Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bloodfever wrote:
Aspergers hampers social function so what alot of the time is an attitude/response etc due to the aspergers gets mistaken for someone just being a d**k.

Conversely, its easy to confuse someone being a dick for someone with AS.

Its also easy, especially at an early age, to misdiagnose AS.

The word "disability" is one of the least technical words in the English Language, in that it means vastly different things depending on context. It's also rarely a medical term, but rather a legal one.

That said, and keep in mind that I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, the DSM IV diagnostic criteria are pretty heavy stuff:

Diagnostic criteria for 299.80 Asperger's Disorder
(cautionary statement)

A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(1) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(2) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(3) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
(1) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(2) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(3) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(4) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years).

E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood.

F. Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia.

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/asperger.htm

The criteria describe a fairly impaired individual. It's the double edged sword mental disorders: you don't' want people to assume that they are "different," but they, by definition, are!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
a)you don't know what I do and don't "have"
b)In the UK Asperger's is classed as a disability
Please try to think rationally rather than looking for reasons to be offended (classic modern response to any difference whatsoever is to look for opportunities to be offended, well done).

Classed by who as a disability? I don't know much about UK disability law, but I know the US stuff like the back of my hand.

No mental professional will ever consider a diagnosis a disability. In almost no instances does the law do the same.

Many disorders can be "disabling," which is a very different thing.

I've personally listened as a licensed doctor explained why a child with confirmed cystic fibrosis was not "disabled." A diagnosis is not a destiny.

Polonius wrote:
(2) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(3) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

(1) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus

C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

When I was 5 I was diagnosed with AS on the basis of the above criteria, or criteria very much like them (I'm sure they've changed since 1991). Now, I don't have AS, and it turns out that when your family moves every 3-4 months these behaviors often manifest in children.

The point being that, while its easy to picture a person fitting the clinical criteria as someone who personifies their extreme, its also easy to apply them to someone who is just distant, kind of an ass, and really into math (Speaking of myself at age 7...and maybe age 25).

Aspergers syndrome disorder is classed as a mental disability as it has a detrimental effect on social interaction and understanding. People with the disorder do not intentionally chose to struggle understanding body language or lack empathy and the multitude of other ASD symptoms, but because of the condition the social and sometimes, physical effects (alot of 'Aspies' appear to be clumsier) thier lives are affected negatively.

I agree with Dogma, it can be easy to misdiagnose ASD and alot of children are diagnosed with ADHD before ASD or on the other hand are 'normal' but just feeling the effects of thier enviroments. or are going through a 'phase'.

dogma wrote:
When I was 5 I was diagnosed with AS on the basis of the above criteria, or criteria very much like them (I'm sure they've changed since 1991). Now, I don't have AS, and it turns out that when your family moves every 3-4 months these behaviors often manifest in children.

The point being that, while its easy to picture a person fitting the clinical criteria as someone who personifies their extreme, its also easy to apply them to someone who is just distant, kind of an ass, and really into math (Speaking of myself at age 7...and maybe age 25).

Also, mental disorders are seldom diagnosed based on mental status examination and other observations/findings alone. Instead, a patient's history and reported symptoms play a huge part in any diagnosis.

In children, what a parent says is often used to make the diagnosis. I'm not accusing your parents of anything, but in a quick examination, a doctor is likely to hit the bullet points with the parent, and slap a diagnosis on a kid.

There is also the incredible squishy nature of diagnostic criteria, where descriptors like "marked" can have very different meanings to two different practitioners.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bloodfever wrote:Aspergers syndrome disorder is classed as a mental disability as it has a detrimental effect on social interaction and understanding. '.

Again, be aware that the term "disability" is almost always a legal definition, not a medical one.

Polonius wrote: I'm not accusing your parents of anything, but in a quick examination, a doctor is likely to hit the bullet points with the parent, and slap a diagnosis on a kid.

Well, having been expelled several times probably didn't help my cause.

