The above means people can use the word "Asperger's" if they want, but it has been denied any clinical meaning. The reason is that it didn't have a clearly defined clinical meaning to begin with.
Diagnosing mental illness is a very inexact science since multiple etiologies can create very similar symptoms. And a single etiology or difference can create many divergent ones [edit for clarity: symptoms].
"Researchers found that these separate diagnoses were not consistently applied across different clinics and treatment centers. Anyone diagnosed with one of the four pervasive
developmental disorders (PDD) from DSM-IV should still meet the criteria for ASD in DSM-5 or another, more accurate DSM-5 diagnosis."
> Diagnosing mental illness is a very inexact science since multiple etiologies can create very similar symptoms.
Yes, true, and that means it is not science. Science requires evidence on which similarly equipped observers can agree, and falsifiability. Psychological diagnoses don't have either of these properties.
> It wasn't cast out because everyone was suffering from it.
It was cast out because of an epidemic of overdiagnosis (as it was put by the editor of DSM-IV), one that forced psychologists to realize they had made a mistake including it in the previous DSM. So, taking the high road, they voted it out of the present DSM.
But I ask that you notice something -- mental illnesses aren't identified by microscopes and lab assays, they move into and out of existence by way of votes. That by itself should give people pause about the scientific nature of the process.
Psychologists are reluctant to give up on a diagnosis like Asperger's, and such a reversal has only happened once before. Can you guess which behavior, now regarded as a civil right, defended by a number of federal laws, was branded a treatable mental illness until the 1970s?
That's just plain stupid. Because it was being over-diagnosed and became fad mental illness of the day does not mean it doesn't exist. It most certainly does. There are specific behavioral and verbal traits and even physiognometric characteristics which as a bundle are unique and can be clearly distinguished.
That crap bothers me, autism is hip, especially Aspergers. If this continues, soon 50% of the children will have it. Then 10 years later, they'll come up with a new syndrome.
Not to say that autism doesn't exist, just saying that, IMO, far too many 'normal' kids are being labeled as autistic.
I think the problem in the end is the narrowing definition of normal behavior.
First it was ADD - adolescent boys who were fidgety and distractible now had an illness, previously this was considered normal for young boys - then we decided that people who are not as social, perhaps shy - were now ill as well, whereas before again, this was considered within the definition of normal human behavior.
Quote: "With more than six million American children having received a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, concern has been rising that the condition is being significantly misdiagnosed and overtreated with prescription medications."
"Yet now some powerful figures in mental health are claiming to have identified a new disorder that could vastly expand the ranks of young people treated for attention problems. Called sluggish cognitive tempo, the condition is said to be characterized by lethargy, daydreaming and slow mental processing. By some researchers’ estimates, it is present in perhaps two million children."
The article goes on to say that drug companies are partly behind the push for this new diagnosis. Surprise, surprise. :)
> I think the problem in the end is the narrowing definition of normal behavior.
Not exactly. The problem is that anything outside that narrow definition is seen as "illness".
If you instead see it as a different, but equally valid, way of perceiving the world then the fact that so many people seem to have ASD, ADD or other "D"s makes much more sense.
This is not a matter of politically correct terms - I'm talking about a genuine difference in attitude. ASD is a very broad spectrum. Some people on it really do have an "illness" in the sense that they cannot function independently. Others are just a bit "different" and you may never even know they're not normal unless you happen to see them at their worst. Is it still worth diagnosing those? Generally, yes, because it allows them to get the help they need when they need it or, at least, understand themselves better, so they can help themselves.
Right: Since it was nearly only the boys and normal girls are not like that, it must be an 'illness'! Whenever boys and girls are not the same, there must be an illness because, as we know now from the feminists, boys and girls are the same, exactly the same, with no differences at all except illnesses!
That was my point, more or less - without spelling it out. The feminization of young men is a huge issue, roughhousing for example is a normal activity for adolescent males.
http://www.autismspeaks.org/dsm-5/faq#asperger
The above means people can use the word "Asperger's" if they want, but it has been denied any clinical meaning. The reason is that it didn't have a clearly defined clinical meaning to begin with.