This section of the DSM-V manual states: Consolidation of autistic disorder, Aspergers disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder into autism spectrum disorder. Symptoms of these disorders represent a single continuum of mild to severe impairments in the two domains of social communication and restrictive repetitive behaviours/interests rather than being distinct disorders. This change is designed to improve the sensitivity and specificity of the criteria for the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and to identify more focused treatment targets for the specific impairments identified. MJBH: The new DSM-V criteria should serve as confirmation that the pantheon of APA gods otherwise known as clinicians with alleged medical degrees/knowledge know very little. To say that autists (traditional), Aspies, PDD-NOS, and Rhetts syndrome (subsequently separately categorized under a distinct diagnosis since it is degenerative) should be lumped together because they represent degrees on a single continuum is like saying that a dog, a goat, a rhino, and a horse, should be lumped together within the same species because they represent shared characteristics along the single continuum of four legged animals. Do these practitioners of alleged medical knowledge actually read the DSM? Look at the obvious logical contradiction: This change is designed to improve the sensitivity and specificity of the criteria for the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and to identify more focused treatment targets for the specific impairments identified. I may not be very smart (lol, incidentally my IQ is 159) but look at the APAs logic. Going from four general categories of potentially separate criteria to one category represents more specific criteria. How can criteria that addresses, now technically only one diagnosis, autism spectrum disorder be MORE specific in one diagnostic category than having criteria separately for distinct disorders such as Aspergers Syndrome, traditional autism, etc. That just doesnt make logical sense. Additionally, how can treatment targets/options be MORE specific/identified for only one diagnostic criteria? There are obviously more treatment targets if you have separate targets/goals for traditional autism, Aspergers syndrome, etc., etc. The reason being is huge: despite the APAs ignorance, language development issues is such a huge differentiator from most traditional autists vs most Aspergers syndrome autists, that how can you say that by narrowing it to merely autism spectrum disorder that your treatment options are now more specific, when, technically under DSM-V you can only treat for the more general specificity of autism spectrum disorder. How can that be MORE specific and targeted when most Aspergers autists do not share the same language development issues that traditional autists do. Theres a reason why highly degreed individuals such as doctors often make poor business decisions such as investments, accounting, etc.; not because they are busy practicing their craft of alleged medical knowledge - but because in the practice of studying others, they often reveal their own ignorance of the very topical/issue matter they are studying or practicing. Most clinicians couldnt diagnosis if an elephant were sitting on their chest. And the new criteria under DSM-V reveals many things about the clinicians within the APA. They are either lazy in that they didnt want multiple autistic spectrum disorders to deal with, hence the diagnostic consolidation to autism spectrum disorder; or they are ignorant, stupid, idiotic, intellectually stunted, or whatever apparent delusionary impairment from which they obviously suffer.
Posted on: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:38:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015