This Month (DSM)

   DSM-5, the long-awaited sequel to DSM-IV, is launching... some time this month. Or it should be, at least. It wasn't really clear. Proposed changes from DSM-IV are not without their controversy, most notably: to eliminate Asperger's, PDD-NOS, et al. and place them all under the umbrella of the autism spectrum instead of being distinctly recognized disorders. Seems reasonable: autism in nothing if not a spectrum. The controversy derives from the fact that it is also a spectrum of a spectrum- each individual case is different, making a single catch-all difficult. Not all exhibit every symptom, and in fact precious few if any do. The point of the proposed changes are themselves to simplify the communication of the disorder, to unify diagnoses. The problem with autism lies within the problem of humanity.

   The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR,) at least, already classifies psychological disorders using five categories, or axes, which prevents the subject from being lumped into a category, as it were, and instead is evaluated along all five of the axes. The last three axes, III-V, are there to take into account non-psychological conditions that could still affect the treatment of the psychological conditions to some extent.

   It's a problem with identification, though. The purpose of the Asperger's label itself is to make sure that it is recognized as being what it is. The very reason that diagnosis exists is the same reason they may or may not have it clumped together with the other autisms this month. Still, clumping it together precisely that way could be exactly as damaging as the opposite of that. It's to remove misconceptions about the diagnosis. Well, not misconceptions, but... well, yeah, misconceptions.


   Asperger's is itself a unique case, with a strong subcultural current behind it because of this. It was first described in 1944, then added to DSM-IV in 1994. If you're going to get rid of it, at least wait a year. DSM-IV-TR is still criticized for putting labels on people, but I think that the entire purpose of such a classification system is to put labels on people for purposes of diagnosis. The fifth axis is the percentage of the subject’s ability to function, so I think it’s a good label-negator. That's the thing. Asperger's cases are higher functioning. Are they going to have different names for different places on the new axis? That would make sense, and that way everyone would be happy (m- maybe?)

   That's my view on it, anyway. It is by no means an expert's opinion; just statistically I'm probably more qualified than any given one of you to speak on the subject. Because I've done the research, and most people haven't, thus statistically speaking I'm probably more qualified than you? The research on the research, I mean. I'm not a scientist. There's still a lot more of that, of research going on, so, I don't know the up-to-date stuff and whatever happens happens.