Autism diagnosis: The latest trendy “ism” to get your kids
May 21, 2006 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
Last week Katie Grant wrote an article in The Sunday Times, Scotland, Some ‘autistic’ children aren’t ill, they’re just badly behaved, in which she suggested that there is a rise in autism diagnoses due to parents who adopt this “ism”
….on behalf of children who are not ill, just badly behaved. If a child is described as “autistic”, nobody can be angry if he or, more rarely, she throws a tantrum at school or consistently irritates the neighbours.
Grant also suggests that children with such “bad behavior” are “simply suffering from a peculiarly modern kind of neglect and adapting their behaviour to cope.” And what is that “neglect”?
Bad parenting.
Yes, once again we are back to Bettelheim.
Ms. Grant responded to the “vociferous reaction” to her article today in Autism: we need a debate. She refers to research published in 2000 by Dr Tom Berney, lead clinician and autism specialist at Northgate and Prudhoe NHS Trust in Morpeth, in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
I would ask those who have written attacking me to consider these words: “There is a risk of the diagnosis of autism being extended to include anyone whose odd and troublesome personality does not readily fit some other category. Such over-inclusion is likely to devalue the diagnosis to a meaningless label.”
Autism mother and founder of ASDfriendly Michaela Child was among the many who responded to Ms. Grant’s article. Ms. Child counters the claim of autism as the latest “trendy excuse” for misbehaving children:
No parent would want a diagnosis of autism. No parent chooses to be shunned by some family and friends. No parent wants to be criticised almost every time they leave the house.
When I see my eight-year-old daughter and three-year-old son caring for their brother, I feel fiercely proud of all three. Autism isn’t about bad parenting; it’s about fantastic children.
Yes, it is about fantastic children and a fantastic life—-and if that’s why parents would, as Ms. Grant claims, seek this “trendy” diagnosis, I cannot criticize them.
Not that Ms. Grant seems to know what she is talking about as “autism.” She does not mention neurology or genetics and has no mention of the kinds of educational techniques that can greatly help an autistic student, and also makes a rather off-hand comparison of having autism and having…….chicken pox:
Since being on the autistic spectrum is not like having chicken-pox — there are few fail-safe physical signs like a rash, for example, and no two autistic children, just like no children, are exactly the same — great care must be taken.
Yes, Ms. Grant, best be careful when talking about fighting words like “diagnosis” and “epidemic”—or there may be an Autism Pox on you.
Ah, just when the greater autism community is once again at each others’ throats over the details of what we believe, along comes someone like Ms. Grant with that rare ability to unite us all — in anger.
It appears that Ms. Grant is confusing *diagnosis* with *popular labelling*. Some writing in the popular press and on the Internet does seem to expand the concept of autism well beyond the diagnostic criteria, but nobody can receive benefits merely because their kid is fascinated with trains, since that’s not basis for a diagnosis, even if some in pop culture label it as “autistic.”
It’s also become trendy to claim that neurological/psychiatric disorders aren’t “real” because there are presently no lab tests (preferably “computerized” or “automated” ones) that provide a definitive diagnosis. The obvious rebuttal is that there are also currently no lab tests that can diagnose migraines. More important, there are plenty of medical conditions that everybody acknowledges as real, but for which no lab tests existed until very recently as medical history goes. This position is really just a variation of the (ludicrous) claim that everything that can be discovered already has been.
Grant’s fear seems to be that she’s running out of people to look down on.
It’s also become trendy to claim that neurological/psychiatric disorders aren’t “real” because there are presently no lab tests (preferably “computerized” or “automated” ones) that provide a definitive diagnosis. The obvious rebuttal is that there are also currently no lab tests that can diagnose migraines. More important, there are plenty of medical conditions that everybody acknowledges as real, but for which no lab tests existed until very recently as medical history goes. This position is really just a variation of the (ludicrous) claim that everything that can be discovered already has been.
