|
Autism isn't well-defined clinically- there's no well-supported etiology for any of its "forms". It's very likely that the disease/disorder is actually several different diseases being lumped together due to poorly defined criteria and poor education of practitioners who use the criteria (this latter point is a huge problem). As a result, a circular diagnostic framing has occurred and overdiagnosis is almost certainly rampant. What makes the subject especially messy is that individuals come to self-identify with the diagnosis, and feel as if their cultural identity is threatened by either a diagnostic reversal or by a possible "cure". Support and advocacy groups have a strong potential to exacerbate this problem, regardless of their other benefits.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:I've been clinically placed on the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum and, frankly, the idea of a cure really creeps me out? I'm fine with curing the low-functioning end of the spectrum but it's all such a slippery slope. My autism largely manifests as my being stubborn (my dad always told me that my autism was visible whenever I disagreed with him) and intense (I just really enjoy life too much? I've never been stoned but from what I'm aware of the experience I basically feel like I'm stoned 24/7, it's awesome) and I hate the idea of society trying to dull me. Furthermore, I'm worried that the more prevalent an optional cure for my condition becomes, the more social pressure I'll experience to take that option. So, gently caress Autism Speaks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
T. Bombastus posted:I'm not autistic or anything, so it's definitely your prerogative to tell me to shut the gently caress up, but isn't it kind of messed up to say "my amount of autism is great, but people who are more autistic than me definitely need help"? Either it's a disease that needs curing or it's not. Maybe this is an inherent problem with it being a "spectrum" of disorders? I think that's part of it, but someone's individual perception of themselves is definitely a factor. I have Asperger's and I'm not sure if I'd get a cure or not, but take something like near-sightedness. I need glasses and personally would never want lasik, because to me the glasses have become an integral part of how I see myself, but there are still many people less near-sighted than me who get lasik.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
T. Bombastus posted:I'm not autistic or anything, so it's definitely your prerogative to tell me to shut the gently caress up, but isn't it kind of messed up to say "my amount of autism is great, but people who are more autistic than me definitely need help"? Either it's a disease that needs curing or it's not. Maybe this is an inherent problem with it being a "spectrum" of disorders? Not sure how I feel about this neurodiversity stuff, but I think you're onto something with the last bit. Low functioning autism manifests with severely low IQ and significant impairment. I don't think you can really compare that much with the higher functioning part of the spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
It's a problem that the diagnosis is so broad that you can be told someone is "autistic" and not know whether that means they're a functioning adult who really likes trains or a drooling mental patient who needs diapers at 30.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Welp some mildly afflicted people are "creeped out", better give up on a cure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Welp some mildly afflicted people are "creeped out", better give up on a cure. If you could give me a magic pill that would cure my boy of his autism I would give it to him in an instant. It's about quality of life, his life would be better without it without any question at all and as the learning difficulties make him unable to make decisions for himself it's on me. Personally I don't think it will happen as I'm firmly in the "it's genetic" camp and from my own completely anecdotal real life experiences I believe that the more sever end of the scale is far more like downs syndrome than it is asphergers to the point where I think they may be separate conditions but with similar symptoms, or people with classic autism can also have asphergers or something, it's complicated and we need more research but I personally would not be remotely surprised if in 10 years time they find out that many of the things currently under the umbrella of "ASD" are to do with abnormalities in several different genes. As for that side of things, we are now able to screen for a number of genetic conditions, it is then up to the potential parents to decide if it's worth the risk, many people decide not to have the kid and adopt instead. I would absolutely welcome the ability to screen for any and every genetic condition. I love my boy but why would I want others to have autism, it's a lovely condition and if we can breed it out of humanity then good. Downs is different, people know that absolutely everyone has a higher risk of having a downs baby the older they get, if you are over 30 and it's not accident then you are either an idiot for not doing research and finding out the risks, or went into it knowing full well that you were going to be tested and that if it came back positive you were either going to keep it or have abortions till you get a normal one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
