2013: The Year Of Autism's Grand Error, The DSM5 Autism Spectrum Disorder

Photo by Harold L Doherty

Edward Ritvo-Susan Swedo Shootout at 

the IMFAR Corral, Sheraton, Toronto, May 18, 2012

The year 2013 will be remembered as the year the simplified DSM-5 Autism Spectrum Disorder definition was imposed on a very complex and diverse group of disorders and/or symptoms.  Catherine Lord, Susan Swedo and other members of the DSM-5 committee responsible for the definition change simply ignored criticisms of their proposals and pushed ahead because, in their minds, they know better than their critics.

It would be one thing if the DSM5 Autism Spectrum Disorder critics were simply parents like me. As mere irrational parents we had no standing, no credibility, no respect in the eyes of the DSM5 committee members and our views did not have to be considered.  What was amazing about the incredible stubbornness of the DSM5 committee members in pushing ahead though was the identity of some of the professional critics and the serious challenges that were dismissed without any serious response by the DSM5 team. Ritvo, Volkmar, Waterhouse,  are only a small sampling of the names of persons with important roles in the development of knowledge of, and thinking about, autism spectrum disorders who offered  criticisms of the DSM5 Autism Spectrum Disorder: 

"Abandoning criteria that have been in worldwide use for decades for new ones that may eliminate from 9% (their data) to 40% (prior reports) of previously diagnosed patients is neither scientifically nor morally justified."

- Commentary on the Application of DSM-5 Criteria for Autism Spectrum DisorderEdward R. Ritvo, M.D.; Riva Ariella Ritvo, Ph.D. Am J Psychiatry 2013;170:444a-445. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.12101376

Dr. Fred Volkmar created considerable awareness of the DSM5 ASD changes and their likely impacts with a  preliminary study reported on in well known New York Times article in early 2013.  In a May 2013 abstract he also noted that:

"While some of the changes employed in the new DSM-5 approach are praiseworthy, others are much more complicated. There appears to be some significant potential for diagnostic change, essentially as – despite what might conceptually appear to be a broader tent of the autism spectrum – the DSM-5 approach seems likely to result in a narrower concept. This raises some concern about the impact on services for children in need as well as for comparison with previous research. Sadly we are, to a considerable extent, still in the dark on the extent of this change. Although the focus on standardized diagnostic instruments has some important advantages in the real world of clinics and schools, clinicians will not have had the opportunity to undertake extensive training. In some cases the new (but relatively unclear) social communication disorder concept may be invoked, but the lack of research on this putative condition poses other problems and its use might well be taken as an excuse to avoid service provision."

Dr. Lynn Waterhouse worked with Dr. Lorna Wing on the APA DSM-III-R diagnostic criteria for autism and is the author of Rethinking Autism: Variation and Complexity (2012) whose book was reviewed on the Amazon.com website by several learned commentators including Dr. Peter Szatmari who noted that "Waterhouse squarely tackles the "elephant in the room" in autism research; the complex heterogeneity seen at all levels of analysis.  The argument is sustained, learned and comprehensive. We shall all be dealing with this challenge for decades." 

Dr. Waterhouse subsequently commented in an email to DSM-5 critic Dr. Allen Frances which he included in one of his Psychology Today commentaries on the DSM-5. In her email, after reviewing some of the reports and studies crtiquing the DSM-5's New Autism Spectrum Disorder Dr. Waterhouse stated:

"These and other independent research groups have reported that DSM-5 ASD criteria will significantly reduce the number of ASD diagnoses. Their findings counter Dr. Lord's claim that DSM-5 ASD criteria will not change the number of people diagnosed. Because nearly all of those excluded from a DSM-5 diagnosis have serious developmental social interaction impairment, they cannot be correctly diagnosed by any of the other DSM-5 childhood disorders, such as Social Communication Disorder or Intellectual Developmental Disorder. These children will need services that will be more difficult to obtain without a DSM-5 diagnosis. Unfortunately, the DSM-5 group has chosen to simply ignore data that don't conform with its beliefs." (Emphasis added, HLD)

The DSM-5 Autism Spectrum Disorder is a mistake, a huge mistake, supported not by research as was perpetually articulated by DSM-5 spokespersons but solely by the preferences and intellectual biases of of the DSM-5 committee team members who pushed the new definition ahead while ignoring contrary studies, criticisms and perspectives offered by MANY learned autism professionals and academics.