The question is not whether they are “real”. (A few people argue that, particularly about ADHD). But it’s a fact that there is no objective medical test for most spectrum disorders in the field of psychiatry. It’s also a fact that the spectrum blends into subclinical forms and then into normality. Hence, the boundary for the disorder can expand endlessly, in principle – and in the case of ADHD I argue that it has already expanded way beyond where “disorder” makes sense.
I haven’t considered migranes, but other medical conditions with the same definition problem are controversial as well, e.g. hypoglycemia.
In any case, Ms. Grant makes a leap from fuzzy boundary to parent-blame. It’s unclear how the logic used to arrive at this conclusion came about.
As I follow her “logic,” she is suggesting that the parents are using–abusing–an autism diagnosis to account for their children’s misbehaving, rather than looking at the real culprit behind their kids’ issues—themselves.
I haven’t read her columns before so am not sure if this kind of “logic” is characteristic of her “thinking.”
Sounds like nothing so much as Mikita Brottman with perhaps a Scottish accent… and making her claims at the expense of kids and their parents rather than peers in academia. Bleccch.
This is another example of a false dichotomy. If your child has an autism diagnosis, than it excuses any bad behavior that child might have.
This equates autism with bad behavior.
I remember something Carol Gray said in a conference many years ago: children are children first and to assume that negative behavior is a *direct consequence* of the autism spectrum issues is to negate the fact that *all* children test limits and boundaries.
The manner in which this testing might be expressed is perhaps different in a child on the spectrum.
I have never automatically attributed my son’s bad behaviors or poor choices to him having AS. Neither do I attribute all his good choices and good behaviors to AS. He’s an individual with strengths and weaknesses, perhaps in a pattern that might be more identifiable because of AS.
Being on the spectrum does not give you a free pass to misbehavior. It just gives the parent/individual the appropriate lens with which to analyze and impact behavior.
And just yesterday I was talking to someone who asked me “what positive traits Charlie has.” I said, “as many as any kid has.”
Actually, I didn’t say it was about a fantastic life. As you know, it’s a damn difficult life that can be a never-ending struggle, but the kids it produces are amazing. I’m yet to meet a kid on the spectrum who hasn’t got the most thoughtful and considerate of siblings.
Naughty behaviour is still naughty behaviour (and ASD kids *can* still be naughty), but the tics and stimming and breakdowns are what Joe Public consider to be naughtiness are far from it.
Thanks, Michaela; the “fantastic life” was my addition and I apologize if that was not clear.
I’ve seen more “naughty behavior” from my son (who is an only child) as he is gotten older—in part because he understands how what he does can annoy us.
It probably was clear – I’m a bit sleep-deprived at the moment.
I’m still incredibly irritated by that article and her lack of understanding about what Autism actually is. The assumptions and prejudice are downright staggering. A pox on her, indeed!
I think as our kids become more self-aware the naughtiness is bound to increase. It’s like the terrible-twos, just a bit later.
Her articles really left me shaking my head, to put it mildly.
I’ve tended to be hesitant to call Charlie’s “bad behaviors” (the lying on the floor in a store, or knocking a hole in the wall of our house…..) “naughtiness.” He doesn’t have much language and he certainly has plenty that he wants to get across. But we are sure, more and more, that he understands right from wrong (people gasp when we tell them that)—-he will often cry after doing something he shouldn’t have.
We sound like we’re in a similar place to you with that. Language is slowly being picked up but it’s still very limited (our son is 6 now), but in some cases he does understand what he’s doing ‘isn’t allowed’ – but it doesn’t always stop him from doing it! We’ve gone the path with him of signing that we’re ’sad’ with exaggerated face gestures, and he gets upset and does his sorry sign back again. Fantastic progress.
Nice to ‘meet’ you by the way.
Very nice to “meet” you, too—–we’ve tried having Charlie saying he’s is “sad” or “mad” with not too much of a result. Thanks for the idea!