T. Bombastus posted:I'm not autistic or anything, so it's definitely your prerogative to tell me to shut the gently caress up, but isn't it kind of messed up to say "my amount of autism is great, but people who are more autistic than me definitely need help"? Either it's a disease that needs curing or it's not. Maybe this is an inherent problem with it being a "spectrum" of disorders? Most diseases and disorders have different levels of severity, and it's not only possible but commonplace for people with the severe form to have their lives significantly affected while people with the mild form might not even bother with treatment. Diseases and disorders are not always black-and-white things. The idea of treating only the severe form of a disorder while leaving the mild form alone as long as it doesn't worsen is something that already exists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
yeah apparently dealing with things that aren't literal pathogens is complicated. Who knew?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Gyre posted:I think that's part of it, but someone's individual perception of themselves is definitely a factor. I have Asperger's and I'm not sure if I'd get a cure or not, but take something like near-sightedness. I need glasses and personally would never want lasik, because to me the glasses have become an integral part of how I see myself, but there are still many people less near-sighted than me who get lasik. I'd take the cure. gently caress yeah I'd take the cure. To me it's like being Batman in the Justice League. Everyone else has loving super powers and here I am training my rear end off to keep up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:25
|
|
Torka posted:It's a problem that the diagnosis is so broad that you can be told someone is "autistic" and not know whether that means they're a functioning adult who really likes trains or a drooling mental patient who needs diapers at 30. Exactly. I would not want to bring a severely autistic child into the world. But there needs to be definition between people who are 'high-functioning' and those who aren't, because when people say autism they're generally meaning the latter in my experience. Didn't they split Aspergers from autism at some point recently?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Exactly. I could have sworn they actually added Aspergers to the Autism spectrum a few years ago after it being a separate thing for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Ethiser posted:I could have sworn they actually added Aspergers to the Autism spectrum a few years ago after it being a separate thing for a long time. I think that one is complicated by different countries but the long and skinny of it is that Aspergers is classified as ASD everywhere now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Asbergers is folded into ASD in the current version of the DSM- however, iirc there is a utility grandfathering exception for some part of the previous criterion sets, I can't remember which one. Again, most controversies and policy problems involving autism stem from the fact that we have no empirically rigorous definition or basis for the condition, but it has nonetheless been heavily used professionally and in lay society, including as a form of self-identification. Despite the fact that a diagnosis of autism actually means very little, affected individuals, their families, and care professionals cling to the definition and have formed a broad set of societal associations for its use. To be overly cute about the whole thing, it's like autism has become the furry fandom of the psychiatric world- except way more popular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
T. Bombastus posted:I'm not autistic or anything, so it's definitely your prerogative to tell me to shut the gently caress up, but isn't it kind of messed up to say "my amount of autism is great, but people who are more autistic than me definitely need help"? Either it's a disease that needs curing or it's not. Maybe this is an inherent problem with it being a "spectrum" of disorders? No, that's basically the inherent problem when dealing with mental disorders in general. Technically speaking, something is only a "disorder" if it negatively affects your life. It's possible to be mildly autistic but not have any sort of autistic "disorder," as there are people whose autism only manifests as a low level of social awkwardness, a bit of mechanical thinking, or hyperlexia. I'm sure we can all think of somebody that's utterly obsessed with one topic, kind of sucks at communication, but otherwise leads a pretty OK life. That person could very well be autistic but have no real problems and thus require no treatment. Psychologically speaking, disorders are ludicrously complex things thanks to how complex the brain is. You just can't draw lines between "has a disorder" and "does not." That's why the diagnosis criteria are kind of vague and people with one disorder tend to end up with at least one more. The treatments for various disorders really, really vary and are customized to the individual. In the case of autism you can end up with people that can write eloquently but barely speak but otherwise function perfectly well. Those people you give some speech therapy. Other times you get people that are effectively mentally retarded and utterly incapable of functioning at all. Both are autistic but need different treatment. My experience has been that most autistic people are actually pretty "normal" in that they have friends, jobs, and homes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