I was misdiagnosed with Aspgergers when I was 14. I have been re-diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder.

Joey wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Joey wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Pretty sure I never mentioned she was disabled there bud. Either read properly, or dont make up gak, just a suggestion

Asperger's is a disability. If you are not "severe" enough for it to be a disability then it should not be diagnosed as such.

Incorrect. One can be diagnosed with a multitude of things, and not be "Disabled" or have a 'Disability'. A condition is only 'disabling' if you are affected adversely by its symptoms. Aspergers is part of a 'spectrum',ranging far and wide in effect and severity. Guy's right. Don't make up gak, and especially don't try and feed it to people who live with it. (Or work with it, or have it, for that matter.)

a)you don't know what I do and don't "have"
b)In the UK Asperger's is classed as a disability
Please try to think rationally rather than looking for reasons to be offended (classic modern response to any difference whatsoever is to look for opportunities to be offended, well done).

A) Do you have a diagnosis of an Autism Spectrum Disorder? Your previous post does not appear to imply such, but rather a degree of neurotypicality.
B) Being the father of two autistic children, having an autistic partner, being on the spectrum, and working in Mental heatlh on the "Adult Autism Team" with DISCO-trained staff, , whilst working alongside the Local Authority on their compliance with the Autism Act 09, of course would have absolutely no idea about Aspergers in the UK, how it occurs, how it is diagnosed and how it is classified, and should bow to your obviously superior knowledge of the subject. May I ask what your experience actually is, by the way? (Other than 'having difficulty making friends", as you say. I assume from your authority on the subject that you must therefore have some other experience, because by itself, being a billy-no-mates can be symptomatic of something as simple as an abrasive or unpleasant personality, bad personal hygiene, being arrogant, and sundry other things.

By the way, I wasn't "taking offense" at what you said. I was correcting it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Extra point: DSM IV is currently busy getting chopped and changed around for DSMV, and there is much disagreement about where Aspergers will be, what it will mean, whether it will exist, or whether the diagnostic criteria will change. Top names in the field are fiercely divided over it. Fun Times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
When I was 5 I was diagnosed with AS on the basis of the above criteria, or criteria very much like them (I'm sure they've changed since 1991). Now, I don't have AS, and it turns out that when your family moves every 3-4 months these behaviors often manifest in children.
.

We unofficially classified this as "Learned Aspergers". A lot of the diagnostic criteria can be met by people who have been exclusively home-schooled, or raised in unusual circumstances, such as rapid movement between homes, that sort of thing. Unfortunately false diagnosis is what misleads people into thinking that a neurological disorder which involves a physical difference in the brain can be 'cured'.

Joey wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Joey wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Pretty sure I never mentioned she was disabled there bud. Either read properly, or dont make up gak, just a suggestion

Asperger's is a disability. If you are not "severe" enough for it to be a disability then it should not be diagnosed as such.

Incorrect. One can be diagnosed with a multitude of things, and not be "Disabled" or have a 'Disability'. A condition is only 'disabling' if you are affected adversely by its symptoms. Aspergers is part of a 'spectrum',ranging far and wide in effect and severity. Guy's right. Don't make up gak, and especially don't try and feed it to people who live with it. (Or work with it, or have it, for that matter.)

a)you don't know what I do and don't "have"
b)In the UK Asperger's is classed as a disability
Please try to think rationally rather than looking for reasons to be offended (classic modern response to any difference whatsoever is to look for opportunities to be offended, well done).

And Im sure you know FAR more about diagnosing peoples problems then a board certified Doctor that has focused her career on these types of things for I think my brother said, 15 years? Ya....sure.....go find that bobcat already would ya?

What?
In the UK, Asperger's is a disability. Why do you find this so hard to grasp? "disabled" is a legal term.

In the words of a not so wise man:

<liverpudlian accent> calm down! calm down! </liverpudlian accent>

you are arguing over minutia and semantics again.

