Sorry guys but I think everyone, particularly in the ASD affected community should do everything they can to stop this being completed and introduced. As it stands, this will have a huge and negative effect on those with a Dx and those seeking one. I seems to be driven by reduction in provisional increase in medication by a potentially corrupt panel of individuals. Even the chairman DSM IV has grave concerns. Go Google.
Consider your child Aspergers? No such Dx next year????? I could go on…
I think maybe we are looking at a half full/half empty issue here. Where Dx/service provision is being performed for the good of ASD in the main, there will be a general perception that the DSM review will probably not change a great deal because it is the expertise/experience of those involved to get the job done. This in turn may cause critical appraisal of conflicting opinion – I haven’t enough detail to comment on the experimental design of Yale study but admit that I tend to side with published material unless I have specific evidence that the peer review was in some way inadequate (this “half full” expectation has caught me out on occasion!).
I respect an American saying (well – it was relayed to me by American engineers) “If it aint broke don’t fix it” but I modify this with “if it is broke don’t make it worse”. There are many that believe DSM-IV is not fit for purpose – I don’t have enough experience to say otherwise, but I can see the view of experts who say DSM-V is much worse and I also see the potential of it failing to address some issues and the possibility of it being used to justify reductions of activities to support ASD.
I believe there are far more than two sets of people in this debate and just two of them may need to align their thinking far closer together in my opinion. Those optimists who have direct experience how successful DSM-IV usually is and can see the beneficial changes in DSM5 overriding it’s potential pitfalls. Conversely there are many who have direct experience of how service provision isn’t working (whether statutory or not) and vigorously attempt to use Dx as a lever in their quest. Any move to reduce the efficacy of that tool is understandably seen to be a great threat in their lives.
There are many here in the UK that do not believe DSM-V will have any effect whatsoever because we have our own European “manual” to follow. Until such time as ASD and other conditions defined in DSM (or were at one time) have a non-subjective diagnostic pathway we will be stuck with this disparate and area specific treatment and service provision. Where there are people who “get it” the forecast for those experiencing ASD early or at any point in their life is much more optimistic: in other areas there is a bleak and increasingly grim outlook.
The reality is that for whatever good or ill, the “official APA view” affects a very, very large number of people and everyone concerned with ASD should make sure that they are happy with their own action and clear opinion on this incredibly powerful collection of words produced by unelected individuals. In my view, these individuals seem to have slightly less concern for those experiencing the condition compared to its cost and direction of cash-flow.