![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
diagnostic criteria
Jun. 11th, 2014 07:55 pmWhile reading someone's rant about" treatments" for autism (mainly that nobody ever seems to ask if the autistic person thinks they are better off after treatment) something came to me.
Time and again, if you read through DSM-IV or later, you see a pair of diagnostic criteria repeated.
In plain English "If this doesn't bother the patient, and it doesn't interfere with their ability to function in society" then it's not an actual "condition".
OK, great. If both are true (isn't bothered) and (can function in society) it's agreed there's no problem.
But there are *four* possible combinations of a pair of true/false conditions.That only covers one.
The obvious second pairing is "does bother" and "does interfere with functioning". And that one too most, folks will agree means that the person *does* have a problem and it needs to be treated.
Now for the less obvious ones.
"If it bothers the person, but doesn't interfere with their ability to function" (as a "random" example, someone who is gay and belongs to a very "conservative" church), the "proper" treatment is going to be to get them to realize that it's *not* actually a problem just the way they are looking at it is a problem.
It's also fairly obvious (especially with that particular example) that they may not want to be told this, and may be distinctly unhappy.
Now we come to the *real* zinger.
What if the person is happy with their "condition" but it does "interfere" with their ability to function AS DEFINED BY OTHERS. That's the situation in a lot of cases. Everything from homosexuality & some gender issue, to many kinds of autistics and related conditions.
Which is the right thing to do? Some rather loud and well funded groups will tell you that it's to force the "patient" to act as they are expected to. There can be *some* truth to that. Developing the ability to "act normal" even if only for short periods of time is a useful survival skill.
But forcing people to act according to what are in reality some quite arbitrary "rules" when they are wired such that it's incredibly difficult for them to do so?
That's trading "can function (with horrendous, painful effort) in society" for "is not bothered by condition". That may look like a good trade to some people. But it's sacrificing the individual on the altar of conformity.
And that's a viewpoint that badly needs to be considered by the folks who are so gung ho about making these folks "act normal".
Time and again, if you read through DSM-IV or later, you see a pair of diagnostic criteria repeated.
In plain English "If this doesn't bother the patient, and it doesn't interfere with their ability to function in society" then it's not an actual "condition".
OK, great. If both are true (isn't bothered) and (can function in society) it's agreed there's no problem.
But there are *four* possible combinations of a pair of true/false conditions.That only covers one.
The obvious second pairing is "does bother" and "does interfere with functioning". And that one too most, folks will agree means that the person *does* have a problem and it needs to be treated.
Now for the less obvious ones.
"If it bothers the person, but doesn't interfere with their ability to function" (as a "random" example, someone who is gay and belongs to a very "conservative" church), the "proper" treatment is going to be to get them to realize that it's *not* actually a problem just the way they are looking at it is a problem.
It's also fairly obvious (especially with that particular example) that they may not want to be told this, and may be distinctly unhappy.
Now we come to the *real* zinger.
What if the person is happy with their "condition" but it does "interfere" with their ability to function AS DEFINED BY OTHERS. That's the situation in a lot of cases. Everything from homosexuality & some gender issue, to many kinds of autistics and related conditions.
Which is the right thing to do? Some rather loud and well funded groups will tell you that it's to force the "patient" to act as they are expected to. There can be *some* truth to that. Developing the ability to "act normal" even if only for short periods of time is a useful survival skill.
But forcing people to act according to what are in reality some quite arbitrary "rules" when they are wired such that it's incredibly difficult for them to do so?
That's trading "can function (with horrendous, painful effort) in society" for "is not bothered by condition". That may look like a good trade to some people. But it's sacrificing the individual on the altar of conformity.
And that's a viewpoint that badly needs to be considered by the folks who are so gung ho about making these folks "act normal".
