Re: autism and ADS - a little Roger Rant

[Guest guest]

Please do not use or encourage use of "made up" diagnostic labels. Attention Deficit Syndrome is such a term, and it has no place in diagnostic or treatment discussions if and when they occur within the provider relationship or even among well-informed persons knowledgeable about attention deficit disorder. It IS true that attention deficit disorder can and does co-exist as a separate condition in higher prevalence figures within the diagnosed autistic population, but this not the same as saying the two are identical or that they are causally linked, or in any other way connected "at the hip." They aren't.

When the DSM IV was first rolled out in 1994, there was a lot of interest in the "connection" between attention deficit disorder(s) and autism. That confusion continued on through the publication of the "Text Revised" edition of 2000, but the TR edition editors did much, informally, to warn diagnosticians NOT to conflate the two conditions, and things DID begin to improve individuals who had both diagnoses. Insurance companies were watched much more closely in their denial of disability or covered-benefits claims. Employers, especially, were put on notice that ADD is a separate and significant disability. Books and articles galore appeared, some very well written, that did much to alleviate the confusion about the condition in children and adolescents, and, eventually, late-diagnosed adults.

Much of the early hype and confusion was caused by well-meaning but ill-informed authors who popularized pseudo-scientific simplifications about both conditions, and was the cause of considerable "educational diagnostic category" harm when children were being separately assessed for special education eligibility or Section 504 plans at public schools. Eventually - with help from parents and psychological Ph.D level specialists, many well-less educated school folks learned how to keep the distinctions between the two medical (and educational) diagnoses separate. Ultimately, the US Department of Education said that it wasn't the "label" applied by school districts that was important, but rather what should drive special education and Section 504 plans was an accurate description using common-sense terms that leads to the provision of appropriate educational interventions and related services. That's still the approach favored by the USDOE, and "officially" an approach adopted by all state departments of education.

Please. Let's not start that whole confusion, conflation, and coining of newspeak terms" discussion all over again, even though our motivations lead us to seek greater clarity. This is one instance in which searches for clarity belong to the labeling community first and foremost, and only informally to the "consumer public" which will jump at anything that seems scientific and defensible, even if it isn't, as a consequence of much bad pseudo science and posturing on media such as the Internet and self-publishing outlets.

Here are the most recent (and legitimate) characterizations of attention deficit disorder as found in the DSM IVTR. It comes from a university site that's generally well-regarded for "getting things simple yet correct."

https://www.msu.edu/course/cep/888/ADHD%20files/DSM-IV.htm

It would be advisable to encourage any professionals or educational service providers to stick to what they can legitimately "defend" as official descriptions of the condition. If they can't or won't, when it comes time to applying for ADULT services, eligibility determination services gatekeepers will tear their hair out as a result of a diagnostic history and service provider path strewn with unacceptable and indefensible descriptions when precision and provider agreement is considered necessary for eligibility for such adult services to be granted.

That way, you don't get into the slippery slope of what's "hoped for" or even known, anecdotally but not not officially acknowledged by the APA's "keeper of the book", about the conditions adequately described in the current DSM as well as those scheduled for publication in the forthcoming DSM V. We have enough trouble with the autism definition. We don't need even more confusion caused by the conflation of ASD with attention deficit disorder(s).

Many many government agencies, foundations, grant programs and other benefactors and providers of services and benefits rely --officially --upon the DSM for their entitlement decisions. Let's "help them" as well as our adults by keeping our use of labels within the bounds of what's considered by those agencies in their gatekeeping functions, rather than our fuzzy, wishful thinking and efforts to "be helpful." Such efforts are anything but. As a retired but very successful Social Security Claimant Representative and as a current member of professional provider and advocacy lists, I have kept abreast of fuzzy thinking and poor advocacy that has made the award of services and benefits more difficult for adults, even when representatives "for" those adults believe that gilding the lilly is one way of snowing "da judge." Unfortunately, such "civilianizing efforts" to clarify confusion in the labels thicket have precisely the opposite effect, allowing critical decision makers to deny benefits, coverage, and services, all because of a few well-intentioned but fatal mistakes of an applicant or claimant's "friends." Please remember that those gatekeepers are under tremendous pressure to deny coverage, entitlement, and eligibility, and the picture is getting worse, not better.

Don't hand them more ammunition to "deny."

One thing for sure, attention deficit disorder is not considered or "called" a syndrome anywhere in the official diagnostic literature, and using "syndrome" as a shorthand only muddies discussions which warrant using clinical linguistic terms precisely, and as they appear in the official diagnostic literature.

is now done with his rant.

autism and ADSTo: "aspires-relationships " <aspires-relationships >Date: Wednesday, 25 January, 2012, 14:59

Does anyone know if there is any connection to a grandfather being a high functioning autistic to a grandson with ADS? I am not sure where to look for an answer to that one.

Thanks.

[Guest guest]

You are absolutely right, . I am uneducated about the subject and I called it something that was apparently a made up name. Now I know. To: aspires-relationships Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:23 AM Subject: Re: autism and ADS - a little " Rant"

Please do not use or encourage use of "made up" diagnostic labels. Attention Deficit Syndrome is such a term, and it has no place in diagnostic or treatment discussions if and when they occur within the provider relationship or even among well-informed persons knowledgeable about attention deficit disorder. It IS true that attention deficit disorder can and does co-exist as a separate condition in higher prevalence figures within the diagnosed autistic population, but this not the same as saying the two are identical or that they are causally linked, or in any other way connected "at the hip." They aren't.

