisation system, by which dependency is in direct proportion with the identified comorbid symptoms, as an individualised, non-numerical quotient of support needed for the maximum achievable autonomy.

By using the concept of “comorbid symptoms” I acknowledge Autism as a monolithic disorder featuring the below explained intellectual/mental, neurodevelopmental, physical and mental-health/psychiatric conditions not as independent co-morbidities (regardless of their also non-autistic existence), but as comorbid symptoms sharing origins simultaneously or developmentally with their Autism root.

The following codes have been used:

ID/MR – Intellectual Disability / Mental Retardation

LD – Learning Disabilities: Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, Dyscalculia, Visual Stress Syndrome, SPD (Sensory Processing Disorders), Tourette’s Syndrome, etc.

PHD – Physical Disabilities (observable and/or non-observable): Motor-functional (Fibromyalgia, CFS, Spinal Disorders, MS, etc), Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome, etc.

MHD – Mental Health Disabilities: Clinical Anxiety & Depression, B/EUPD, Pathologic Demand Avoidance, etc.

ASD Dependency Cat System

I am publishing this first version of my proposal, relying in all honesty on my personal, academic and professional integrity in regard to having created this system without any deliberate intention to copy or otherwise unethically inspire from anyone else’s previously published thoughts or ideas. Should the reader have any questions or concerns about this, I would respectfully appreciate being informed about it, to address any issue as soon as possible.

This initial proposal version wishes to become a collaborative effort with -as previously mentioned-academically and/or experientially qualified peers. Should you be interested in collaborating, please DM me at https://twitter.com/Rev_Rom_ASD, keeping in mind that I reserve myself the right to extend any further collaborative invitations.

 

Advertisements

Neurodiversity, or “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism” -Proposing the “Medi-Social© Model of Disability and Neurodivergence” III-

wpid-picsart_1394741341754.jpg

One of writing’s most complex hurdles is leaving one’s “body” to immerse in the dream within dream of creating a structure for a world somewhat different than the original.

In the dystopian nightmare created by Orwell, Emmanuel Goldstein’s “book” becomes the embodiment of Winston’s hope that his participatory complicity in changing the past to suit a power-dependent, fluid future, will be forgiven, first of all by his own, desperate, depleted, sick, hungry and frightened self…

History has proven over and over again, that “Ignorance is Strength”; that the more “society” needs to ascend to a higher level of “consciousness” the easiest way is through what has become known as “purges”, or the “natural selection through the survival of the fittest”. This is what binds together Thomas Malthus’ theory of passive purge of the weak and vulnerable and Mao Zedong, architect of the murderous “cultural revolution” purge. The “fittest” will decide the means through which the less fortunate may be left, or helped to remain silent…

For some time now, the cult like “neurodiversity movement” has been going through a desperate process of finding any meaning in Singer’s frankensteinian, biodiversity inspired monstrosity. Waves upon waves of more or less well-meaning scientists of mostly non-medical sciences, ridden by more or less derailed individuals and their cohorts, are competing in a sinister race to purge a past they neither understand, nor desire to understand, from anything standing in their way to re-build something for which they have no plans whatsoever…

For some yet cloud shrouded reason, the #NDcult has chosen Autism as their main re-constructionist experiment, probably for the simple, utilitarian reason of being a still unknown disorder, having nevertheless the attention of a spotlight large enough to illuminate their narcissistic egos. And to ensure that ignorance is being further strengthened, they have ever since remembered to pay lip service to other dyslexia, dyspraxia and neurodivergent disorders, relabeling them as evolutionary achievements, “simple variations” of our brains.

As for the “what shall we do with the severe autism part”, the #NDcult has re-branded everything and anything ill-fitting their “geek syndrome”, as comorbidities to be dealt with by the medical professionals ostracised by neurodiversity sociology’s relentless “de-medicalising” and “de-pathologising” purges. Parents and carers of non-geek Autistic individuals have also been targeted for every politically incorrect attempt to express their frustration, pain and desire for finding scientifically valid treatments for their loved ones, being trampled in the mud of the vilest sub-human abuse.

