Re: Revision - Social Communication Disorder/Brit welfare reform

[Guest guest]

Thank you for this, as ever, .

Sadly, although we Brits might be on the up with regard to diagnostics; we are not going forward with Welfare Reform - this is something our current government are doing to the neurologically challenged. The new Bill seriously reduces the ability of assessors to give benefit support (welfare) to those with ASD. Communication being one of the things they overlook, as is Sensory processing or lack of spatial awareness.

The new welfare reform is, we all feel, designed to reduce welfare bills, not increase the capacity of people who deserve the help it offered readily enough before the revision to criteria. So, whilst there are experts in communication etc, they are not being consulted by the civil servants who are writing new protocols for politicians.

It is striking fear in our hearts, the puny extra monies we have now, at least kept some of us from going under altogther, and you could then avoid public transport, pay for therapies, have counselling support, or take that low paid job but at least you were able to feel comfortable whilst doing the work.

The new welfare system will make a statement that everybody is 'able to work'. The only exception is for people with terminal illnesses, and paraplegia with brain damage. I kid you not. People in wheelchairs are being told, 'you can hold a pen'. Despite their own limitations. Its not that people dont want to work, its that the criteria for working ability has been set by people who dont know diddly squat about the range of disabilities involved. That lack of knowledge is crucial. Without proper assessment, people will be put into terrible, no choice, situations.

This might seem like an oxymoron, as people with ASD who arent in work, are keen to work, to be accepted, and seen as the high functioners they are. But the reality is, there are much fewer jobs, and a huge marketplace of competitors who dont have ASD.

ASD folks will be unable to decide for themselves on the situation of their employment, (imagine a high functioner being forced to take a burger flipping job, because its the only thing available), or to ask for special considerations - low lighting, away from others, not working in loud or smelly places. If you refuse the first offer, you lose all money. Thats it. No proper assessment, no in depth discussion on your particular circumstances. Its too simplistic by half. You may have seen some of the demonstrations that have been ongoing, people with physical and mental disabilities are out on the streets.

The constraints on the working practices of ASD people will be so harsh, that someone like Ian will find himself losing his small stipend (which allows for him to get chiropractic help for his hypermobility, pay for his car so he can get to and fro without fear, and his counselling support).

So, whilst you have your DSM to contend with - and well done all of you for your campaigning, here in Britain we have our government not acknowledging the traits of people with ASD.

Michty me, as they say in Scotland.

Judy B, Scotland

To: aspires-relationships Sent: Sunday, 5 February 2012, 3:32Subject: Re: DSM-5 Proposed Revision - Social Communication Disorder

My "overall" on this newly coined disorder. The medical profession is famous for getting things wrong, and when it can't admit ignorance, it just makes up new labels. Problem with this particular one is that medical doctors are among the least qualified to tease out the subtleties required to judge whether one has social communication challenges. First, it isn't in their essential medical training...not in US medical schools. Second, their profession has openly acknowledged, repeatedly and in length, its practitioners' own problems communicating appropriately, let alone effectively, with lay persons, and, in particular, their own patients. Third, medical doctors long ago "gave away" authority to be experts on speech and communication, and there are at least two well-established, doctoral level professions far more experienced and advanced in their understanding of social communication: speech language

pathology and speech pragmatics, and second, clinical psychology. Both separate disciplines were created largely in reaction and direct response to the deficiencies of medicine to act appropriately when it came time not only to diagnose, but also treat communication challenges of ALL kinds, not just speech. For example, movement disorders have rapidly come under the sway of occupational therapists, and there has arise a well-respected branch of that practice, tied in closely with behavioral psychology, to identify movement AS communication, and AS social communication, specifically. To entrust the medical profession to this area is sheer tom-foolery.For these reasons alone, the Social Communication Disorder label should not be found in the DSM. For one thing, the Brits are at least fifteen years ahead of the American Psychological Association in identifying and successfully treating speech pragmatics challenges because, for one thing, their

culture is more homogenous than ours, and thus it's easier to adopt common definitions without the challenge of dealing with vast cultural differences in the use and understanding of what appear to be on the surface, "the same words." Secondly, the Brits have developed THE ONLY diagnostic instrument that's met medical and scientific validation as a diagnostic instrument, not just a predictive tool of an eventual medical diagnosis of ASD, and that instrument is the Diagnostic Interview for Social Communication Disorders, or the DISCO, for short. That instrument was developed carefully and over a very long period of time with an MD, Dr. Lorna Wing, and her non-medical but extremely savvy colleagues at Elliott House, now renamed the Wing Centre, as a direct consequence of the Autistic Society's expenditure of much time and professional expertise in developing an effective diagnostic tool for ASD. While no single diagnostic instrument can or should be used