Maybe its because your being an donkey-cave about it. Im sorry for misreading your donkey-cave remarks, as non donkey-cave remarks. My apologies. Pro tip though, when your being/coming off as a complete ass, specially talking about someones family, they tend to get all up in arms about it. Im not the first person to tell you something similar on DAKKA either.

While Joey is being fast and loose with language in a way that's almost deliberatly inflammatory, he does raise a good point: autism is the new ADHD.

The upside is that the treatment is almost equally beneficial to kids without Asbergers as with, so it's not really a problem.

OTOH, if your niece is "pretty much normal," I would be at least mildly skeptical about the diagnosis. Doctors aren't without bias, and mental disorders are notoriously fuzzy on diagnosis.

No shes definitely got it, Im not going into every little nook and cranny of her personality to prove it.

Joey wrote:What?
In the UK, Asperger's is a disability. Why do you find this so hard to grasp? "disabled" is a legal term.

Meaning what?

Disability means at least four different things in American law.

You probably mean the word "disorder."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:No shes definitely got it, Im not going into every little nook and cranny of her personality to prove it.

then, and I mean no offense, she's not "pretty much normal."

By definition, a person with AS is not within normal ranges for emotional/social ability.

She might be highly functional, but if she's capable of everything a normal girl her age is... she can't have AS.

KingCracker wrote:No shes definitely got it, Im not going into every little nook and cranny of her personality to prove it.

All any child needs is love and the more the better.

(Please no indecent inuendos)

See if he said disorder, I wouldnt of been offended and gotten pissed about it. Disability is rather insulting IMO. I have a close friend with pretty bad Muscular Dystrophy, Im talking breathing tube and full time nurse to help her do anything more then talk. And telling her shes disabled causes her to want to murder the person for it, so yea, its not a pleasant word to casually toss around

Polonius wrote:

Joey wrote:What?
In the UK, Asperger's is a disability. Why do you find this so hard to grasp? "disabled" is a legal term.

Meaning what?

Disability means at least four different things in American law.

You probably mean the word "disorder."

Hence why I said "the UK". It's a nessesary perquisite for state help/funding. If people are offended by the term "disabled", that's their problem. My mum has Parkinson's and is therefore "disabled", I'm not going to gak my breaches because someone on the internet says "parkinson's is a disability".

KingCracker wrote:Maybe its because your being an donkey-cave about it. Im sorry for misreading your donkey-cave remarks, as non donkey-cave remarks. My apologies. Pro tip though, when your being/coming off as a complete ass, specially talking about someones family, they tend to get all up in arms about it. Im not the first person to tell you something similar on DAKKA either.

Stop looking for things to be offended by. You have chosen to be offended, get over yourself.

You still have yet to define the term disability.

Keep in mind that in the US, disabled means, at least in Social Security, and inability to work even minimum wage full time work. It's a pretty strict standard.

BTW, you actually aren't using the term correctly:

The definition of ‘disability’ under the Equality Act 2010
In the Act, a person has a disability if:

they have a physical or mental impairment
the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities
For the purposes of the Act, these words have the following meanings:

'substantial' means more than minor or trivial
'long-term' means that the effect of the impairment has lasted or is likely to last for at least twelve months (there are special rules covering recurring or fluctuating conditions)
'normal day-to-day activities' include everyday things like eating, washing, walking and going shopping

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/RightsAndObligations/DisabilityRights/DG_4001068

So, much like any other defintion of disabilty I've encoutnered, it's not based on diagnosis, but on severity of limitations.

Polonius wrote:While Joey is being fast and loose with language in a way that's almost deliberatly inflammatory, he does raise a good point: autism is the new ADHD.

The upside is that the treatment is almost equally beneficial to kids without Asbergers as with, so it's not really a problem.

OTOH, if your niece is "pretty much normal," I would be at least mildly skeptical about the diagnosis. Doctors aren't without bias, and mental disorders are notoriously fuzzy on diagnosis.