In a recent tweet, @stevesilberman made valiant proof of why neither investigative journalism, nor a career in law should lead the way in shaping the future for millions of people with Autism worldwide. Because if he really meant writing, that “This whole thing is one of the most powerful statements of what ‘neurodiversity’ really means” as an introduction to Tay­lor-Park­er’s following idea, neither of them has any idea of what an IQ 30 means:

“Neu­ro­di­ver­si­ty isn’t an idea whose use­ful­ness is lim­it­ed to peo­ple who are “high func­tion­ing” or “just quirky” because it inher­ent­ly looks at peo­ple who will have exten­sive, expen­sive sup­port needs for the fore­see­able future and asks how we can help these peo­ple build the best pos­si­ble lives for them­selves. Neu­ro­di­ver­si­ty looks to every idea, tool, and prac­ti­cal solu­tion it can lay hands on to answer the ques­tion of how to have a good life with an IQ of 30, exec­u­tive func­tion­ing dif­fi­cul­ties, schiz­o­phre­nia, no ver­bal speech, or all of the above. Where med­i­cine is stumped, and the peo­ple affect­ed may not even want a “cure,” neu­ro­di­ver­si­ty draws heav­i­ly on the social mod­el of dis­abil­i­ty to offer some­thing unique: hope”.

To clarify what an IQ 30 really means, allow me to use as an example the details provided in the former DSM 4 TR:

“318.1 Severe Mental Retardation: IQ level 20-25 to 35-40 (accounts for 3-4% of retarded population). The group with Severe Mental Retardation constitutes 3%-4%of individuals with Mental Retardation. During the early childhood years, they acquire little or no communication speech. During the school-age period, they may learn to talk and can be trained in elementary self-care skills. They profit to only a limited extent from instruction in pre-academic subjects, such as familiarity with the alphabet and simple counting, but can master skills such as learning slight reading of some “survival” words. In their adult years, they may be able to perform simple tasks in closely supervised settings. Most adapt well to life in the community, in group homes or with their families, unless they have an associated handicap that requires specialized nursing or other care. (emphasis mine.)

May I ask anyone for that matter, which part of this DSM quote would offer any incentive for someone to believe that individuals living on this severe end of the Autism Spectrum, could ever “build the best pos­si­ble lives for them­selves”? Because “closely supervised settings” have little do with either autonomy or independence! And why would anyone want a severely disabled, highly dependent individual to build such lives for themselves, when the first call should be the warmth and dedication of their own families to help and assist them, except for when that would be practically impossible? Unfortunately, submitting the article to a simple search for words such as “family/families” returned a disappointing “no results”. However, reading the article I was shocked to find the opposite of what a family should stand for, which is “filicide”, “the deliberate act of a parent killing their own child” …

I am not going to apologise for asking, but what sort of mentality would drive anyone to write an entire article where the only reference to family is a concept on the criminal opposite of what a family should be?

Indeed, as suspected in the beginning, the strength of “neurodiversity” as a “movement”, seems to be its obnoxious ignorance summarised in: “accept the fact that med­i­cine doesn’t have an answer to neu­ro­log­i­cal vari­ety” and most important, “accept­ing that peo­ple are peo­ple, and, love it, hate it, or feel ambiva­lent about it, there is no cure today.”

Is this the “future” of “gold” so fiercely advocated by neurodiversity, the fatalistic view that if “there is no cure today” there won’t be one tomorrow? Is this the reason why neurodiversity is so hell-bent in “de-medicalising” and “de-pathologising” autism, campaigning against vital, life saving medical research about the complex neuro-physiopathology of Autism and its comorbidities, so brazenly called “quackery” by some neurodiversity proponents?

