Grunth wrote:Trouble is, how does one gain state support without a diagnosis? That is the problem that SH has found himself in.Greta wrote:You raise legitimate points but what is the alternative to breaking down the diagnoses? It makes sense to open-mindedly determine the specific problems a child may be having in the first instance, be it class behaviour, social issues or learning issues. From there counselling, coaching and mentoring in the deficit areas would ideally be provided as a first line of treatment. However, if that approach doesn't help, what should be done then in lieu of a diagnosis, especially if particular patterns are apparent?
Maybe the meds are being used because the hours of work needed to help vulnerable children is too expensive?
I disagree with the idea of categories of autism. Such categorization has not been achieved yet and there may well be good reason for this. After all, it isn't like cancer where it has different effects due to different areas and organs affected. Autism is diagnosed by behavior because there is only one organ involved. In effect autism is of the psyche. Due to being of the psyche, it (the person) will more usually respond or react to environment. If autism gets further broken up into various categories of autism then any environment change maybe of the institutional variety, rather than families finding ways of adaptation with some level of state support.
-- Updated May 27th, 2016, 8:17 pm to add the following --
Fortunately we have the internet and therefore less need for psychiatry. A psychiatrist for a diagnosis, but beyond that I would generally stay away from them.
If we are to reject subcategories of autism, given that there is such a huge variance from high achievers to those severely disabled, then shouldn't we be rid of the term and diagnosis "autism" altogether? Where would that leave the children and parents?