If you are skeptical about the diagnosis then you clearly have not had much/any interaction with people who have aspergers. I have met/worked with many people with aspergers and the majority do appear 'normal' where the expressions of the diability can easily be assumed just to be character just traits. You may be under the 'rainman' assumption where they have to have some super-power or the other end of the spectrum which they struggle with verbalisation, have 'ritualistic' behaviours, extreme agression, self-harm etc.

And regardless of American medical or law terminologies, in the UK, in the mental disability care sector, it is refered mto as a disability. It seems people are trying to force some 'PC' argument out of it.

EDIT: I think people may be focusing on the more 'extreme' for lack of a better word, of disability. Disability is a broad word that can, and does, encompass many different severities.

If it is a Disability I certainly havn't got any pay cheques

Bloodfever wrote:

Polonius wrote:While Joey is being fast and loose with language in a way that's almost deliberatly inflammatory, he does raise a good point: autism is the new ADHD.

The upside is that the treatment is almost equally beneficial to kids without Asbergers as with, so it's not really a problem.

OTOH, if your niece is "pretty much normal," I would be at least mildly skeptical about the diagnosis. Doctors aren't without bias, and mental disorders are notoriously fuzzy on diagnosis.

If you are skeptical about the diagnosis then you clearly have not had much/any interaction with people who have aspergers. I have met/worked with many people with aspergers and the majority do appear 'normal' where the expressions of the diability can easily be assumed just to be character just traits. You may be under the 'rainman' assumption where they have to have some super-power or the other end of the spectrum which they struggle with verbalisation, have 'ritualistic' behaviours, extreme agression, self-harm etc.

And regardless of American medical or law terminologies, in the UK, in the mental disability care sector, it is refered mto as a disability. It seems people are trying to force some 'PC' argument out of it.

Lol, I actually work for the Federal Government in disabiilty. I've read enough doctor's notes to know that mental health diagnoses of children are based more on guesswork than clinical findings. I was skeptical becuase KC made it a point to say that she was "pretty much normal." A family member that interacts with the patient over time would have more insight into her actual social functioning. Taking that at face value, I doubted the diagnosis. OTOH, many people want to reassure others that a person with a disorder is as normal as possible.

Joey wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Joey wrote:What?
In the UK, Asperger's is a disability. Why do you find this so hard to grasp? "disabled" is a legal term.

Meaning what?

Disability means at least four different things in American law.

You probably mean the word "disorder."

Hence why I said "the UK". It's a nessesary perquisite for state help/funding. If people are offended by the term "disabled", that's their problem. My mum has Parkinson's and is therefore "disabled", I'm not going to gak my breaches because someone on the internet says "parkinson's is a disability".

KingCracker wrote:Maybe its because your being an donkey-cave about it. Im sorry for misreading your donkey-cave remarks, as non donkey-cave remarks. My apologies. Pro tip though, when your being/coming off as a complete ass, specially talking about someones family, they tend to get all up in arms about it. Im not the first person to tell you something similar on DAKKA either.

Stop looking for things to be offended by. You have chosen to be offended, get over yourself.

Joey: Could you just say that you did not mean to cause offense? (it is a simple phrase that is and isn't an appology)
People get touchy on some subjects. They don't choose to be touchy, life gets people that way sometimes and things get lost in translation.

To demonstrate: Mrs Thatcher was the best Primeminister Britain has ever had.

Bloodfever wrote: I think people may be focusing on the more 'extreme' for lack of a better word, of disability. Disability is a broad word that can, and does, encompass many different severities.

Which is one reason the medical community in the US is eliminating the term, unless referring in specific to a funcitonal or participatory limitation.

Nearly all people view disability as, well, the state of being unable to do something, due to a medical cause.