Letter From Sickened Mother
Dear Katie,
Congratulations on your excellent and most poignant work of fiction! ‘Some autistic children aren’t ill, they’re just badly behaved’. Well done! You have convinced us all and proven without a doubt, it is blatantly obvious you know very little on the subject you irritatingly refer to as an illness.
As the mother of a five year old son, diagnosed at the age of three with core autism, I am still coming to terms with this diagnosis, and the realisation of its life long implications for my son and my family as a whole. Every aspect of his daily life is profoundly affected by this condition, causing great distress and anxiety, and placing considerable limitations on our families’ quality of life.
Months after reading your article, I am still reeling from your obvious cynicism, and venomous accusations aimed at parents of autistic children, you would have us believe, have managed to obtain a false diagnosis of ‘autism’ for spurious reasons such as: “an excuse for their child’s bad behaviour”, for monetary gain in order to claim DLA and carers allowance, and most ridiculously, to be trendy or fashionable. Hundreds of parents of severe or profoundly autistic children are being turned down for the level of DLA they rightfully deserve and need, facing appeals, intimidating tribunal appearances and the exhausting task of ‘gathering evidence’ to support their claim, when they could be spending this valuable time and energy on their children.
Without reference to any research, statistics or professional opinion, you are like a bull in a china shop, launching into an unsupported endless onslaught of extreme, ill considered and offensive statements. To state that children “showered with isms,” who are doing badly at school, or are unable to communicate, is nine times out of ten due to “family breakdown, community paralysis and hopeless parenting” is absurd, and based on nothing more than your own dubious speculation. You should take your own advice and take great care before brandishing about, “this worst kind of inflammatory sensationalism”.
My heart sank when I read your statement: “It must surely be the worst kind of damage to label your child with an ‘ism’.” You must understand that parents cannot and do not wish to label their child with an ‘ism’. When your child is labelled with an ‘ism’, they have been diagnosed with a very real and serious condition, needing early intervention, provision and help in enabling them to reach their full potential.
Autism is not diagnosed lightly, as your article implies, and children are not being showered with ‘isms’. This is a fact. Anxious parents are placed on long waiting lists and left in limbo for up to three years, before a thorough and comprehensive assessment is done to establish whether or not their child meets the diagnostic criteria in order to ascertain a diagnosis of ASD. Parents are then often left with little or no support in gaining access to the services and provision their child is in dire and immediate need of, at the same time going through a grieving process for the child they had so many aspirations for and took for granted to be ‘normal’, who they have effectively lost.
Children cannot ‘fake’ autism. Any parents you are suggesting would seek a diagnosis of autism for suspect reasons would not get past their GP or health visitor and a misdiagnosis of autism is highly unlikely. I am sickened by your cynicism and angered by your extreme views, and although you attempt to balance these views with expressions of empathy for “those parents whose children really are on the autistic spectrum”, I am not convinced.
I believe you MUST be well aware of the negative impact your article will have on the public perception of autism, and that the damage you have caused to the plight of families struggling to cope with the demands of their autistic child, in the face of a system that is failing them, cannot be undone.
In you follow up article, ‘Autism, we need a debate’, in defence of your views on autism you say you are “sorry for the pain, but not for raising the issue”. Yet you did far more than raise the issue of rising autism statistics. The weight of your article was focused on your intent to convince your readers, on a very personal and critical level, that the “autism epidemic” is due to such things as, hopeless parenting, family breakdown, and most controversial of all, your assumption as fact, that there are unscrupulous families who are able to obtain a diagnosis of autism for monetary gain, while you yourself are ‘profiting’ from autism, by being paid for airing your grossly inaccurate and damaging views!
This is not a debate. This is your own callous and contemptuous opinion, aimed at discrediting families with a diagnosis of autism, who you have insulted and alienated, and it is this you should be deeply sorry for.
It is a responsible and concerned parent who seeks out a reason why their child, at the age of two has not learned to say mammy or daddy, and it is an irresponsible and damaging individual who seeks to persuade the public that there are families who are able to exploit this serious condition for all it’s worth. By casting doubt over the validity of every diagnosis of autism, you have by default, undermined the motives and validity of every family whose child has a diagnosis of autism. Including those you concede to be ‘genuine’.
