new definitions.

I'm sure some of you have seen the hype and controversy surrounding the latest changes in the DSM about autism. If you haven't, I suggest you google the words "autism" and "dsm 5" and you will be able to peruse all the articles and opinions in the matter.

Basically, the criteria for meeting the autism diagnosis is getting more strict.

Some people feel this is a necessary change to stop this very media friendly view of autism becoming an epidemic.

Some feel this is outright wrong and will deny thousands of innocent kids the services that they need.

Where do we sit on this issue?

More strict or not, Maddy doesn't meet any criteria for autism. Under the more broad terms and the more narrow ones.

Yet, in that, Maddy DID have autism at one time and, believe it or not, she DID meet the very strict "new" criteria that will be defined in the newest DSM.

So while these changes don't affect us, they affect thousands...if not millions...that's the truth of the matter. And I can kinda see both sides of the issue. I can kinda understand why the scientists and doctors feel they need to clamp down on the criteria because yes there is misdiagnosing going on.

Notice I used the word "kinda."

The problem with raising awareness to an illness is that while it helps get more people the help they need, it increases the number of people diagnosed, and makes everyone more aware of how "real" the problem is.

What you don't see is when new technology develops and scientists and doctors are able to pinpoint diabetes easier or heart disease easier or even cancer...they don't go and change the definition of what any of those illnesses are to avoid telling the public how "real" the numbers are for people having those illnesses. You see excitement in the medical community at the better prevention or early diagnosis possibilities.

Am I frustrated? yes.

Because any child, whether they are have a very severe case of autism or a very mild or "high functioning" case of it, deserves treatment. All of them. Every single one. Adults, teens, kids...all deserve care.

And when you take something and make it "harder to get" - all those people lose. Lose services. Lose understanding. Lose compassion. They just lose.

Did I want Maddy labeled? No. I really didn't. I didn't want Maddy to have ASD. I didn't want her to have the Autism label if she could potentially recover. What I learned was to not shy away from that label. It's nothing. It's just a word. Autism. And now, her official diagnosis being "autistic disorder REMISSION" - i wonder how the DSM people feel about that one.

Let's be honest. I really don't have to say ANYTHING about insurance companies because they didn't pay for crap BEFORE with the broad autism definition, that surely isn't gonna change now. Since, apparently, autism is a psychological problem and therefore not a medical one. (whatever.) And whatever people did get some money from them, they sure won't get it now.

The public opinion will change. It will. Because the adversity I hear now is gross. When they find out your child had autism, they assume that it was mild and say it to your face. "Oh it must have been just a mild case of it" as if it were nothing. It doesn't make it any easier. It doesn't bring back the years of her life when she was NOT herself. And by the way, she did NOT have a mild case of it. She had a very moderately severe case. And you just belittled everything we did. And you just belittled all the people that have a mild case of autism and are struggling to adjust to life. The ones you make fun of or think are weird...they have mild autism and you're not helping them. You are mocking them.

Finally let me just say this. If the DSM people want to make autism "harder to get" - though I'm sure they say it's just a more accurate - will they change how hard it is to have cancer? (sorry cancer folks, I really am NOT picking on you) Will they make criteria for that...if your tumor is not x amount of millimeters or centimeters or inches wide then technically you don't have cancer. You still need chemo or radiation but it's not large enough to be considered cancer. You will not get your treatment paid for by insurance companies because your case is mild. So foot the bill, do your treatment, fight your fight...but don't complain because you really don't have cancer. You just have a mild sign of it.

Ouch? yeah. I thought so.