=Polonius

Lol, I actually work for the Federal Government in disabiilty. I've read enough doctor's notes to know that mental health diagnoses of children are based more on guesswork than clinical findings. I was skeptical becuase KC made it a point to say that she was "pretty much normal." A family member that interacts with the patient over time would have more insight into her actual social functioning. Taking that at face value, I doubted the diagnosis. OTOH, many people want to reassure others that a person with a disorder is as normal as possible.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, there is a vast difference between reading doctors notes and first-hand experience. There is a reason there is such a high number of people with ASD that are fully self sufficiant in society; because they are very much 'normal', but struggle with socialisation, which many people without ASD do aswell. I can pretty much guarantee you have met many people without ASD and have not even known. KC himself said she had been diagnosed so there was no reason whatsoever to question that, as you said, it is family that should really know the most.

Polonius wrote:

Bloodfever wrote: I think people may be focusing on the more 'extreme' for lack of a better word, of disability. Disability is a broad word that can, and does, encompass many different severities.

Which is one reason the medical community in the US is eliminating the term, unless referring in specific to a funcitonal or participatory limitation.

Nearly all people view disability as, well, the state of being unable to do something, due to a medical cause.

And that is exactly why ASD/autism is a disability.

I think you're missing my point completely.

In my experience, there can be a profound disconnect, in any disorder, between what a doctor diagnoses based on self report (or a parents report) and that person's actual functional state.

I'm not second guessing the diagnosis now, but KC's earlier comment suggested that such a disconnect occured.

Keep mind, 75% of my job is explaining to people why the government doesnt' believe them about their alleged disability. I have a pretty narrow view of the medical establishment.

Let's just say that it's not unheard of for an emotional parent to provide a history that gets a doctor (that specializes in a disorder) to diagnose that disorder. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Polonius wrote:You still have yet to define the term disability.

Keep in mind that in the US, disabled means, at least in Social Security, and inability to work even minimum wage full time work. It's a pretty strict standard.

BTW, you actually aren't using the term correctly:

The definition of ‘disability’ under the Equality Act 2010
In the Act, a person has a disability if:

they have a physical or mental impairment
the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities
For the purposes of the Act, these words have the following meanings:

'substantial' means more than minor or trivial
'long-term' means that the effect of the impairment has lasted or is likely to last for at least twelve months (there are special rules covering recurring or fluctuating conditions)
'normal day-to-day activities' include everyday things like eating, washing, walking and going shopping

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/RightsAndObligations/DisabilityRights/DG_4001068

So, much like any other defintion of disabilty I've encoutnered, it's not based on diagnosis, but on severity of limitations.

So it's possible to be diagnosed with Asperger's without it being "minor or trivial" and without it affecting "their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities"? Then I can't say I see the point in giving a diagnosis in the first place. Hell, one of the reasons I gave up in trying to get help at university from the NAS was because even if I had jumped through all the hoops there was actually feth all they could do to help me with my studies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:
Joey: Could you just say that you did not mean to cause offense? (it is a simple phrase that is and isn't an appology)
People get touchy on some subjects. They don't choose to be touchy, life gets people that way sometimes and things get lost in translation.

They do choose to get touchy, I know plenty of people who've had life happen to them without pissing themselves and getting "offended" all the time. It's called being a rational human being and being able to control your emotions rather than a 12-year old girl and feeling the need to respond to every emotional stimulus.

Bloodfever wrote:

Polonius wrote:Nearly all people view disability as, well, the state of being unable to do something, due to a medical cause.

And that is exactly why ASD/autism is a disability.

Well, sure, but by that reasoning nearly every person has a disability.

Nearly all people have some body hair, and so are technically "hairy."

That's not what people mean when they say "I saw a hairy guy at the beach."

As someone who has Aspergers syndrome I don't think its a diasabilty,

I am still capable of working and I am in no need for special help or care to live normally.

I see it as something that can be improved with pratice and training.

II may have some difficulty socially but it dosen't revolve around my life.

I am still a capable human being.

Joey wrote:[So it's possible to be diagnosed with Asperger's without it being "minor or trivial" and without it affecting "their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities"?

Yes.

A person with AS can take care of hygiene, walk, communicate, have superficial interactions with others, and perform nearly all non-emotionally related functions.