Slashdot Mirror


No More "Asperger's Syndrome"

cstacy writes "The American Psychiatric Association is dropping Asperger's Syndrome from the upcoming edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) Its symptoms will be included under the umbrella of Autism Spectrum Disorder, which includes everything from severe autism such as children who do not talk or interact, to milder forms of autism. Asperger's disorder is impairment in social interaction and repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, activities and interests, without significant delay in language or cognitive development. Often the person has high intelligence and vast knowledge on narrow subjects but lacks social skills. DSM-5 comes out in May and will be the first major rewrite in 19 years."

11 of 602 comments (clear)

  1. Damn... by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And I thought the headline meant they had a cure!

    1. Re:Damn... by Trentula · · Score: 5, Insightful

      disease

      noun

      a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.

      Aspergers seems to fit the definition of disease.

    2. Re:Damn... by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a disease.

      Well, not by that name any more any way.

      One artificial psychiatric definition down, about 3500 to go.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Damn... by klingers48 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know, it's a damn shame. I thought the same thing.

      The really sad part is that I know from personal experience just how different Asperger's and true autism are. I had a good friend for many, many years that I sadly lost contact with that had Aspergers. A little awkward, but one of the most highly intelligent people I know. On the other hand, I also have an immediate family member that does fall on the autistic spectrum, and over several decades we've all been through the highs and the lows as a family.

      Aspergers may be on the austisic spectrum, but they're nothing alike in real terms.

      I also know first-hand how a label can effect self-confidence. I have Tourette Syndrome, very much controllable, but everyone's first frame of reference is that damn Rob Scheider movie. You've gotta laugh, but it does get awkward sometimes. I don't want to imagine how much anxiety highly ingelligent, high functioning but socially-anxious Aspergers sufferers are going to go through when they start being labelled autistic.

      This is doing them a great disservice.

    4. Re:Damn... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And I suppose people with sickle cell disease are merely suffering from prejudices as well? After all, it's a "genetic difference" as well.

      I did notice you were careful never to actually say that diseases cannot be genetically based, so I assume you are willing to grant that some are. If you're willing to grant that sickle cell disease is indeed a disease, as I would assume you are, then you'd need to draw the line at some place, but where? We would both agree that having a different eye color is not a disease, but I think we may differ, in that I tend to lean more towards believing the non-politically correct idea that if a genetic mutation leaves you significantly less capable of functioning, whether due to mental or physical differences, it would be a disease. Of course, at least to me, "disease" is purely descriptive of a condition, and in no way prescribes a behavior or response.

      For instance, to quickly clarify what it does not necessarily mean, it does not mean that they are necessarily at a disadvantage. Sickle cell disease confers malarial resistance, and at least in the case of my friends with Asperger's, they have exceptional abilities to recollect minute details from long ago (whether that's a learned skill or a trait of the way their brain is wired differently, I couldn't say with certainty, of course, but I believe the latter). I don't see a reason to pity anyone in those positions, since they are people who must make the most of themselves, just like everyone else.

      Additionally, it does not mean that they are inferior people. We define ourselves, and who a person is is more than just their body and mind. We are all born with things we need to work through, and whether that's a weak chin, dashing good looks, a bald spot, or Asperger's, we either choose to allow ourselves to be defined by them, or we choose to define ourselves despite them. That rests entirely on us and is entirely of our own doing. It's our own fault if we allow them to define us.

      Long story short, just because someone has a genetic difference that may classify as an error (which isn't the case here, since Asperger's is hereditary) does not mean that THEY are an error, so people should stop treating "disease" like it's some sort of dirty word and call things what they are. This mentality of coddling people by using useless terms isn't helpful to anyone, and it gets in the way by delaying recognition and response. Instead, be honest. If I'm going bald, say I'm going bald. Dancing around semantics isn't helpful to anyone.

    5. Re:Damn... by Coriolis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Diseases of the brain sometimes nothing but semantics. When you declare something as being a disease, you are implicitly saying it's not normal, it's disadvantageous and it's something that we should seek to cure. But it's culturally-defined what is and isn't normal. There are situations where being a sociopath are an advantage. There are (controversial) theories that suggest that schizophrenics were treated as shaman in hunter-gatherer societies. And obviously, we can't forget the DSM's classification of homosexuality as a disease. As you point out, things we regard as genetic diseases sometimes confer benefits, which why they haven't been selected out of the gene pool. Evolution doesn't draw this line between normal and diseased, but we insist on trying to do so, which is why the DSM skitters about like water on a frying pan - all it's doing is tracking cultural norms and current obsessions. Personally, I think we should do the opposite of what you're suggesting: abandon the word "disease" for all mental differences. Stop trying to draw artificial distinctions. Stop trying to pigeonhole. Approach each one - and each person - as an individual.