You refer to your concerns regarding those families with “genuinely autistic” children, who would benefit greatly from ridding the system of opportunistic parents obtaining a false diagnosis of autism, and suggest that “families faced with autism every day,” would want nothing more than to have these people removed from “any list”. Wake up Katie! As a parent of a ‘genuinely autistic’ child, “faced with autism every day,” why would I have any interest in weeding out ‘fictitious families’ I do not believe exist? You are inciting a ‘witch hunt’, serving the system with an excuse to ‘crack down’ further on all DLA claims involving autism.
Are you able to concede to the possibility that you may be guilty of an insidious form of discrimination, against a disability which cannot easily be recognised as such, but can express itself by resembling ‘bad behaviour’?
It has not gone unnoticed, that in your article, ‘Previous convictions,’ where you talk about your experience of meeting and interviewing a man who had devoted his life to the “mentally handicapped,” Jean Vanier. You openly profess to your insuppressible feelings of nervousness, squeamishness and disconcertion towards the ‘mentally handicapped’. Ending your article, with reference to your ideas about perfection having been subtly altered, you state, “I still find mental handicap disconcerting but, after having met Vanier, I no longer wish it was not there”. I cannot help but speculate as to what your ‘previous convictions’ were, and ask myself why you should be trusted to be objective on the subject of autism, when you have such questionable disconcerting feelings towards the ‘mentally handicapped’.
I am not surprised you have become something of a hate figure. I thank those people who are not prepared to concede to your offensive views, individuals who suggest they should not have been published, and lobby groups that call into question your motives for writing your article. Those who live with autism can only be helped by “shouting down” those with extremist views such as yours, that only serve to damage and distract from the call for a much needed debate on the rising autism statistics.
I am afraid to say that your “desire to question the reliability of statistical analysis in Scotland,” has been completely over shadowed and distracted from by your sickening views and determined desire to undermine these statistics, at the cost of maligning thousands of families affected by autism.
I call for another debate. The debate needed on how any newspaper can be allowed to publish your own brand of “pulpit thumping” propaganda on autism. Newspapers should not ‘hide behind’ their journalists, and the Sunday Times Scotland must be held ultimately responsible for the inevitable and irrevocable damage and distress evoked by your ‘article’.
You have supplied the bullets, Ms Grant, and they have fired the gun. Straight into the hearts of every family affected by autism, and without any concession of a public apology and retraction of your article, you should hang your ‘hard-boiled’ head in shame.
Susan Lord
E-mail: susan-lord@blueyonder.co.uk
Susan,
Thank you for posting your response to Katie Grant’s article here. You raise too many, so many points that parents deal with every day—-and all of it needs so much to be heard.
Kristina Chew
To provide a balance to the comments here, let me say that having a 17-year-old autistic sister, I know exactly how you all feel about Ms. Grant’s article as it relates to us and our loved ones, but I think we may be missing the point that she’s making. She isn’t attacking US.
My fiancee came grumbling to me a few days ago about a classmate of hers who is convinced that her 7-year-old son has asperger’s. She is a single mother with an abusive ex-husband, raising two children on her own. As such, she doesn’t have a lot of time to spend with her children, and they are left to fend for themselves during times free babysitting doesn’t work out.
She apparently printed up a few online articles to show how her son has a few symptoms of Asperger’s. It should be noted that in the same classroom soapbox session, she said her son was autistic AND that he was still smart; apparently, he was able to speak since age one. She is led to believe that he is ill primarily because he acts up in school, likes to miss the bus, and refuses to go into dirty buildings.