Let me ask in a non-delegated, but implicated way, what shall we do, all clinical professionals from countless fields of medical, health and care sciences? Throw away our passion for being better providers, to the best of our capabilities, of anything and everything could make the lives of people with autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia, Tourette’s, epilepsy, seizures and many other aspects of probably the same, most complex neurodevelopmental disorder, and embrace “neurodiversity” with its utter misunderstanding of the social model of disability? As I have said many times, myself and all clinical professionals I know, work closely together with our dedicated social work colleagues, in multi-disciplinary teams sometimes desperately trying to ensure equitable opportunities to everyone in our care. And we are far from perfect, but I have never heard any of my clinical colleagues talking about “de-socialising” our teams, or our social work colleagues about “de-clinicalising” them?

No, not by any chance…

Returning to my title, I must reiterate my surprise to have realised that the neurodiversity movement is indeed collectivism, with a structure of unquestionable allegiance to its oligarchically maintained “ideology”, which in their own words rests on two major principles. The 1st principle is “Every­one gets the same basic rights”, the 2nd being “There are no excep­tions for label, IQ, or degree of sup­port needs”. By the way, please don’t approach me with diversions such us “why haven’t I read everything in context”! I did, again and again, just to have become unwilling to suffer any longer the inflicted intellectual distress…

I will conclude with another statement which seems to be the essence of what neurodiversity is, and its effects on a society maybe expecting more help instead of even more suffering:

“Neu­ro­di­ver­si­ty is an idea for strong peo­ple, as it bites and claws at every­one who embraces it.”

And I can confirm with my own life and experience, that “neurodiversity” and its cult-like movement has left me with nothing but bite-marks and claw-scars since the day I “embraced” it.

Because if one’s strength is their ignorance, their peace will be a war against themselves and ultimately others.

Remember nevertheless, that ultimately, the real victims of all wars are not the strong, but the vulnerable…

Reflections on the Psychopathology of Demand Rejection and Avoidance

1200px-Mud_Volcano_in_Gobustan_01[1]Honouring a long-due promise to Demand Avoidance researcher Richard Woods @Richard_Autism I will attempt to summarise a personal perspective of the psychopathology of Demand Rejection and Avoidance, conscious of the topic’s vast scientific interdisciplinarity, muddled unfortunately by rather recent research derails, causing unnecessary confusion and delays in therapeutically addressing valid psychotherapeutic necessities.

In this short article I will deliberately avoid citing/quoting any post Newson “P/E/DA” researchers, because of what I perceive as bias in their motives to establish a stand-alone diagnostic of “P/E/DA”, separate from the already existent Kanner’s and Asperger’s Autism Spectrum subcategories.

I will use instead as a lose structural frame, citations and my own personal interpretation of these citations on the topic of PDA from the National Autistic Society’s (NAS) webpage which under the “What is pathological demand avoidance?” subtitle, lists the following:

-“(PDA) is increasingly, but not universally, accepted as a behaviour profile that is seen in some individuals on the autism spectrum. (emphasis mine)

 -“This demand avoidant behaviour is rooted in an anxiety-based need to be in control.(emphasis mine)

-“the demand avoidant profile has been found to be relatively uncommon“. (emphasis mine)

-“People with a demand avoidant profile can appear to have better social understanding and communication skills than others on the autism spectrum and are often able to use this to their advantage.(emphasis mine)

-“uses social strategies as part of avoidance, eg distracting, giving excuses” (emphasis mine)

-“appears comfortable in role play and pretence” (emphasis mine)

-“Parents very often use the term ‘manipulative’ to describe this aspect of their child’s behaviour and will comment on how it seems to be their greatest skill(emphasis mine)

It doesn’t require an exceedingly vast (necessary however) mental health experience to understand and notice that nearly everything mentioned in the citations above, and also much of the source material, seems to extrapolate into a rather clear anamnesis showing similarities with subcategories of Personality Disorders.