I can sort of understand the aversion to some extent. I was diagnosed with ADHD in the early 80s (Back when it was called, I kid you not, "Minimum brain disfunction", which is an AWESOME thing to tell a 7yo he has. Pretty much had me wondering if I had to start wearing a crash helmet to school). Back then it was poorly understood, and the docs tried all sorts of hosed up things but eventually put me on Ritalin. My grades went from D-'s to duxing year 6 and 7 primary school. Then in High school I went off the medicine and discovered weed and my grades sailed back down again. Anyway, where I'm going with this, is that somewhere mid 90s they started realising ADHD wasnt primarily a childhood thing that wore off after puberty like previously believed, and the doctors suggested I go back on it, although this time Dexamphetamine. Now whilst it worked, it also altered my personality in ways I did not like at all. I became hyperfocused, professionally agressive (I'd have yelling fits at the juniors over my coffee being the wrong temperature!) , I'd become violent towards men and sleazy towards women when drinking, and basically it turned me into a total oval office and the total opposite of what I am normally, a fairly relaxed sociable person. So I stopped taking it. I just did not like the effects on my personality, its like in exchange for a good attention span I'd lose my sense of empathy. I'd rather have MY personality and put up with having a total ditz of an attention span than be a total oval office of a human who treats other people like poo poo. I care too much about other people to inflict that on them. So yeah I can understand the anxiety autistic folks must feel about it. Whilst autism really does gently caress up people social skills, for most high-functioning/asperger types thats really all it does to them, and I guess theres the concern that in exchange for gaining the missing mojo, they'd lose some sort of aspect about themselves they enjoy or value. I can relate to that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:08
|
|
duck monster posted:I can sort of understand the aversion to some extent. I was diagnosed with ADHD in the early 80s (Back when it was called, I kid you not, "Minimum brain disfunction", which is an AWESOME thing to tell a 7yo he has. Pretty much had me wondering if I had to start wearing a crash helmet to school). Back then it was poorly understood, and the docs tried all sorts of hosed up things but eventually put me on Ritalin. My grades went from D-'s to duxing year 6 and 7 primary school. Then in High school I went off the medicine and discovered weed and my grades sailed back down again. Anyway, where I'm going with this, is that somewhere mid 90s they started realising ADHD wasnt primarily a childhood thing that wore off after puberty like previously believed, and the doctors suggested I go back on it, although this time Dexamphetamine. Now whilst it worked, it also altered my personality in ways I did not like at all. I became hyperfocused, professionally agressive (I'd have yelling fits at the juniors over my coffee being the wrong temperature!) , I'd become violent towards men and sleazy towards women when drinking, and basically it turned me into a total oval office and the total opposite of what I am normally, a fairly relaxed sociable person. So I stopped taking it. I just did not like the effects on my personality, its like in exchange for a good attention span I'd lose my sense of empathy. I'd rather have MY personality and put up with having a total ditz of an attention span than be a total oval office of a human who treats other people like poo poo. I care too much about other people to inflict that on them. As someone who was diagnosed with Asperger's, this is right on the nose. I would not have any interest in a permanent cure that had a chance to change my personality for the worse, intuitive understanding of non-verbal communication be damned. That said I'm in favor of the idea of looking for one and if it was guaranteed to not alter my personality I'd take it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Does anyone know about the book "A Shot In The Dark"? My father-in-law just mentioned reading it and wondering about the causal link between vaccines and autism. I'm 100% sure it's bullshit, but has there even been a mass debunking of the book?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Does anyone know about the book "A Shot In The Dark"? My father-in-law just mentioned reading it and wondering about the causal link between vaccines and autism. I'm 100% sure it's bullshit, but has there even been a mass debunking of the book? Here's a decent one (I haven't vetted the site, though). It's the usual inflation of early anecdotes and rejection of subsequent investigation finding no harm. edit: Ooh, an essay by the lead author! Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:As someone who was diagnosed with Asperger's, this is right on the nose. I would not have any interest in a permanent cure that had a chance to change my personality for the worse, intuitive understanding of non-verbal communication be damned. Indeed. If I wanted to be a hyperfocused rear end in a top hat with too much confidence, I'd do cocaine. Supposedly a lot of fun too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