To me, this shows general ignorance about autism, but ALSO that it is trendy to have autistic relations in order to elicit sympathy and “you must be so brave” responses. What this is an example of is someone who wants to avoid personal responsibility for the poor behavior and upbringing of her son by abusing a real and legitimate condition. Now, I’m perfectly convinced that any psychologist will set her straight, but I’m guessing that she already knows she doesn’t have any legs to stand on, and likely won’t have him even tested. It is simply one example of how people can use the symptoms as an excuse to defer their own liability.
For those of us out there with real experience with autistic friends or family, we know in our heart of hearts what is true, and it can be backed up somewhat through diagnosis. However, we can’t be naive and think that there aren’t parents out there set to take advantage of the associated financial and social “benefits” of having a special child. I believe these are who Ms. Grant was referring to. Just be happy our loved ones are simply autistic… and not petty, shameful and ignorant like the sympathy-mongers.
Jonathan, On the one hand I am baffled to think that a person would use a special needs “label” in the name of “getting” certain “benefits.” And on the other hand, that people would do this does not surprise me, and indeed saddens me.
Thank you so much for commenting here — you provide a thoughtful perspective.
Jonathan;
“A diagnosis of some kind of behaviour “ism” might result in £80 a week disability living allowance. If a parent has to become a carer, it is worth even more.”
“For the sake of all our children, let’s treat these “shock, horror” autism statistics with extreme care.”
From Katie Grant’s comments, it is obvious she is refering to children WITH a diagnosis of autism.
By implying that parents/families are able to obtain a false diagnosis of autism, she is doubting and questioning the validity of every diagnosis. She is undermining every child and adult with a diagnosis of ASD. She is undermining your sister.
If you believe;
“we can’t be naive and think that there aren’t parents out there set to take advantage of the associated financial and social “benefits” of having a special child.”
But also believe;
“Now, I’m perfectly convinced that any psychologist will set her straight, but I’m guessing that she already knows she doesn’t have any legs to stand on, and likely won’t have him even tested.”
What are you so concerned about?
I am equally convinced that;
“Children cannot ‘fake’ autism. Any parents you are suggesting would seek a diagnosis of autism for suspect reasons would not get past their GP or health visitor and a misdiagnosis of autism is highly unlikely.”
“Anxious parents are placed on long waiting lists and left in limbo for up to three years, before a thorough and comprehensive assessment is done to establish whether or not their child meets the diagnostic criteria in order to ascertain a diagnosis of ASD.”
Whether people like this women exist or not, the fact remains that if her son does not have aspergers he won’t be diagnosed as such, and will not be entitled to claim any disability living allowance.
She won’t be able to, “take advantage of the associated financial and social “benefits” of having a special child.”
Susan: your comment reminds me of the response of a parent of a non-autistic child when she heard that we “got” “free” summer school for Charlie……
Kristina;
What was the response of the parents?
Kristina;
Since you have not answered my question regarding
my comments that remind you of the response of a parent of a non-autistic child when she heard that you “got” “free” summer school for Charlie, I am left in the dark as to what you mean by this.
To clarify my views on “free” services for autistic children, I am defending the right for autistic children to receive disability living allowance and any other beneficial services, without the parents being questioned on their motives for claiming these benefits.
I am also saying that the likelyhood of a child (in the UK anyway), of being falsley diagnosed of ASD are highly unlikely. If parents seek out a diagnosis of autism for monetary gain, as Katie Grant is suggesting and Jonathan suspects
this mother may be doing by presenting her child as aspergers, he need not worry, as he himself is perfectly convinced “that any psychologist will set her straight” and that “she doesn’t have any legs to stand on”
Susan,
Apologies for not writing in until now—-I have only been able to sit down and read through everything again with care. Your first comment reminded me of the attitude of a parent who seemed to think that it was “surprising” that summer school (Extended School Year) was “free” for Charlie and other autistic children. She did not follow up on her comment, or stay to talk to me, long enough for me to explain that Charlie needed (and needs) to be in summer school to maintain his learning. Her comment suggested to me that she did not understand what it is like for a child to have autism—-that this is disability that calls for a lot of specialized education and therapy, and that it is not that we are “lucky” to get “free” summer school.