There is a generally recognised divide between the Neurodevelopmental Autistic Spectrum Conditions which have a Genetic background, and the Psychopathological Personality Disorders which seem to have a Traumatic background, each with very much different approaches to what’s best in providing support to individuals diagnosed with these conditions.

Further, the NAS material states under “Guidelines for parents” that “tried and tested strategies used with children who have other autism profiles are not effective for their child with a demand avoidant profile. This is because people with this profile need a less directive and more flexible approach than others on the autism spectrum” which seems to me fairly similar to the approach of the Dialectical Behaviour Therapy, designed to help individuals with Personality Disorders. This in my opinion seems to be also supported in the advice by the same source that the “use of structured teaching methods, which can be useful for people with other autistic profiles if individual needs have been considered, are often much less helpful for people with a demand avoidant profile and need considerable adaptation. People with this profile don’t usually respond to structure and routine. An indirect style of negotiation is more likely to lead to them feeling the control over their learning that they need.” (emphasis mine) Again, in my opinion this appears to be in direct contradiction with what the NAS seems to be emphasising that “a person with PDA does not make a deliberate choice to not comply and they can’t overcome their need to be in control”, because “feeling the control”, negotiating and responding in an expected manner to this, does to a significant extent imply the repeated use of “deliberate” choices, not to mention the sharp contrast of this behavioural profile with the clinically proven stability provided to autistic individuals by “structure and routine”.

In conclusion, I am very much concerned that exactly at a time when the future of both Kanner’s and Asperger’s Autism research have been jeopardised by historical blunders caused by arbitrary decisions made by the respective APA and the WHO to dismiss decades of research into the differences between the two major Autism subgroups in their DSM-5 and ICD-11, scientifically questionable research is being used to include -in my opinion- primarily mental health conditions into a neurodevelopmental category.

Finally, I am genuinely surprised and deeply disappointed by the @Autism NAS’s indulgent participation in this far from clarified and at the moment highly controversial subject. Their carelessness in making unclear statements such as “PDA (pathological demand avoidance) is a behaviour profile within the autism spectrum” have already given grounds to some groups such as “The Jigsaw Tree” to claim that “Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA) is now recognised as an Autism Spectrum Condition by the National Autistic Society.” I’m curious if the NAS @Autism would confirm this conclusion…

Maybe researchers should consider another path as suggested by Rebecca McElroy whom has noticed that “PDA describes a child who is primarily led by a need to avoid demands and control situations, struggles with social communication and relationships. However, these exact same characteristics could equally be used to describe a child with disordered attachment (NICE, 2015).”

Because in my opinion, the major difference between the Autism Spectrum and the Pathologic Demand Avoidance is that while the first is Neurodevelopmental the second is Pathological.

Ref: NICE (2015). Children’s attachment: Attachment in children and young people who are adopted from care, in care or at high risk of going into care. Clinical guideline, first draft.

Disclaimer: The interpretations and re-contextualised use of the citations from the indicated NAS website are entirely my own, and therefore do not represent in any form the official position of the NAS concerning PDA.

 

The Cognitive-Behavioural Interpretative Isolationism of Intellectually Proficient Kanner’s & Asperger’s Autism (IPKAA)© Part 3 – The Myth of “Weak Central Coherence”

012-salvador-dali-theredlist[1]

Part 3 – The Myth of “Weak Central Coherence”

(Rev.) Romulus Campan
FdScMH, LTh (Hons), CertEd, QTS,
PgCert Special Psychopedagogy, PgCert Autism & Asperger’s

‘Frith (1989) attempted to sketch out the preliminary theory that one deep underlying cognitive deficit in autism has to do with a lack of coherence. In other words, autistic people lack the drive to pull information together into overall meaning.’ Hill (2004)