2013 is the Year of Autism's Grand Error - the DSM-5 NEW Autism Spectrum Disorder. 

Read more »

DSM5 Autism Exclusion of ID? Study Finds Single Gene Mutation Known To Cause Intellectual Disability Increases Risk of Autism Disorders

If you believe the DSM5 Neurodevelopmental committee responsible for expressly removing those with Intellectual Disability from the new, oversimplified Autism Spectrum Disorder when they claim that exclusion is based on current science you may want to reconsider. The DSM5 ASD excludes those with intellectual disability if the ID "accounts for" the mandatory social communication deficits of the DSM5 ASD. Even if a child has ALL the mandatory deficits in A,B, C and D it doesn't count, they are still excluded,  if the category A, social communication deficits can be "accounted for by general developmental delays".   This intentional culling of the autism spectrum disorder is purportedly based on current research a claim which I have always found to be extremely dubious with respect to the exclusion of intellectually disabled.  A new study further confirms the lack of scientific basis for the exclusion of those with severe ID from the new ASD.

The very high co-morbidity of autism and intellectual disability has been known for many years and the most recent CDC estimates had placed the figure at between 41 and 44% of all persons with pervasive developmental disorders (now commonly referred to as autism disorders). The figure for autistic disorder itself had been estimated as high as 70% of persons with Autistic Disorder and ID.  CDC autism expert Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp had referred to those with intellectual disability as representing the "vast majority" of those with  classic Autistic Disorder.

In Autism and intellectual disability: a study of prevalence on a sample of the Italian population, La Malfa G, Lassi S, Bertelli M, Salvini R, Placidi GF, the authors reported that their study confirmed the relationship between ID and autism and suggested a new approach in the study of ID in order to elaborate a new integrated model for people with ID and autism.  Despite the relationship between ID and autism the new DSM5 ASD will exclude those most severely affected by ID and autism.  The oversimplified DSM5 ASD has clearly rejected the call by La Malfa and colleagues for a new integrated approach preferring to artificially cleave ID off from ASD. 

Now a new study by the The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) published in CELL, November 9, 2012,  appears to completely rip the foundation out from under the DSM5 attempt to disassociate intellectual disability and autism. It does so by showing how a single gene already known to cause intellectual disability also increases the risk of developing autism.  Given the known high co-morbidity and this reported genetic connection it is difficult to see how the DSM5 team can continue to justify its express, targeted exclusion of intellectually disabled from the new ASD but I am sure they will try.

e! Science News provides an overview of the study and interviews lead TSRI researcher Gavin Rumbaugh, PhD:

Scientists uncover secrets of how intellect and behavior emerge during childhood

Scientists from the Florida campus of The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) have shown that a single protein plays an oversized role in intellectual and behavioral development. The scientists found that mutations in a single gene, which is known to cause intellectual disability and increase the risk of developing autism spectrum disorder, severely disrupts the organization of developing brain circuits during early childhood. This study helps explain how genetic mutations can cause profound cognitive and behavioral problems. The study was published in the Nov. 9, 2012, issue of the journal Cell.

 The genetic mutations that cause developmental disorders, such as intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder, commonly affect synapses, the junctions between two nerve cells that are part of the brain's complex electro-chemical signaling system. A substantial percentage of children with severe intellectual and behavioral impairments are believed to harbor single mutations in critical neurodevelopmental genes. Until this study, however, it was unclear precisely how pathogenic genetic mutations and synapse function were related to the failure to develop normal intellect.

 "In this study, we did something no one else had done before," said Gavin Rumbaugh, a TSRI associate professor who led the new research. "Using an animal model, we looked at a mutation known to cause intellectual disability and showed for the first time a causative link between abnormal synapse maturation during brain development and life-long cognitive disruptions commonly seen in adults with a neurodevelopmental disorder."

The DSM5 committee members who have crafted this non evidence based new ASD will not be influenced by this recent study.  I saw Dr. Susan Swedo speak twice at Toronto IMFAR 2012.  She appeared more personally offended by criticism than interested in seriously addressing the merits of such criticism.  The several studies pointing out exclusions at both the HF and LF ends of the autism spectrum under the DSM5 regime are simply dismissed on the basis that they are using old data, that is information used in diagnosing persons currently assessed with autism under the DSM-IV.  The DSM5 team responded with a "mine's bigger than your's" study which was led by DSM5 team member Catherine Lord who had previously confessed to the NYT Amy Harmon that the objective of the new ASD was to target intellectually disabled for exclusion. Real objective stuff?