I was thinking of this in regard to Katie Grant’s suggesting that parents would intentionally seek to have a child who did not have autism diagnosed with it or another learning disability, and her suggestion (preposterous, in my view) that some parents would seek such a diagnosis, only with a view to “getting” certain services.
I am 100% with you about the right of autistic children, and autistic adults, to receive a living allowance and other services.
In the case of my son, it would have been quitely unlikely for anyone to think that we were seeking to have him “falsely” diagnosed with autism. Certainly, autism has cost us plenty in regard to monetary matters (gladly spent to help Charlie), rather than resulting in any “monetary gain.” And if a parent is worried about her child perhaps having Aspergers, it seems to me as a parent that she is seeing something that ought to be looked into.
Thanks for helping me to think through these things!
Kristina;
Thanks for the clarification.
Apologies if I sounded defensive or accusatory in my impatience with my question, “what was the response of the parents?”
“And if a parent is worried about her child perhaps having Aspergers, it seems to me as a parent that she is seeing something that ought to be looked into.”
I totally agree.
Please delete my comments if they are off-topic.: I’m in the States, know nothing about the rate of spurious N.H.S. benefits requests, and do not have a child.
I think this may be part of a greater push-back against something which is quite real: grasping for officially-recognised victimhood in service of an excuse.
When I first heard of Asperger’s in the early 1990’s, I thought back to my life, including comments of my teachers and elementary school principal about my habits and social defects, and came to the conclusion that I probably had it. I thought, ‘Well, that would explain why I have to waste so much of my processing power on handling social situations, and still do badly in them,’ got on with it (’it’ being dealing inadequately with work and personal relationships). A few years later, a woman at work came up to me, and with what I believe was no unfriendliness, said, ‘I just read about this thing called Asperberger’s syndrome, and I think you might have it,’; I laughed (since that’s what humans do) and said, ‘Yes, I think you’re right.’
A few years later a therapist agreed.
Starting a couple of years ago, I started encountering more and more people in my (cyber-centric) circle, talking volubly about their recently self-diagnosed Asperger’s. Nearly without exception, these were intensely self-involved persons very active in a scene about whose peripheries I lurk. I know a couple of other people with professionally-diagnosed Asperger’s, and they seem very different from these people.
A world (or God, if you prefer [and I don't]) bad enough to allow the pains real illness brings is a one bad enough to produce those who will grab onto an illness for gain, financial or social. I think it even worse that reaction to Asposeurs and the like should potentially hurt you who have so many real problems.
(As for me, I still believe I’ve got the taint, work on social coping skills, and generally avoid being obnoxious, even if it means avoiding people altogether, which in turn doesn’t bother me even though I know it’s supposed to.)
Hi,
Autism is without doubt a very debilitating disposition. There is always a truth behind this. It is also a diagnosis that must not be abused. There are very many genuine autistic cases but it is a very scarey stastistic that the hightest rate of autism as a diagnosis was the year following of the release of the film rainman. This enabled American psychologists to respond very effectively to their paying client base by enabling them to justify cases and effectively labelling children.
This is obscene and must not be permitted to continue. Autistic children are quite unique and generally easily identifiable as being off the norm. To take this and abuse it to label children that have tantrums, emotional upsets and all the normal things that happen to children is very very dangerous.
I would say that it is more dangerous to label innocent children than it is to support worried parents that demand action.
@Compton, If I may ask—-what is your personal experience with autism? Have you known a child who was incorrectly diagnosed with autism?
I know I am going to get attacked for this but I think there may be some truth in some circumstances were ” ASD” becomes a romantic/ trendy label.
I would just like to clarify my position on Autisim that ASD and other disorders in this spectrum are very real before I start to tell my story.
The family I have just married into for as long as I can remember has had a “romantic” image of ASD as something that very smart people that like maths have- think rain man. They have accused in a joking fashion that both my husband and his brother were/ are have highly functioning aspergas. This is beacuse they are not people persons (eg not the life at the party) and like maths and are highly educated. Noteably they have no family history of Autisim.
