Proposed new definition for autism diagnosis?

Wow.... so much to think about!

Yesterday the NY times published an article about proposed changes to the diagnosis of autism in the new DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual)...and the comments/blogs are coming in fast and furious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/health/research/new-autism-definition-would-exclude-many-study-suggests.html

This morning, on the Today show, Dr. Nancy Snyderman explained this as an attempt to be more 'scientific' about the diagnosis, as opposed to the somewhat variable current system. The new proposal eliminates PDD-NOS and Asperger's as individual diagnoses, collecting those 'behaviors' under the umbrella term "Autism".  In answer to a question about whether this was a cost-saving measure,  Snyderman answered with the 'need to be more scientific' comment.

How will this play out in practice? Does this mean that the current PDD-NOS will not be diagnosed? Will kids like this be left out in the cold? I think not....these children are obvious in their challenges and behaviors. They are clearly not developing typically...and here I almost said that "No psychiatrist would ignore them" and then remembered the numbers of children aged 2 and over whose parents were told not to worry, the child would simply catch up.  So yes, perhaps, families will be told not to worry, just wait...and this at a time when we KNOW that early intervention is vital to change their course of development.

In effect, even if the purpose of this re-classification is not a cost-saving measure, eventually money will be saved and children will not get much-needed services. I am working with a family now and have been for 6 months and this little boy is well on his way to 'recovery'....and he is only two and a half. He would not have met the criteria for autism with this proposed definition. Where would he get intervention? He wouldn't.

Yes, I applaud the doctors for trying to become more 'scientific', but I hope in their zeal they consider the resulting policy changes that will accrue.

Science versus practice: Shouldn't that be "Science AND practice"?