When the DSM IV was first rolled out in 1994, there was a lot of interest in the "connection" between attention deficit disorder(s) and autism. That confusion continued on through the publication of the "Text Revised" edition of 2000, but the TR edition editors did much, informally, to warn diagnosticians NOT to conflate the two conditions, and things DID begin to improve individuals who had both diagnoses. Insurance companies were watched much more closely in their denial of disability or covered-benefits claims. Employers, especially, were put on notice that ADD is a separate and significant disability. Books and articles galore appeared, some very well written, that did much to alleviate the confusion about the condition in children and adolescents, and, eventually, late-diagnosed adults.

Much of the early hype and confusion was caused by well-meaning but ill-informed authors who popularized pseudo-scientific simplifications about both conditions, and was the cause of considerable "educational diagnostic category" harm when children were being separately assessed for special education eligibility or Section 504 plans at public schools. Eventually - with help from parents and psychological Ph.D level specialists, many well-less educated school folks learned how to keep the distinctions between the two medical (and educational) diagnoses separate. Ultimately, the US Department of Education said that it wasn't the "label" applied by school districts that was important, but rather what should drive special education and Section 504 plans was an accurate description using common-sense terms that leads to the provision of appropriate educational interventions and related services. That's still the approach favored by the

USDOE, and "officially" an approach adopted by all state departments of education.

Please. Let's not start that whole confusion, conflation, and coining of newspeak terms" discussion all over again, even though our motivations lead us to seek greater clarity. This is one instance in which searches for clarity belong to the labeling community first and foremost, and only informally to the "consumer public" which will jump at anything that seems scientific and defensible, even if it isn't, as a consequence of much bad pseudo science and posturing on media such as the Internet and self-publishing outlets.

Here are the most recent (and legitimate) characterizations of attention deficit disorder as found in the DSM IVTR. It comes from a university site that's generally well-regarded for "getting things simple yet correct."

https://www.msu.edu/course/cep/888/ADHD%20files/DSM-IV.htm

It would be advisable to encourage any professionals or educational service providers to stick to what they can legitimately "defend" as official descriptions of the condition. If they can't or won't, when it comes time to applying for ADULT services, eligibility determination services gatekeepers will tear their hair out as a result of a diagnostic history and service provider path strewn with unacceptable and indefensible descriptions when precision and provider agreement is considered necessary for eligibility for such adult services to be granted.

That way, you don't get into the slippery slope of what's "hoped for" or even known, anecdotally but not not officially acknowledged by the APA's "keeper of the book", about the conditions adequately described in the current DSM as well as those scheduled for publication in the forthcoming DSM V. We have enough trouble with the autism definition. We don't need even more confusion caused by the conflation of ASD with attention deficit disorder(s).

Many many government agencies, foundations, grant programs and other benefactors and providers of services and benefits rely --officially --upon the DSM for their entitlement decisions. Let's "help them" as well as our adults by keeping our use of labels within the bounds of what's considered by those agencies in their gatekeeping functions, rather than our fuzzy, wishful thinking and efforts to "be helpful." Such efforts are anything but. As a retired but very successful Social Security Claimant Representative and as a current member of professional provider and advocacy lists, I have kept abreast of fuzzy thinking and poor advocacy that has made the award of services and benefits more difficult for adults, even when representatives "for" those adults believe that gilding the lilly is one way of snowing "da judge." Unfortunately, such

"civilianizing efforts" to clarify confusion in the labels thicket have precisely the opposite effect, allowing critical decision makers to deny benefits, coverage, and services, all because of a few well-intentioned but fatal mistakes of an applicant or claimant's "friends." Please remember that those gatekeepers are under tremendous pressure to deny coverage, entitlement, and eligibility, and the picture is getting worse, not better.

Don't hand them more ammunition to "deny."

One thing for sure, attention deficit disorder is not considered or "called" a syndrome anywhere in the official diagnostic literature, and using "syndrome" as a shorthand only muddies discussions which warrant using clinical linguistic terms precisely, and as they appear in the official diagnostic literature.

is now done with his rant.

autism and ADSTo: "aspires-relationships " <aspires-relationships >Date: Wednesday, 25 January, 2012, 14:59

Does anyone know if there is any connection to a grandfather being a high functioning autistic to a grandson with ADS? I am not sure where to look for an answer to that one.

Thanks.

[Guest guest]

Hey, hey.....

Don't be so fast to agree, and for heaven's sake, don't take things out on yourself. Sometimes I'm a bombastic jerk, and when I just re-read what I had written in haste, there were lots of things I could have said using fewer words and in a less officious tone. So, we all learn from our mistakes and our haste to go out and rescue the world. <g>

Be kind to yourself, and don't stop learning new stuff...hopefully from less of a stuffed shirt than I can be at times.

N. Meyer

autism and ADSTo: "aspires-relationships " <aspires-relationships >Date: Wednesday, 25 January, 2012, 14:59

Does anyone know if there is any connection to a grandfather being a high functioning autistic to a grandson with ADS? I am not sure where to look for an answer to that one.

Thanks.