I've been reflecting on autism and what makes a disability and what makes a personality, as I wait for the APA to get its shit together and release the new DSM. Will the change in criteria mean my children are suddenly no longer autistic? (No, it won't). Psychological disorders diagnosed by behaviors are subjective at best--from both the client's side and the psychologist's side. Biases and knowledge bases make sure that there is a lack of consistency across the board in who gets a diagnosis and what diagnosis it is. The codes for the DSM are used to get insurance reimbursement--a label is needed--a number code is required--the medical model requires labeling and coding everything if people are going to get services and have insurance reimburse or cover the cost.

For every "treatment" or remediation in autism-land, there are both fervent believers and detractors. For every person helped, there's another harmed. Perhaps, just perhaps, in some cases, it's not the therapy itself, but the person conducting the therapy that makes it a problem.

There are bad apples in every field, people who misapply therapies, others who use their position to abuse, and others who are so incompetent as to be dangerous. Nowhere is this more evident and problematic than in the disciplines that are involved in helping people--be it in academia, in psychology or in service-related fields.