      --
      Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
  2. Re:sick and tired of labels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're right. The best way to do that would be to stop using names for things, that just makes everything too confusing. Instead we should write a page explaining what we're referring too each time we mention a new concept in conversation.

    Labels are shortcuts. They aren't always great, sometimes they need to be adjusted, but in many cases they are necessary and useful. In fact this could easily increase understanding by pointing out that it is not a separate issue, I don't know enough about Aspergers or Autism to conclude that but I get the impression that you aren't concluding the opposite. Just trying to sound intelligent by complaining about labels.

  3. Re:About time by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The move itself is akin to splitting off persons who have compulsive tendency in their personalities from those diagnose-able with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, and as such seems to be a reasonable change in categorization.

    This is one of the most controversial aspects of psychiatry. Human behavior is all a spectrum. All of us (well, most of us anyway) have personality traits. One may be a bit tightly wound, or a bit too laid back, or sloppy or overly neat, or insensitive or smotheringly kind. The combination of those traits make us who we are.

    The classical definition of a personality disorder has been when one or more of those traits becomes a dominant part of a persons personality and becomes 'harmful' to that person or society at large. We've all seen the psychopathic boss, the obsessive person who drives family and coworkers away, the very dependent person who wrecks relationships. But when do you call it a disorder? The first time someone complains about the boss? The first divorce? The first time you get into a fight?

    It's a fluid distinction. Our favorite disordered personality, Stephen P. Jobs, might well have been banished to an Ashram if we had any sort of effective treatment. Balmer and Gates might have been turned into, well, dunno, I have nothing here. Anyway, it is at the heart of how we define normal (or at least acceptable). In many ways, we don't really want to get to the point where we can treat it or even understand it.

    Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  4. Change the definition, no more problem! by catsidhe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know the trolls are lining up to post "Ass-burgers is fake anyway, I met an Ass-pie once, and he was fine."

    So let me say this first: If you've met an Aspie and dismissed the condition because that person "seemed fine", then please consider that what you didn't see was the countless hours of practice and stress and anxiety of being able to pretend to be that way; the habitual exhaustion from the effort of doing so; the depression and abysmal self-esteem from never, never understanding the people around you or being able to tell whether people actually like you or not. The years of teasing and abuse, the subsequent years of retrospectively realising all the other things which were teasing and abuse at the time but we couldn't tell at the time. The incessant Impostor's Syndrome, which only gets worse the higher you rise -- if you can move forward in your career. Who speak nineteen languages, but get scurvy because they forget to eat. No, seriously: people whose executive dysfunction requires the scheduling of bathing and eating, or else a rigid routine, where even slight interruptions can trigger a panic attack. The meltdowns and fear and frustration and despair.

    And you don't see the ones who don't "seem fine". Who weren't as fortunate as those of us who got a series of lucky breaks and have been able to work around our disabilities and take advantage of our strengths. The ones who killed themselves in despair or ended up on the streets or were institutionalised or are housebound on antidepressants and anti-anxiety meds.

    The DSMV changes to the Autism Spectrum diagnoses have been widely stated by the people writing them to be for the purpose of excluding people from being diagnosed on the spectrum. Because when people started actually looking at how many people had an ASD, it turns out to be much more than anyone thought.

    Obviously it can't be because so many people were swept under the carpet for all those years, so it must be a problem with the definition. Hey, if we change the definition of Cancer to exclude any condition of the skin, that means that all those people with melanomas must be cured, right?

    --
    "This is a Hollywood movie: when it comes to the Laws of Physics, they're lucky if they get Gravity!" --- my wife
  5. Re:Met them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think of it this way:

    You go in to the clinic because your spouse is worried about your health.

    You're 50 lbs overweight and your cholesterol and blood sugar are too high.

    Do we have a separate diagnosis for the person who's 100 lbs overweight? Does it matter what the label is?

    You should be paying attention to what the psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, your family, and what you yourself identify as your particular constellation of problems.

    The label is useless and explains nothing. You don't have Aspergers, or Autism, or Autism Spectrum Disorder, you have a constellation of social cognitive problems that represent part of who you have been. The causes are probably unknown and may be unique to you or your family, just like the causes of someone else "with Aspergers" are unknown and probably unique to them or their family.

    Do you want a ruler with one line on it that says "long"?

    I'm not saying these aren't real problems, I'm just saying any label is useless.

    I say this as someone who has worked on the DSM. Ignore it. It's not what matters.

  6. Re:About time by spiffmastercow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, you work with a bunch of people who *think* they have Asperger's. if you sit through one of my son's 3 hour long meltdowns because he suddenly decided his shirt was the wrong color, you'd see the difference.