Wednesday, 06 March 2013
-
Getting It Half Right
In his latest article, Redefining autism a sales tactic, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, makes the point that autism is being redefined and many more children who would not be diagnosed as autistic in the past are being diagnosed today in greater numbers. His argument is that the redefining of autism to include a larger number of children is a way for politicians to bleed more money from the taxpayer. Dr. Sowell clearly understands the condition of genuine autism when he states:
Every dollar spent on children falsely labelled autistic is a dollar lost -- and urgently needed -- in dealing with the severe problems of genuinely autistic children.
Prior to the reclassification of autism in the DSM-V, I would have disagreed vociferously with his argument regarding the purported motive of politicians. Perhaps abuse occurred in the past due to economic incentives, with some children being diagnosed with autism, rather than intellectual impairment or speech and language; however, full fledged autism is so obvious that the occasional parent on the margin who conspires with a diagnostician would not account for the true explosion of children with autism that we see today. It is my view that we do have a real increase in children with autism.
Unfortunately, with the introduction of the DSM-V, we have a new diagnostic classification of autism that includes an army of children who are very mildly affected. This is going to:
- give the neuro-diversity folks legitimacy for the bogus contention that they suffer from autism and can therefore speak for children with autism who are nonverbal,
- have autism redefined as a “difference” rather than a disabling condition,
- provide “hothousing” opportunities for parents whose children do not suffer from autism or Asperger’s syndrome,
- bleed resources from children who truly need intensive behavioral treatment in order to be productive, functional adults who can live a life in dignity rather than being institutionalized
- justify the rationing of treatment from the most severely affected children due to the fact that they will not advance as quickly as the others on the autism spectrum. This rationing will come from educational systems, health-care systems and/or insurance companies.
Although I’m not sure that I would agree with Sowell’s argument that the motive of politicians is to overtax the public by using autism as an excuse, it is correct that with the new diagnostic criteria, treatment for children with autism is in danger of being rationed. So if you have a child with genuine autism, get ready for a fight.
Read original post
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to autisable's Autisable Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in autisable's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: autismpundit
- Name: autismpundit
- Location:
- About Me: Sabrina Freeman, Ph.D. (1958-) was born in Montreal, Quebec, and grew up in Vancouver, British Columbia. She graduated from Stanford University in 1995 with a Ph.D. in Sociology, specializing in small group research and the study of organizations. Upon her return to British Columbia, Freeman spent 14 years advocating for the rights of children with autism to be included in the government funded health care system for their core health need -- autism treatment.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 46 Views: 0 107952 Comments: 0 88 View all posts by autismpundit
Comments (2)
As a parent with a son with severe autism I agree with most of what you have said in this post. From my experience advocating on the political scene for autism and developmental disorders, at least in KS, despite vigorous advocacy (regarding our push for insurance coverage for autism, and exempting the Developmental Disorder Waver the Govenor's revamp of medicaid called KanCare.) from agencies and individuals our state politians have pretty much ignored us. The chance of "bleed[ing] more money from the taxpayer" for autism is practically nil. They will do that with out DSM-V's help.
The changes to the DSM-V have wrought a huge devide. People and families with mild autism or aspergers are coming out and getting more media attention (e.g. the Miss America pagent contestant) than those dealing with severe autism. Most of us are just too overwhelmed to spend much time on autism awareness, advocating and politicing. Media attention for mild autism has the potential to give the noninitiated general public the idea that autism is not that bad and if the public doesn't see autism as that bad then polititians are off the hook for allicating funding. If there constituents don't see the need.....
I help lead a local support group for 2 communities with a total population of around 30,000. Our members include many with children on the autism spectrum. How I see the changes to the DSM-V affecting people is it is deviding us against each other. If I say anything about my concerns regarding the things you have mentioned here I allienate those dealing with high functioning autism.
I have friends with children on the high end and their struggles are many times no less daunting but different. There is only so much money and how that money should be divided is a huge dilema. Services and support for families with severe autism must be given for their very survival, but it also makes sense to provide services and support for families with mild autism, who have the best chance to make it out and not need services as adults. How the needs are triaged and funds allicated is the question. Who is up for taking that on and doing it fairly. I'm afraid don't know anyone.
here are 3 examples of individuals with high functioning autism, one from recent events and 2 from my personal experience. Tell me if they are not in need funding for supports.
1. The Sandy Hook elementary school shooter: I do not think for a moment that his autism caused him to do what he did, but if he had qualified for supports wouldn't it have been possible that his mental state could have been assessed and possibly changed, he might have been more adjusted, less alone and not committed the terrible crime?
2. A second grader diagnosed with very mild autism. He is at the top of his class in Math and Reading, needs enrichment to keep him from being bored. He is impaired in his social skills, doesn't understand social cues like typical kids, so when some one says something of his (e.g. a book or toy) is stupid that they are calling him stupid. He feels bullied when it is just normal kid interaction. He acts out with aggression, feels desperate when school staff think he is "crying wolf" and tune him out. He sometimes is aggressive (kicking hitting, pushing) for no apparent reason. He seems totally incapable of lying so when asked why, he cries and says he doesn't know why he hurt someone, he is telling the truth.
3. A young adult that would have been diagnosed with autism had he been a child in today's world. He graduated from highschool with a C average, always struggled socially. He has trouble holding down a job, has no real friends, is terribly depressed and feared suicidal. He resists his family's attempts to help him.
Who decides who gets funding for supports and who doesn't?