Hill seems to continue Frith’s rather hidden mentioning of the fact that while she proposes her theory as a ‘deep underlying deficit’, a door has been left open to a ‘lack of drive’ which implies a selective-volitional aspect, with what she proposes as an ‘information processing style, rather than a deficit’.
The coherence theory postulates that incoming information is usually processed in its context. Now, while acknowledging that oftentimes communicated information is meant to be processed in some context, I don’t believe that noticing ‘needles in the haystack’ while paying no interest whatsoever to the haystack’s any aspect, should be considered a deficit, but rather a valuable control asset, through which the flow of information can be monitored for systemic accuracy. And the fact that autistics may decide to ignore the context in order to gain through focus, a deeper understanding of the detail which flagged their attention, does not substantiate that contextual coherence is the required norm, but as Hill suggests, a ‘cognitive style’, which no autistic should be expected to justify, an even less to change.
I am also a theologian. This means that I was trained, and apparently excelled in interpreting textual and contextual details way beyond the newspaper reading level. And since theology should be first of all philosophy, I was given the chance to observe and contemplate, also judge and analyse thoughts hidden away, sometimes even to their writers.
Now if I would take Hill’s above quoted text, and gaze upon it just superficially, but with a rather merciless analytical rigor, I should note the following about “autism”:
-Autistic people suffer from a deep underlying (basic/fundamental) cognitive deficiency, which is lack of coherence, leaving them without the “drive” (ability/willingness/capacity?) to see/understand meaning in scattered fragments of information.
Unfortunately, “thanks” to the unmandated vigilantism of a way too noisy herd of dilettantes, whom mostly out of genuine, however misplaced concern have come to oftentimes falsely represent the entire intellectually proficient Kanner’s and Asperger’s autism (IPKAA) community, autistics without cognitively impairing intellectual deficiencies/disabilities have been left stranded at the mercies of a mercilessly mercantile “healthcare industry”, for whom the daily torture of having ALL our senses tortured, our personal space assaulted, our meticulousness abused, our silence raped and our solitude violated, means nothing because we have degrees and jobs…
So, here we are, probably the most vulnerable and exposed of us, trying to convince an already biased world that there’s no such “thing” as “simply autism”, that the Autistic Spectrum has two, fundamental categories, the Intellectually Proficient and the Intellectually Deficient, fact which shouldn’t be tampered with by semantic militias resembling more and more to editors of 1984’s Newspeak. Proficiency and Deficiency are existential opposites present everywhere from our vitamin D synthesising capabilities to our intellectual capabilities and shouldn’t be subject to any thoughtless political correctness. As most of the well-meaning, dedicated and yes, oftentimes heroic carers of intellectually deficient autistic individuals expect that those they love and care for will be given assistance as required by their specific needs, we, intellectually proficient autistic individuals expect to be listened to and assisted as required by our specific needs.
I hope to be mistaken when I speculate that the reason why the profiteering “healthcare” industry has successfully manoeuvred the not so neutral DSM and ICD into practically grinding to a halt decades of extremely promising research into High-Functioning and Asperger’s Autism by obnoxiously dropping Asperger’s as a subcategory, is the fear of having to listen to the scientifically and experientially valid opinion of a new generation of extremely capable autistic academics, diametrically opposed to the reductionist and generalising, clinically flawed stereotypes by which it’s cheaper to provide helmets to intellectually deficient, self-harming autistics, than answers to intellectually proficient, self-harming autistics.

-Frith, U. (1989). Autism: explaining the enigma. Oxford: Blackwell
-Hill, E. L. (2004). Executive dysfunction in autism. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.8 No.1, January 2004, 26 http://www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langimp/autismexecdysf.pdf

(to be continued…)

Per aspera ad astra…

Yes, I reverted my Twitter handle back to @Aspergreatness

I was diagnosed with ASD/Asperger’s Syndrome according to DSM5/ICD-10.

What Hans Asperger shouldn’t have done in history’s darkest hours, I can’t change.

The legacy of his research into understanding my neurobiology, saved my life.