The DSM5 team has dug in its heels on the New ASD. It has been recoiling from criticism of possible exclusion of persons at the very high end of the autism spectrum.  As always both the media and autism researchers (with the exception of John Matson) simply disregard both the DSM5 ASD language expressly targeting for exclusion the intellectually disabled and Dr. Lord's express confession that the exclusion is intentional. The DSM5 team paid no apparent attention to the La Malfa study or to the authors' conclusion recommending a new approach in the study of ID in order to elaborate a new integrated model for people with ID. The odds of the DSM5 team taking the TSRI study any more seriously are slim to none. 

Read more »

Autism Researcher Bias and the Targeted Exclusion of Intellectually Disabled in the DSM-5 Autism Do-Over

Autism researcher bias exists and its effect, when the DSM-5 takes effect in 2013,  will further the redefinition of autism as social awkwardness and the exclusion from the autism spectrum of persons with severe intellectual disabilities.  

David Kupfer, M.D., chair of the DSM-5 Task Force,  has stated that "the proposed ASD criteria are backed by the scientific evidence". Dr. Kupfer was not addressing the exclusion of the persons with autism and severe intellectual disabilities when he made that statement.  He was responding to the criticisms that the new Autism Spectrum Disorder would target high functioning autistics for exclusion. Scientific evidence in respect of autism disorders is found  by autism researchers though and autism researchers are clearly biased  against inclusion of low functioning, intellectually disabled persons with autism in the their research studies.  The DSM-5 New Autism Spectrum Disorder, based on that same research, reflects the researchers' bias against inclusion of intellectually disabled persons and is intentionally designed as was confessed by Dr. Catherine Lord, to remove persons with classic autistic disorder and intellectual disability from future autism diagnoses.

I do not think the DSM-5  committee responsible for the New Autism Spectrum Disorder will yield to pressure to  revisit the new autism diagnostic criteria. I attended IMFAR 2012 in Toronto and specifically attended two presentations by Dr. Susan Swedo of the committee responsible for the new autism definition.  She was visibly upset over the criticisms received from those concerned with the possible exclusion of very high functioning persons from the autism spectrum but she dug in her heels. She did confirm, in response to my questions after the second presentation, that some intellectually disabled will not be diagnosed with autism under the DSM-5 definition who might have received an autism diagnosis under the DSM-IV.  If there is any change it will come on the high functioning end and will tend to include more high functioning autistic persons, the subjects of much interest by NYT reporter Amy Harmon and others in the Mainstream Media. At the same time there is no significant pressure on the DSM-5 committee members to reconsider the express exclusion of the intellectually disabled in mandatory criterion A of the DSM-5 Autism Spectrum Disorder.  

CDC autism expert Dr. Marshalynn Yeargin-Allsopp stated in an interview with the  Canadian Medical Association Journal that the vast majority of persons with classic autism, approximately 80%, also had intellectual disabilities prior to the DSM-IV addition of Aspergers which effectively watered that figure down to approximately 40%:

"Prior to the 1980s, only those exhibiting autism’s classic symptoms (communication and behavioural difficulties and a lack of social interaction) were considered affected. Those symptoms remain the foundation of “classic” autism.  But the autism umbrella has since widened to include milder forms, says Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, a medical epidemiologist at the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention.

For example, it now includes Asperger syndrome, where the sufferer is socially

impaired, but experiences typical language development. Another difference between past and present autism diagnosis involves the presence of intellectual disabilities, adds Yeargin-Allsopp. During the 1960s and 1970s, the vast majority of those diagnosed with autism had an intellectual disability but today, only about 40% have one."


The DSM-IV effectively expanded the definition of what constituted autism and, in the process, reduced the presence of the intellectually disabled on the autism spectrum from vast majority status to minority status. Since then the Mainstream Media regularly does a feature on the accomplishments of Dr. Temple Grandin and other very talented high functioning persons with autism/Aspergers.  Michelle Dawson and Ari Ne'eman who function very well in complex and challenging legal, political and media proceedings command attention and help redefine autism from a disorder with significant daily living impairments to a different, superior way of thinking. Meanwhile those most severely affected by classic autism disorders, particularly the vast majority with intellectual disability, remain largely invisible,  marginalized by Neurodiversity identity ideology which disowns their presence on the autism spectrum and by media obsession with feel good stories including movies and television shows featuring brilliant characters with Aspergers.