I just learned to live with it. I would never take a cure at this point in my life. The problem I had when I was younger was that my mother did everything in her power to hide that I had it. She would change doctors whenever one implied autism because "nothing was wrong with her daughter" It got me into trouble when I started working due to my innate stubbornness and lost my job once because of it. It was when I was being treated for an injury that the doctors requested my medical history. Which was something that I personally had to request from the national archives. When I received my medical history papers I started reading through them just out of curiosity, and I found hundreds of pages of doctors notes from over a dozen doctors who noted "abnormalities" that suggested the autism spectrum. My mother worked for social services so she knew her way around the bureaucracy. Neither doctors nor teachers could do anything. I didn't get properly diagnosed until I was 28 but that made an enormous difference in my life because it meant I could start looking for the signs in my social behaviour and to compensate for them. That just because something doesn't feel wrong to say doesn't mean it's the right thing to say. To try and judge every single situation from an empirical standpoint. To weigh in peoples experiences and not to automatically question everything. My mother died when I was 20 and I would have loved to confront her about it but I won't be able to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
It's probably a bit old now but I wanted to mention that there's no compelling evidence that Gage changed in his personality in a way consistent with brain damage and not with having had an incredibly traumatic event happen, or the extent that his personality changed, or how long that change lasted. It's even in the drat Wiki: Despite this celebrity the body of established fact about Gage and what he was like (before or after his injury) is small, which has allowed "the fitting of almost any theory [desired] to the small number of facts we have" having been cited, over the years, in support of various theories of the brain entirely contradictory to one another. Historically, published accounts (including scientific ones) have almost always severely distorted and exaggerated Gage's behavioral changes, frequently contradicting the known facts. A report of Gage's physical and mental condition shortly before his death implies that Gage's most serious mental changes were temporary, so that in later life he was far more functional, and socially far better adapted, than in the years immediately after his accident. A social recovery hypothesis suggests that Gage's employment as a stagecoach driver in Chile provided daily structure allowing him to relearn lost social and personal skills. Gage should not be used to argue for anything. We don't actually know enough about the story. The main problem with asserting personality change post-brain damage is that brain damage is normally associated with a traumatic event, which we know can change personality. Any 'cure' for autism, like cures for other forms of mental illness, would come with side effects and it'd have to be a case-by-case analysis about whether those side effects were worth the benefit of the cure. Most of the autistic people I've worked with would have loved a cure because panic attacks and frustration-screaming aren't actually fun, but the likelihood of just a straight-up 'cure' is low. Anyone who has a problem with a woman aborting a fetus because it has needs that she doesn't think she'll be capable of dealing with is a shitheel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 12:32
|
|
Obdicut posted:It's probably a bit old now but I wanted to mention that there's no compelling evidence that Gage changed in his personality in a way consistent with brain damage and not with having had an incredibly traumatic event happen, or the extent that his personality changed, or how long that change lasted. Traumatic events, or really any event or experience causes changes in the structure and composition of the brain. I think that separating events and direct physical damage when both cause physical changes and when we have so little knowledge of exactly how the brain works is premature.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Traumatic events, or really any event or experience causes changes in the structure and composition of the brain. I think that separating events and direct physical damage when both cause physical changes and when we have so little knowledge of exactly how the brain works is premature. Whatever. The point is that using Gage to argue for personality change via changes to the brain is dumb. Your personality might change if you got a hand cut off, or it might not. And aside from the many incarnations of the buddha that post here on SA, there's nothing at all wrong with personality change, either. Pretty much everyone wants to change their personality, it's a rare (and usually awful) person who wouldn't like to change some things about themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Its a bit cartesian to suggest personality is anything other than structure and composition of the brain however. Like, everything about human thought and behavior is a byproduct of brain states
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Its a bit cartesian to suggest personality is anything other than structure and composition of the brain however. Like, everything about human thought and behavior is a byproduct of brain states Who cares, though? It's irrelevant to the question of "Is changing your personality by taking drugs to address a mental illness a bad thing?" or any iteration thereof. Personality change is not equivalent to death or anything extreme, it is mutable, it is part of what we do throughout our lives, and what we want to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 13:59