I became an Asper 😡♿✡

Proudly 🐉

Asper Latin DefPer_aspera_ad_astra,_1894

The Autistic Maelstrom …

The_Corryvreckan_Whirlpool_-_geograph-2404815-by-Walter-Baxter

In the new, updated edition of “The Autistic Spectrum” (2002), Lorna Wing offered on page 23 a brief history of the chaos which seems to continue to this day, surrounding risen and fallen efforts to decide the main, and sub-categories of what she identified as the Autistic Spectrum. In order to justify my statement, please allow me to quote:

“The changes in ideas about autistic disorders can be seen in the history of the two international systems of classification of psychiatric and behavioural disorders. These are the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) published by the World Health Organisation, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. The first edition of the ICD did not include autism at all. The eighth (1967) edition mentioned only infantile autism as a form of schizophrenia and the ninth (1977) edition included it under the heading of ‘childhood psychosis’.
The 10th edition of the ICD (1992) and the third (1980), third revised (1987) and fourth (1994) editions of the DSM take the modern view that there is a spectrum of autistic conditions and that they are disorders of development, not ‘psychoses’.”

On page 29 of the same book, Wing details the reasons for this nosologic maelstrom:

“When an autistic disorder is diagnosed, there is the further problem of deciding which sub-group in the spectrum the individual belongs to. Now that the term Asperger’s syndrome is being used more widely, parents and professional workers as well, want to know how it differs from other forms of autism. Since Asperger’s group, unlike Kanner’s, includes mostly those of average or high levels of ability, the main question is how to tell Asperger’s syndrome from high-functioning Kanner’s autism. There is no simple answer.” Because as she establishes further, while some individuals present all the features of either, other individuals fit neither of these symptoms precisely, having (as myself…) mixtures of features of both.

And we haven’t even touched the serious problem of symptomatic and existential gender differentials, which is becoming more and more obvious, at least for the individuals on the autistic spectrum, because for the diagnostic and assessment services (at least in the UK, in my understanding) the primary diagnostic differentials are only age related. However, the UK’s NAS (The National Autistic Society) proves a genuine awareness of the necessity for further research at http://www.autism.org.uk/about/what-is/gender.aspx

To make things even more confusing, the DSM-5 published in May 2013, factually canceled Asperger’s as a separate diagnosis and included it as an autism spectrum disorder, with adjacent severity stages. It mentions nevertheless, that “Individuals with a well-established DSM-IV diagnosis of autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified should be given the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.”

But if one may think that the ICD-10 is of any better clarity, a quick look at its ‘F84.5 Asperger syndrome’ entry, reveals an opening statement which I would call at least seriously problematic: “A disorder of uncertain nosological validity“, as I’m not really sure that a standard international classification should be based on anything “uncertain”.

The reason for the rather thought-twisting title of this post, can be found in a well hidden -in plain sight- introductory statement, on an oddly placed (right after the front cover page, without obvious authorship or number) page of Uta Frith’s “Autism and Asperger syndrome” (2010) edited book, which opens its last phrase with the statement “Current opinion on Asperger syndrome and its relationship to autism is fraught with disagreement and hampered with ignorance”, followed nevertheless by the reassurance that the book “gives the first coherent account of Asperger syndrome as a distinct variant of autism …” I have insofar found the attempts to systematize Autism maelstrom-like, because as their aquatic correspondents, they absorb all concepts and definitions in their way, just to scatter them on devastated, more or less scientific ocean-floors, without seemingly ever considering that behind words and terminologies, are real-life human beings, suffering the oftentimes indifferent detachment of those we trust(ed) for a better life…

And this very statement would be exactly the conclusion-prelude to a series of open enquiries attempting to discover the adult, gender specific understanding of first of all, the most commonly and widely used autism screening tool, the Autism Quotient 50 (AQ-50). As an incentive for the reader’s personal consideration and most welcome comments, I am providing a link to a short scientific paper from the “Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2001” at http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2001_BCetal_AQ.pdf