solely by itself as a determinant for medical labeling, the DISCO (so-named by Dr. Gillberg and his wife)IS an effective diagnostic tool for ASD which the American Psychiatric Association, almost to "a man," has steadfastly ignored and poo-pooed to such an extent that the DISCO is NOT recommended for administration in the US, nor are promising young psychologists or medical doctors encouraged to consider going to the UK to learn how to administer the instrument.So...for no other reason than looking at the psychiatric community's arrogance and sheer idiocy, it should be apparent that the medical profession in this country is the least qualified to add "anything social" to its arsenal of weapons until its practitioners demonstrate not only an empathetic understanding of ASD, as proposed, but also demonstrate real expertise in training and use of effective social communication on its own, without regard to the profession's built-in

assumption that once it has the power to label, it has the unbridled and unquestionable yet untrained power to understand, let alone communicate, common-sense.Other mental health and developmental health professions didn't just arise willy-nilly. They've done so because of the purblindness and arrogance of the medical profession and its members' refusal to get down and admit that they're stumped when indeed they are, and that others, not just themselves, are capable of understanding the human condition.Just my not so humble opinion. N. Meyer DSM-5 Proposed Revision - Social Communication Disorder>>>>Those who struggle with pragmatics impairments in the social uses of >verbal and nonverbal communication may already have difficulty receiving >a DSM sanctioned diagnosis that will allow them greater access to services.>>And with the proposed revisions that fold Aspergers into Autistic >Spectrum Disorder and purport to tighten up the diagnostic criteria, >much alarm has been expressed that more people are likely to fall >through the cracks.>>This proposed revision to the DSM-5 may be helpful to NLD and Aspergers >folks alike though. Take a look at the diagnostic criteria that is >being proposed. Sound

familiar?>>>http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=489>>>Best,>~CJ>>>>>>------------------------------------>> "We each have our own way of living in the world, together we are like a symphony.>Some are the melody, some are the rhythm, some are the harmony >It all blends together, we are like a symphony, and each part is crucial.>We all contribute to the song of life."> ...Sondra >> We might not always agree; but TOGETHER we will make a difference.>> ASPIRES is a closed, confidential, moderated list.>Responsibility for

posts to ASPIRES lies entirely with the original author.> Do NOT post mail off-list without the author's permission.> When in doubt, please refer to our list rules at:> http://www.aspires-relationships.com/info_rules.htm> ASPIRES ~ Climbing the mountain TOGETHER> http://www.aspires-relationships.com>

[Guest guest]

Sounds like how Social Security Administration views folks in the States. Exceptions are stage IV cancers patients, closed head injury patients who are aggressive, and bed bound people, the rest can work. It's a lack of wanting it bad enough (insert near fatal eye roll here), not your supposed " issue " .

Welcome to the world of suck it up and deal. Our government has been like that since 2000.

And it's all about getting people off the dole.

Nan

[Guest guest]

JUDY BARROW wrote:

>

>

> So, whilst you have your DSM to contend with - and well done all of

> you for your campaigning, here in Britain we have our government not

> acknowledging the traits of people with ASD.

Our government looks for any excuse to deny disability benefits to

citizens. It's not only ASD, it's any condition that can be disabling.

The hoops that one is required to jump through weed out a lot of people

who should really be receiving some sort of benefit. In many cases,

they are forced to hire attorneys to take their case through the system.

In the U.S., healthcare is not a basic human right. Instead, it is

largely a private sector profit-based industry. There are few

government-sponsored programs for people who can't afford to pay for

private health insurance. Those programs that exist provide minimal

services only. Even the VA short-changes the healthcare of returning

vets. The charity services that are forced to take up the slack just do

not have the resources to care for everyone who needs their assistance.

It is a shameful situation, and not representative of an industrialized

nation that claims to be 'civilized' and a world leader.

The healthcare system in the UK may be far from perfect, but I think

that you folks are light years ahead of us in terms of basic human

rights and caring for your citizens.

Best,

~CJ

[Guest guest]

NJ Delphia wrote:

>

>

> And it's all about getting people off the dole.

>

Yep. All that money is needed to bail out our banks and other corporate

welfare recipients.

Best,

~CJ