DSM V – Autism Community Must Speak Up and Speak Out, NOW!
Statistics state that 1 in 88 people are on the autism
spectrum; and the USA has a population of psychiatrists which number 4 in
100,000. However, one book written by one group of people is used to determine
the needs of every single person on the autism spectrum. That book is the DSM;
or Diagnostic Services Manual.
Interestingly, the publishers of this book gave us the ‘oppositional
child’ syndrome; but did not provide any reference, condition or even concept
of violent or aggressive parenting; or even poor lazy or ineffective parenting,
which may result in an oppositional child. Indeed, parenting is not raised in
any area of the DSM; why not? Parenting is an issue that causes so many behaviour
and mental health problems in childhood and in adulthood for those who have the
misfortune to be born to incompetent or useless individuals whose only
contribution to the role of mother or father is the ability to breed.
Now it is the intention of the DSM publishers to ‘change’
‘remove’ ‘alter’ the autism entry to
something that simply covers an inability to communicate socially. This dramatic change strongly indicates that
the following points must be raised and discussed at length throughout the
autism community, the general medical fraternity, the school communities,
psychology communities and all other associated areas;
(a)
Where, why and how did the
DSM become the only reference by which the medical or health fraternity
considers they are permitted to diagnose
- many ‘conditions’ that are described as psychiatric/medical have a cultural
basis. Autism is a culture of thinking; just the way we accept that indigenous
and others from non-western areas have their own form of cultural thinking.
(b)
Exactly who are the
publishers of the DSM? Statistically it
is about 38,000 psychiatrists who are members of a specific organisation. That
organisation is basically a ‘professional body’, not unlike a teachers’ union,
a church head office, a sporting code of conduct body and similar
organisations. How and why did the publication start? Is the publication of such a manual even
valid today? Now, everyone who works at a professional level (meaning
university qualified) associated with health or medicine goes through rigorous
education and training whereupon what is in the DSM will be taught from a
myriad of different sources and in a host of ways to undergraduates and
postgraduate students.
(c)
It is time for the medical
and autism communities to closely evaluate the processes for selection of
content in the DSM. Questions that need
to be asked include;
1.
Where do the publishers of
the DSM get research to support changes in the manual?
2.
How restrictive are the
sources; only members of the organisation may contribute?
3.
Is the process of valid
scientific research utilised; that is
a.
Ethically approved research
(by a high-level university bodies outside of the DSM organisation and not
involved in any association or commercial activity with the DSM or its members)
b.
Scientific construct
(meeting the criteria for valid scientific research determined by universities)
c.
Double blind
d.
Independent (research
conducted by universities or high-level, non-commercial institutions not
involved with the DSM organisation or its members)
e.
Repeatable (by independent researchers
who use the same methodology and get the same results)
f.
Conducted over a
sufficiently valid period and large enough population – with regards to
autism this is a huge task. The body of knowledge that is held about autism
at the present is not sufficient for any claims to be made that this is even
possible.
(d)
How, where and when did the
publishers of the DSM get the ‘authority’ to make such a determination as to
abolish autism? Who said they could have the role of deciding who has what?
Currently, in many Western countries it appears that the DSM appears to be
given a place and a role that no one can actually define as been formally
approved by any Government. Did the USA
Government at any stage nominate a commercial publication published by one
group within the medical fraternity with the intention of making a profit from
its sale as the only reference to be used in clinical determinations? Did any other Government do so? These are
questions no one can answer; possibly because no one has paused to stop, ponder.
(e)
Who monitors and evaluates
this publication – it is a publication which costs a great deal of money
and presumably a large profit is made from the sale of the book. Are the publishers lobbied in any form by
drug companies, hospitals or Government health departments to include or
exclude that which does not fit in with the intend policy or funds of
interested parties outside of the group of members? Given that so many ‘official’ organisations
appear to use this manual – does any independent body exist whereby ever claim
and entry is check for validity to
ensure it is not just the opinion of the members of a small group of medical
professionals; as well meaning as they might be.
To coin a phrase – who made them judge and jury!
It is time to stand up, ask questions and demand answers -
your child, you and everyone else living within the boundaries of autism is
affected.
Casey
Erica Banks is a mature-aged postgraduate student. She has Apserger’s and has
an extensive career in mainstream, competitive broadcast media as a senior
journalist, executive producer, talking head.
She holds a B.Ed.(AWE) and a M.Ed.(LM) – qualifications in teaching
adults and in the workplace. Her recent work has included working with autistic
adult students. Currently she is preparing to study concurrently law and a
doctorate in autism studies focusing on autistic people seeking work and or
advanced study opportunities.
Twitter @caseyericabanks, - If you use this article or any part of it; you must contact me, first.
| http://facebook.com/ | PLEASE RE-TWEET, EMAIL, SHARE |