In my next post, I will attempt to offer for an even more personalized analysis and comments, the first ten (1 ÷ 10) questions of the AQ-50 autism screening questionnaire, in the hope of initiating a “real-life” and “Actually Autistic” blog-forum, where especially adults on the autistic spectrum can evaluate in a safe, anonymously confidential environment their gender specific, unique understanding of the relevance of these questions for their own screening and diagnostic assessments, in an atmosphere of non-belligerent acceptance, mutual respect, civilised ‘agreement to disagree’ attitude and constructive tolerance.

Most sincere apology to my readers and followers, and Word of Caution:

Having painfully learnt my lessons elsewhere, and in order to protect the emotional wellbeing and dignity of all well-meaning viewers and participants, all comments and replies henceforth, will be monitored and subject to approval. Therefore, if your comment and/or reply doesn’t show immediately, please be patient. But if your comment and/or reply doesn’t show at all, please rephrase!

Because no one shall be bullied or harassed in my own blogyard! 👾🤓

 

Photo credit: By Walter Baxter, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33579199

The importance of Asperger’s Syndrome as a unique clinical diagnostic category…

Aspergers and Ignorance (2)

On page 1 of his fundamental summary of (Classic) “Autism and Asperger’s Syndrome”, S. Baron-Cohen (2008) lists as “Key Points” the two, overlappingly different subgroups of what has come to be known as the “Autistic Spectrum”.

“Classic autism and Asperger syndrome share two key features:
         -Social communication difficulties
         -Narrow interests and repetitive actions.
 But they differ in two key ways:
         -In Asperger syndrome, IQ is at least average and there was no language delay
         -In classic autism, IQ can be anywhere on the scale, and there was language delay.”

However, these key, common and differentiated features make only for a minimal area of understanding, assessing and living with either condition.

In my opinion, DSM-5 has managed with its promotion of an Autistic Spectrum “umbrella”, to both simplify, but also confusingly complicate the clear understanding of exactly those specifics which could make the lives of neurodivergents, less miserable. Luckily (I hope) for the neurodivergents living in the UK, while the clinical diagnosis implicitly reflects the DSM-5 when mentions “Autistic Spectrum Disorder”, still retains (at least in my case) the ICD-10’s “Asperger’s Syndrome” definition, making easier setting up a post diagnostic assistance and support program. Because regardless of how emotionally stabilising may be to have adult, male and female, HF Autistics and Asperger’s individuals considered together for our rights to exist as we are, the uniqueness of each of us is so important, that this arbitrary “one umbrella fits all” approach becomes discriminatory in itself.

Why?

Simply because from my perspective, the developmental aftermath of a language delay (and oftentimes subsequent learning disabilities) is absolutely different from that of a no language delay (and the oftentimes present special learning difficulties), further “complicated” by the bio-psychological specifics of males and females.

It’s probably much “easier” for some professionals, but certainly for the health business to bother less with tailoring both the pre- and post-diagnosis services by favouring the “uni” part of our individual uniqueness, instead of developing better, more updated assessment/diagnostic tools, which could offer findings vitally important for identifying the exact life needs of each of us, neurodivergents.

Looking forward therefore to my upcoming post-grad training, I have decided to challenge especially the over-generalised screening/assessment establishment, calling primarily for Asperger’s individuals, preferably diagnosed as adults, both females and males, to share their own understanding of some major Asperger’s screening/assessment tools, which will form in a staged form, the core of my upcoming posts.  The posts, comments and replies are planned to become anonymous points of reference for my future academic endeavour(s).

All comments and replies are absolutely welcome, with a respectful and special call to any qualified, clinical colleagues (yes, Laina that would include you 😊) whose “life touched” professional knowledge could be especially useful.

Because I still believe that any plural which is not established in clear singulars, becomes automatically void of its function.