|
|
Obdicut posted:Whatever. The point is that using Gage to argue for personality change via changes to the brain is dumb. Your personality might change if you got a hand cut off, or it might not. And aside from the many incarnations of the buddha that post here on SA, there's nothing at all wrong with personality change, either. Pretty much everyone wants to change their personality, it's a rare (and usually awful) person who wouldn't like to change some things about themselves. You are arguing with your own idea of a cure in your head, others are arguing with their own ideas of a cure. Until we have some idea of what a cure would entail or agree on a stand in for such a cure arguments about this unknown cure's moral or ethical implications are pretty pointless.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 19:02
|
|
Obdicut posted:Who cares, though? It's irrelevant to the question of "Is changing your personality by taking drugs to address a mental illness a bad thing?" or any iteration thereof. Personality change is not equivalent to death or anything extreme, it is mutable, it is part of what we do throughout our lives, and what we want to do. This logic could be used to justify stopping research into a cure for Alzheimer's, which I'm sorry but I'm not fond of that in the slightest.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Indeed. If I wanted to be a hyperfocused rear end in a top hat with too much confidence, I'd do cocaine. Supposedly a lot of fun too. This comment also kind of unwittingly hits the issue square on the head, in that the "norm" that a cure would ostensibly return individuals with autism to isn't explicitly defined. To an individual sufficiently far along the spectrum, every non-autistic person probably appears like a manic hyper-social narcissist, but the degree to which that's true actually varies quite wildly. Some people are quiet, some people are gregarious, some people are really into their own little hobbies but perfectly sociable etc. Everything seems extreme when it's far removed from what you perceive, but there's a lot more shades of grey than might be apparent. Where this gets weird if it turns out that autism truly is an entire spectrum ranging from a rough norm to "a little shy" to "lacking cognitive/gross motor skills," sort of like how depression can range from "I have intrusive thoughts" to "I can't get out of bed in the morning and spend my nights staring down a bottle of pills and fifth of vodka," or how bipolar disorder ranges from "mild highs and lows" to "hallucinations." For mild cases, that latter two generally rely on what the individual patient feels is right, so for any cure or drug that could make a dent in autism symptoms, I'd imagine a similar criteria would be used. It's impossible from a modern psychiatric perspective to determine how "normal" someone should be, only that in extreme cases in which someone's life is clearly being negatively affected that steps should be taken. If you can at least generally take care of yourself and aren't miserable, I doubt the existence of a cure would affect you at all. *edit* Also, as some people have said, personality change isn't equal to death. Anyone here with autism probably came up with coping strategies for certain situations a long time ago, and if you can take a pill that makes it happen quicker or allows to to do so further it's not really different from a systematic approach or just plain avoidance. *double-edit* EVERYONE is weird about personality changes and views their current state as a fixed self that represents who they truly are, didn't mean to just single out people with autism PsychoInternetHawk fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
My basic thing is that while in an absolute sense you are totally right, I don't perceive or live my life in the absolute reality and neither does anyone else. It'd be literally impossible even if I had 20/20 vision and didn't have mild autism, so I have to make do with the subjective one where I know what "I" am and what the people around me are but not what some medication might make me (or them). I can appreciate the existence of it but it's not compassionate IMO to say it doesn't matter if things that change subjectively all the time anyway are altered in ways the rest of us aren't happy with because they lower our perceived subjective quality of life. That said, I'm not worried anyone would force a cure on those with mild symptoms, but Obdicut has sounded like he doesn't see any rational reason for someone to be mistrustful of the idea that their personality might change in ways they don't like because in an absolute sense there'll still be the same body walking around that's identified with the same moniker in the end. For some strange reason that tack doesn't make me believe in the 'compassionate' part outside the kind that Bible thumpers might say they have when they recommend gay members of their church to go to those ex-gay camps.