I have always despised this type of geek”chic” as I think it down plays people who actually have these disorders.
Anyway my sister in law has a two and half year old that was diagnosed as having ASD recently this was evidenced by the fact that he does not play with other children at day care and he recites books that he likes very well (echolalia). However I am highly sceptical (as well as other family members) and think that there is a certain amount of attention seeking that is happening here (without going into all the details about how he has now become the golden child who needs must always be meet).I do believe that this child is displaying some behavioral problems however I think the ASD label is a bit much.
Anyway I would appreciate any comments I am aware that I am stepping on sensitive ground here. Feel free to shout me down with hate comments if you so wish.
No, no. It’s a worthy question.
You could choose to see it that way. For me, I see in that a convergent thread of human behavior that is indicative of something quite broad that we hadn’t addressed before. Autism, it seems to me, does at least a better job of addressing a common group of individuals and about their similar behaviors and needs than had been typically described before it. And I think that the inclusion of people who otherwise might not be pathologized is accurate, even if they live fully functional lives. Mind you, I have a separate agenda in a sense, but to pare a generality I think it at least might make light of how the thread of behavior in what we would describe “impaired” autistics can be much the same types of behavior that can be found in a way that isn’t as impairing in human activity, and that one can fluidly move to the other. But I certainly understand, if you had a view of autism as a real “disease” or “disorder”, why one might come to that conclusion.
Cliff
@Is there some truth,
the ASD diagnosis is indeed to given to more children today, and this is in no small part because we have a better understanding of what ASD is, and because the “label” has less of a stigma attached to it.
When my son was diagnosed, many family members were skeptical. I think this was somewhat because they were basing their views on seeing my son for shorter periods of time, and we had a longer view of the sorts of difficulties he was having day in and day out. By getting the diagnosis, my son was able to have access to services (including speech therapy) that he truly needed; slowly, over time, family members have come to accept the diagnosis—-over time, though.
Autism is getting a lot of attention now, in the press and in general and while it’s not easy to get a diagnosis for one’s child, it’s not the hopeless thing that was once thought—-a lot we can do now for autistic kids. Very best—–
I am aware of the notion that ASD exist on a continuum. But Autism being a disorder there should be defining characteristics that define it as a pathological disorder. Or at least we should seek to find solid grounds for diagnosis.
I know now after watching a show on catalyst a couple of weeks ago, that there are defining pathological gait differences between children with Asperger’sand Autism (and interestingly significant differences between both these disorders)
What I don’t understand, because I am not an expert and don’t really know too much about ASD (and don’t carry around copies of DSM-4) is in the diagnosis. What kind of boundaries are made between normal and disorder. I guess how many boxes are ticked for symptomatic behaviours? This seems flawed to me as there is so much room for bias from parents, teacher and so on. Maybe someone can tell me how a diagnosis is made for autisim. For example what kind of assessments are undertaken and do these assessments have potential flaws and bias?
My only concern is that my nephew who is only just now three years old is going to carry a life time label.
I am sceptical with my nephew for many reasons. One is that he never displayed language delays ( he started talking at one while many children start at two+).
But you are right Kristina, I don’t see the problems that exisit at home and I am not an expert I am just an observer that thinks my nephew is just a shy and imaginitive little boy.
I also do understand that early diagnosis is really important if parents want to see the best outcomes for thier children.
However I am getting sick to death of my family treating my nephew as if he is a fragile porcelen doll. I think he is more resiliant than people give him credit for. My SIL completely ignores the other grandchildren and only plays with my nephew at family gatherings beacuse she feels his needs are above the other children.
It also upsets me as the other cousins are becoming shadows to thier cousin and that all play is centered around my nephew and aunts and uncles spend all thier time “opening up” my nephew while ignoring my neice.
Anyway these are my personal problems not really reflected about my nephew being diagnosed with autisim but how my family has responded to it.