The primary agent in the final push to remove those with intellectual disability from the autism spectrum is the bias of autism researchers.  Bias is certainly a factor in autism research as noted by High Functioning Autism expert and anti-ABA activist Dr. Laurent Mottron in his Nature commentary in which he paid lip service to the quaint notion of autism as a disability affecting some but then  displayed his own bias by redefining autism in terms of the autistic researchers who work with him:

"I am a researcher, clinician and lab director concentrating on the cognitive neuroscience of autism. Eight autistic people have been associated with my group: four research assistants, three students and one researcher. Their roles have not been limited to sharing their life experiences or performing mindless data entry. They are there because of their intellectual and personal qualities. I believe that they contribute to science because of their autism, not in spite of it. Everyone knows stories of autistics with extraordinary savant abilities, such as Stephen Wiltshire. None of my lab members is a savant. They are ‘ordinary’ autistics, many of whom, on average, outperform non-autistics in a range of tasks, including measures of intelligence." (Underlining and bold highlighting  added - HLD)


Mottron also noted autism researcher bias in his Nature commentary:

"Even researchers who study autism can display a negative bias against people

with the condition. For instance, researchers performing fMRI scans systematically report changes in the activation of some brain regions during a task as indicative of a deficit in the autistic group, rather than of their alternative, yet sometimes successful, brain organization."

Dr. Mottron's own bias is on ironic display in the above quote when he references fMRI scan result interpretation as indicative of autism researcher bias.  He fails to mention that such scan studies routinely exclude low functioning, severely autistic subjects because of the difficulties in managing the behaviors of such subjects during the examination process.  This bias against the low functioning, severely autistic would include the vast majority of persons with classic autism and intellectual disability.  Mottron, who has written many published journal articles on persons with High Functioning Autism and Aspergers, has demonstrated his own bias against those with autism and intellectual disability by arguing with flimsy, if any, evidence that intellectual disability does not exist in autism. 


A recent autism study employed lower functioning autistic subjects.  In A stable pattern of EEG spectral coherence distinguishes children with autism from neuro-typical controls – a large case control study, Frank H. Duffy and   Heidelise Als used classic autism subjects because of the tendency of autism studies to exclude them as reported in the study press release:

"Duffy and Als focused on children with "classic" autism who had been referred for EEGs by neurologists, psychiatrists or developmental pediatricians to rule out seizure disorders. Those with diagnosed seizure disorders were excluded, as were children with Asperger's syndrome and "high functioning" autism, who tend to dominate (and skew) the existing literature because they are relatively easy to study. The researchers also excluded children with genetic syndromes linked to autism (such as Fragile X or Rett syndrome), children being treated for other major illnesses, those with sensory disorders like blindness and deafness and those taking medications. 

"We studied the typical autistic child seeing a behavioral specialist – children who typically don't cooperate well with EEGs and are very hard to study," says Duffy. "No one has extensively studied large samples of these children with EEGs, in part because of the difficulty of getting reliable EEG recordings from them." 

Autism research has generally tended to exclude low functioning autistic participants as was acknowledged by  an article in the Financial Times about the DSM-5's new autism spectrum diagnostic criteria Dr Craig Erickson, chief, Christian Sarkine Autism Treatment Center, Indiana University School of Medicine noted the presence of  a high functioning autism bias in autism research:

"Erickson noted that there is often a bias in clinical trials, where high-functioning patients are typically enrolled as they are more readily able to tolerate routine procedures such as blood tests part of clinical trials. Further, it is easier to make improvements in less-impaired children, Elliott said, noting the Phase II Kuvan in autism trial included children with IQs in the 50-60 range as well as Asberger patients."

Dr. Catherine Lord of the DSM5 committee that has crafted the New Autism Spectrum Disorder has also noted the tendency of autism research to exclude those with multiple disabilities and moderate and severe intellectual disability in  Social Policy Report, Autism Spectrum Disorders Diagnosis, Prevalence, and Services for Children and Families:

""However, research in ASD has tended to use overwhelmingly White, middle to upper middle class samples, and has often excluded children with multiple disabilities and/or severe to profound intellectual disabilities". [underlining added - HLD]

The APA has stated in its form letter reply to those who submitted concerns to them about the new Autism Spectrum Disorder criteria that the new definition is based on existing research:

"The [DSM-5 Autism Spectrum Disorder] proposal is based on years of accumulated clinical, epidemiological, and neuroscience research which was thoroughly examined by the members of the DSM-5 work group on Neurodevelopmental Disorders."