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:You are arguing with your own idea of a cure in your head, others are arguing with their own ideas of a cure. Until we have some idea of what a cure would entail or agree on a stand in for such a cure arguments about this unknown cure's moral or ethical implications are pretty pointless. That's my point. I don't have any idea of what a cure would be like. It'd depend on the side effects, like any other medication. There's no metaphysical problem with taking medication that alters brain function, we do poo poo that alters brain function constantly, and human beings tend to want to change personality. Ignatius M. Meen posted:This logic could be used to justify stopping research into a cure for Alzheimer's, which I'm sorry but I'm not fond of that in the slightest. No, it couldn't. I'm saying you have to evaluate the change, not quack about how changing someone is like killing them. Ignatius M. Meen posted:That said, I'm not worried anyone would force a cure on those with mild symptoms, but Obdicut has sounded like he doesn't see any rational reason for someone to be mistrustful of the idea that their personality might change in ways they don't like because in an absolute sense there'll still be the same body walking around that's identified with the same moniker in the end. For some strange reason that tack doesn't make me believe in the 'compassionate' part outside the kind that Bible thumpers might say they have when they recommend gay members of their church to go to those ex-gay camps. Again, homosexuality and autism are not things that should be compared. They're not similar, and I don't feel it's compassionate towards autists to pretend that they are. There's a lot of frustration and pain involved with autism that is not involved with homosexuality, except in the presence of bigotry. It's completely possible to be completely compassionate towards people with autism and still want to reassure autistic people they won't be 'someone different' if a cure were actually available. I have an anxiety disorder. So far, no medication has been super-useful in addressing it, but if I find one that helps and doesn't have side effects I can't deal with, then I'll be quite happy to take it. It will change my personality, as has getting back into shape, quitting drinking, and a host of other things. Change in personality, even a dramatic change, doesn't destroy the self. Neither does getting drunk. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:This logic could be used to justify stopping research into a cure for Alzheimer's, which I'm sorry but I'm not fond of that in the slightest. What? Explain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:29
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:What? Explain. "Personality is mutable and in fact, the whole of a 'mind' is mutable and subject to change, therefore not essential. Since it is not essential that this man keep his mind the same, we don't need to treat his Alzheimer's. He'll be just dandy without it because he'll still essentially be the same person." Your turn!
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:29
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, it couldn't. I'm saying you have to evaluate the change, not quack about how changing someone is like killing them. Okay, that's a more reasonable position I can agree with. Obdicut posted:Again, homosexuality and autism are not things that should be compared. They're not similar, and I don't feel it's compassionate towards autists to pretend that they are. There's a lot of frustration and pain involved with autism that is not involved with homosexuality, except in the presence of bigotry. It's completely possible to be completely compassionate towards people with autism and still want to reassure autistic people they won't be 'someone different' if a cure were actually available. I was not comparing homosexuality and autism but the attitude that someone is being helpful in advocating for a change when the proposed change in question either isn't or is of questionable value (hypothetically speaking obviously). Being the same absolute person is not the same thing as being the same subjective person. I think you're assuming neutral or positive changes which isn't always the way medicine works as has already been mentioned. I think the "side-effects I can't deal with" might be what you'd fit turning into an rear end in a top hat under, but it's not obvious from the way you're writing.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:"Personality is mutable and in fact, the whole of a 'mind' is mutable and subject to change, therefore not essential. Since it is not essential that this man keep his mind the same, we don't need to treat his Alzheimer's. He'll be just dandy without it because he'll still essentially be the same person." Just because you found a way to twist an argument into something vile and stupid doesn't make it relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Exactly. Asperger's syndrome no longer exists as of the DSM-V. Someone who would have been diagnosed with Asperger's a few years ago would now be diagnosed with autism, specifically high-functioning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Clochette posted:Asperger's syndrome no longer exists as of the DSM-V. Someone who would have been diagnosed with Asperger's a few years ago would now be diagnosed with autism, specifically high-functioning. Autism spectrum disorder, actually. And iirc there's a carveout for people previously diagnosed with asperger's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Autism spectrum disorder, actually. And iirc there's a carveout for people previously diagnosed with asperger's. Do you mean that the previous diagnosis wouldn't change?