BTW… just read some of your information online. I was in ICU during the first year, quite damaged physically at birth. Still, not a single regret about who or what I am.

I did a Google on CS and autism… the “other” CS is apparently a lot more active online than I am. I always sign my name, in case there is any doubt.

The DSM changes and I change. I guess it only makes sense that I’ll get new labels every few years. But, “political” or “outspoken” will probably never be labels I receive relating to autism. I’m a lousy self-advocate.

My mother was always my best advocate. She and my wife are two people I’d never challenge when it comes to my health and welfare. Me? I still don’t understand why being different is such a big deal to so many people.

C. S. Wyatt

For all I know, the latest might decide I’m little more than ADD/ADHD. That has actually been an evaluation in the past, on a good day. Which is why I think multiple-day, varying instrument examinations are best.

My wife would argue I’m closer to “classic autism” than high-functioning, so a single “great day” can result in strange evaluation results.

I believe, but cannot state with certainty, that the other “CS” is a more outspoken “Aspie/HFA” individual. He is definitely more political than I care to be.

The same “ailment” exists within the school systems. The checklists they use for educational diagnoses are based on the DSM criteria rather than actual daily observation of the subtle variations which occur from person to person. So frustrating.

To CS Wyatt,let me say that to a high functioning “Aspie”,who only has to deal with the simple “triad of impairments” of basic autism,the WIAS may seem “absurd” and “nonsense”,but it is a very useful tool,in assessing levels of impairment, in those,like myself, who have also have cognitive deficits,and multiple NVLDs.I was glad I was able to do such tests on a day,when my cognitive function was at its worst.

There is a reason they do such tests.

The wiki idea is terrible,because of the potential for abuse,misinformation,and those with a specific agenda,be it antivaccine,neurodiversity,or whatever presenting overly biased stuff as “the gospel truth”.

Ugh.

If we’re proposing alternate titles, here’s my entry: “Bottling The River: A Fecklessly Authoritarian and Inherently Incomplete Collection of Fatally-Context-Free Statistics and Inherently Subjective Perspectives on the Inherently Fluid and Undefinable Potentials, and Politically-Identified Difficulties, of Being Human.”

(Subject to revision.)

The most common cultural issues cited are sexual: homosexuality is/is not a disorder? I know some transgender individuals object to their situation being listed as a disorder, now, and are demanding a change. Of course, being in the text helps them receive some medical and mental health services — but at the price of being a “disorder.”

As one who believes, based on existing evidence, that there are “many autisms” with genetic and environmental causes, I definitely see the need for a “live” Web-based DSM. We know several genetic conditions grouped closely to autism, such as Rhett and Childhood Degenerative Disorders.

My screening experience this week was horrible. The very subjective nature of the testing is nonsense. I have a badly damaged right arm, yet was being timed as I had to complete various WAIS-III tasks. Absurdity at its worst. But, the neuro-psych insisted the WAIS and DSM were the “gold standard” for evaluations. (And this at a major R1 university.)

The DSM is not perfect. The test instruments developed to help with the subjective checklists in the manual are often flawed. (I pointed out that as a Californian, I don’t use the words “pop” or “sneakers” and had to “translate the test” in my head. How would a child do this?? (There were numerous regional and cultural issues with the battery used.)

Honestly, just put the DSM online, as the ICD is online and free with comments from experts. Let people “blog” or “wiki” or whatever on the various topics. Let’s have a real social debate on the merits of the categories, checklists, and general coding practices the DSM encourages.

I get the sense I am now a “recovered” individual or am about to be reclassified as having some other disorder: psychocynicism (a complete distrust of psychology and psychiatry).

Having degrees in rhetoric, I view the DSM as shaping the choices doctors and support personnel make, when often their choices would be better if they never looked at those pages. Guidelines and suggestions have a way of becoming regulations and orders, thanks to insurance companies and public health services that want standards — codes they can check off on forms.

Sorry for the rant, but the last two evaluations were interesting contrasts and revealed just how much some “experts” do nothing more than follow guidelines, while others actually spent time interviewing family and the individual. The DSM can be a distraction, like a ball and chain the professional can’t see is easily removed.

Summation: I hate the DSM-IV, as used. I’d love to see an online version with dissenting opinions updated and debated daily. Of course, the APA would demand the copyright and never really do such a thing.