Notwithstanding the known and acknowledged distortion of autism research because of researcher tendency to exclude, for reasons of convenience, autistic participants with intellectual disabilities the DSM-5 work group is relying on that same research to justify the intentional (as confessed by Dr. Catherine Lord and confirmed by Dr. Susan Swedo at IMFAR 2012) exclusion from future DSM-5 autism diagnoses of persons with intellectual disabilities. 

As the father of a severely autistic 16 year old son with "profound developmental delays" I do not have the luxury of excluding my son from the realities of haircuts in busy hair salons, dental and other medical procedures and countless other challenges of daily life. I have to deal with and face those realities in my son's best interests.

The conduct of autism researchers in excluding low functioning autistic participants with intellectual disabilities from autism research and, inevitably from the DSM-5 era of autism diagnoses, is not justified by their own professional requirements either.  An Italian study, instead of trying to cleave meatloaf at the joints by removing the intellectually disabled from the autism spectrum, took the  opposite approach and having found a close connection between ID and autism disorders recommended future research into that connection. In Autism and intellectual disability: a study of prevalence on a sample of the Italian population. La Malfa G, et al concluded  that their study:

 "confirms the relationship between ID and autism and suggests a new approach in the study of ID in order to elaborate a new integrated model for people with ID."

The DSM-5 team, like so many autism researchers on whose work they based their new Autism Spectrum Disorder, have chosen to ignore the recommendation from the Italian study and pretend that no relationship exists between ID and  autism disorders.  They have betrayed the most severely affected by autism disorders those with autism and intellectual disability.

Read more »

Ritvo Swedo DSM5 Autism Shootout At The IMFAR Corral

Edward Ritvo-Susan Swedo Shootout at 

the IMFAR Corral, Sheraton, Toronto

Photo by Harold L Doherty, May 18, 2012

Dr. Susan Swedo of the DSM5 autism committee presented a defense of the proposed DSM5 Autism Spectrum Disorder twice yesterday at IMFAR in Toronto.  After the second presentation I jumped up to the mike and asked about the exclusion of Intellectually Disabled under the exclusion wording "not otherwise accounted for by general developmental delays" in the wording for Mandatory Criterion A social communication categories. I was advised that some but not all ID would be excluded.  A couple more questioners approached the mikes on both sides of the room including Dr. Edward Ritvo author of Understanding the Nature of Autism and Asperger's Disorder: Forty Years of Clinical Practice and Pioneering Research.  Dr. Ritvo asked pointed questions about the risk-benefit analysis of introducing the new DSM5 ASD and did not appear happy with the answers he was getting from Dr. Swedo who switched the questioning to the other microphone where Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp was waiting to make a point.  As a layperson, a parent autism advocate with concerns about the DSM5, I am happy that Dr. Ritvo added his prestige and expertise to the debate about the wisdom of the DSM5 autism do-over.  I hope we hear more from Dr. Ritvo on this subject.

Read more »

DSM5 Autism Day At IMFAR 2012: Swedo Confirms Some Intellectually Disabled Will Be Excluded from DSM5 Autism Spectrum Disorder

Today was DSM5 Autism Do-Over Day at IMFAR 2012.  Dr. Susan Swedo, head of the DSM5 committee that drafted the DSM5 Autism Spectrum Disorder, spoke twice today, once at a stakeholder's luncheon  and afterwards  at an oral presentation in the Grand Ballroom.  Dr. Swedo replied to my questions after the second presentation and indicated that the DSM5 Autism Spectrum Disorder will exclude some, though not all, intellectually disabled from an ASD diagnosis.

I attended both events but did not have an opportunity to question Dr. Swedo during the luncheon as the event was simply running out of time. During the luncheon presentation she was very emotional in discussing the media criticisms of the DSM5  Autism Spectrum Disorder. At one time she accused some in the media of telling lies about the motivation behind the new DSM5.  It was not done, as alleged by some, to cut back the autism epidemic and save costs for insurers.  It was done because the DSM5, according to Dr. Swedo, reflected experience with autism disorders and careful study. It was done to improve specificity in diagnosing autism not to eliminate some.  Having heard her speak with great emotion and conviction I don't question Dr. Swedo's sincerity, her compassion or the motivation behind the redefined DSM5 autism definition.  I do disagree with the specific targeting of intellectually disabled for exclusion from the DSM5.