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:Okay, that's a more reasonable position I can agree with. But that's not the proposed hypothetical change we're talking about. quote:Being the same absolute person is not the same thing as being the same subjective person. I think you're assuming neutral or positive changes which isn't always the way medicine works as has already been mentioned. We're talking about a cure for autism, if it doesn't actually work to address the issues caused by autism for the better, it wouldn't really be a 'cure'. quote:I think the "side-effects I can't deal with" might be what you'd fit turning into an rear end in a top hat under, but it's not obvious from the way you're writing. Well, that's entirely up to the individual to decide. If they can deal with turning into an rear end in a top hat and in return not suffer as badly as some autistic people do, they might find that worthwhile. It's not up to me to decide. For severely autistic people who can't make decisions for themselves or make their wishes known, we have to default to what we always do, and let medical professionals and family make the decision. This is all based on a hypothetical 'cure' whose qualities we don't know. The meat of what I'm saying is: You don't become a different person because of drugs, except in the way that you do from every change in your life. The change may be dramatic, but so can other, non-pharmaceutical things. Autistic people who take medications that they benefit from are not losing their personalities. IF there were a 'cure' it would not kill their old self. Perhaps some people would actually prefer their previous state: that's fine. But most autistic people I know live very difficult lives filled with a lot of pain and confusion and frustration and would really like for things not to be as hard as they are. Ignatius M. Meen posted:"Personality is mutable and in fact, the whole of a 'mind' is mutable and subject to change, therefore not essential. Since it is not essential that this man keep his mind the same, we don't need to treat his Alzheimer's. He'll be just dandy without it because he'll still essentially be the same person." If the patient wants it to be treated (and is capable of expressing their desires) then it should get treated. I don't think Alzheimer's patients should be forced to get treatment, nor would I say that there's some definitive moment they are 'not them'. It's a degenerative disease. My grandfather died slowly from a different progressive disease, and there was definitely a time he was no longer there most of the time, but even then he'd have occasional moments of lucidity. But this is kind of besides the point, because there's no analogy between not treating a progressive disease which just takes away faculties and taking some hypothetical drug which alters brain function in an autistic person in a large enough way we could call it a 'cure'. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
I think so. Gimme a second and I'll pull the actual diagnostic material- we'll see how off my memory is. OK, first off, here's the end of the DSM-5 material defining a mental disorder: DSM-5 posted:Approaches to validating diagnostic criteria for discrete categorical mental disorders have included the following types of evidence: antecedent validators (similar genetic markers, family traits, temperament, and environmental exposure), concurrent validators (similar neural substrates, biomarkers, emotional and cognitive processing, and symptom similarity), and predictive validators (similar clinical course and treatment response). In DSM-5, we recognize that the current diagnostic criteria for any single disorder will not necessarily identify a homogeneous group of patients who can be characterized reliably with all of these validators. Available evidence shows that these validators cross existing diagnostic boundaries but tend to congregate more frequently within and across adjacent DSM-5 chapter groups. Until incontrovertible etiological or pathophysiological mechanisms are identified to fully validate specific disorders or disorder spectra, the most important standard for the DSM-5 disorder criteria will be their clinical utility for the assessment of clinical course and treatment response of individuals grouped by a given set of diagnostic criteria. Notice that disorders don't need to have etiological or mechanical validity. Diagnoses under the DSM are thus often little more than "here's some stuff we can lump together". There's no good explanation for what autism is mechanically, so it's very likely that the term "autism" is actually capturing several different scenarios. The idea of a single monolithic cure for autism is thus likely to be nonsensical, because "autism" as a term is probably referring to a bunch of different illnesses-and some cases where nothing is wrong! ...OK, looks like I was wrong. The ASD diagnosis is too long to reproduce, but the relevant material indicates that those with Asperger's should be generally placed under ASD. The carveout was for individuals whose symptoms fit criteria for a new disorder, social (pragmatic) communication disorder, instead. "High-functioning" and "asperger's", like most of the other labels people like to append to the disorder, isn't actually considered a separate diagnosis in the DSM- it's just folded into ASD. There are sub-specifications, but they're more clinical (and sort-of better defined) in the document (e.g., "ASD with catatonia"). Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 01:14
|
|