Label? Diagnosis? Ill-Defined Something? (Joe)

Interesting NYT article about the movement for the 2012 DSM-V to get rid of "Asperger's syndrome," as well as "pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified," and make everything fall within the autism spectrum.  Link.

Comments

[Ruchira]

I read this article two days ago. I am not sure what the move will mean for diagnosis and treatment. Each child will still have to be evaluated for his / her individual condition. Does the name matter in determining the right therapy? I did note that states which deny insurance benefits for Asperger's will cover autism.

I wonder how Asperger's sufferers themselves feel about the proposed change of nomenclature. It appears that they are divided on this. I would love hear from our friend Matt on this one.

[M]

i think i'm in the minority about this, but i've never been comfortable with asperger's as a cultural identity. this is something the article references, the fact that many people with the label would reject a change because it might impact the way they signal who they are, how they express themselves. the article uses many of the adjectives you often hear associated with AS..."nerd", "genius"...stuff that sounds good, people like to self-apply, but really have nothing to do with the mechanisms of a neurological disorder (topic fixations, difficulties with communication, etc.).

"asperger's" has become too much of a social club for people who feel alienated...and the clinical impairments (which tend to be consistent, well-defined) have been conveniently ignored (i think they get in the way of the identity game). so...if one broad diagnosis removes some of the cultural labels that have been popularized, i think that's good. it's a serious disorder with painful consequences. stripping away some of the nonsense associations that have accrued in recent years: seems like a good step.

that's not the motivation behind the move to a single label, but it's one consequence that i would like to see.

the complaint is that a single diagnosis makes it more confusing for people learning about these issues, and for clinicians, insurers, etc. it's true, but that's just where we're at in terms of our understanding of any "spectrum". the research just isn't available to make clear, accurate distinctions. i agreed with the quote from the article: "it is better to have no subtypes than the wrong ones".