Dr. Swedo delivered an expanded version of her presentation in a late afternoon session.  Her remarks began, as they did at the luncheon, with a vigorous attack on the media for their DSM5 coverage and misrepresentations about exclusion of high functioning persons with autism and the motives which prompted the new definition. Dr. Swedo said nothing about the exclusion of intellectually disabled until I asked voiced my concerns during the question period about the exclusion of intellectually disabled from the DSM5 definition by operation of the "not accounted for by general developmental delays" exclusionary clause in Mandatory Criterion A of the DSM5's new ASD.  Dr. Swedo indicated that the exclusionary phrase would result in exclusion of some but not all intellectually disabled from a DSM5 Autism Spectrum Disorder.  

Dr. Swedo's comments confirm that the expansion of autism in recent editions will culminate with HFA/Aspergers as the new Autism.   Many of the vast majority of persons with autism and intellectual disability that existed prior to the DSM-IV are now being kicked to the curb; removed from the autism spectrum. 

Read more »

Autism and the DSM-V in Public Life and Discussion

The DSM-IV-TR, the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association, is currently undergoing revision and will ultimately be replaced by the DSM-V. The Report of the DSM-V Neurodevelopmental Disorders Work Group, Susan Swedo M.D., November 2008 lists various issues being examined by that group, many of which could have a dramatic impact on public understanding of what constitutes autism. I strongly encourage everyone with an interest in autism disorders to read this summary report.

Autism as a distinct disorder category began with the 1980 DSM-III, described initially as infantile autism and revised to autistic disorder in 1987. The DSM-IV revision added the "pervasive developmental disorders" which are commonly described today as the Autism Spectrum of Disorders. Asperger’s Disorder, Rett’s Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) were added to autistic disorder in this category.

The addition of these additional categories dramatically increased the numbers of children being diagnosed with "autism". A major controversy has ensued over whether the astonishing increase in autism diagnoses is due entirely to this expansion combined with greater social awareness as some believe. Others hold to the view that environmental causes or triggers, particularly vaccines, have contributed, in whole or in part, to the dramatic upswing in autism diagnoses.

Personally I think it is obvious that a substantial portion of the increase is attributable to the expansion of the diagnostic categories of autism in the DSM. But I do not think sufficient research has been done to conclude that the increases are due entirely to the definition changes. Even on the vaccine theory I have never accepted that either side of that debate has been made conclusively.

Another controversy generated by the expansion of the definitions of autism has arisen from the grouping together of persons with normal and even exceptional communication and functioning abilities with persons like my son who has limited communication and functioning ability. From this grouping has arisen a group of high functioning, anti-cure, anti-treatment, autistic persons with excellent communication skills and with an aggressive social/political agenda. Some have appeared before courts, political bodies, in the mainstream media and on the internet to wage political warfare against parents seeking to help their own, generally more severely disabled, autistic children.

The Report states that there are several questions still under discussion for Autism Spectrum Disorders:

1) How to describe the “spectrum” of disorders now known as ASD (e.g., how many domains will define the disorder);

2) What is the specificity of repetitive behaviors in ASD and how might they be better defined;

3) Whether Childhood Disintegrative Disorder (CDD) is a unique and separate disorder, and if so, what are its defining characteristics;

4) Whether autism is a life-long diagnosis or whether it is possible to recover/remit to the point where the diagnosis is no longer applicable;

5) Whether Asperger’s disorder is the same as “high-functioning autism”;

6) How the DSM-V can alert clinicians to common medical comorbidities (including genetic disorders, epilepsy/EEG abnormalities and sleep, or GI problems) and potential biomarkers;

7) How to include consideration of severity and impairment in diagnosis (currently defined as “qualitative impairments”) and how to integrate these with the overall structure of DSM-V; and

8) How/where to discuss cultural influences on diagnosis (e.g., Korean use of reactive attachment disorder rather than ASD to avoid family stigmatization).

These are all important issues and, like most autism discussions, will undoubtedly generate considerable controversy when the DSM-V is finally released.

autism

Read more »