The problem with the word ‘diagnosis’
The language around autism is a topic of much debate, including the term ‘diagnosis’. Here, we explore why some embrace it and others reject it and try to find a balanced approach that accounts for all views.
Autism as a medical diagnosis: a clinical view
For many, receiving an autism diagnosis is a critical milestone. It offers a medical explanation for experiences and behaviours that may have been misunderstood. A diagnosis often unlocks access to essential support services, reasonable adjustments in education or work, and financial help such as Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
From a clinical standpoint, autism is identified based on criteria outlined in diagnostic manuals like the DSM-5 (a reference book on mental health and brain-related conditions) and ICD-11 (the global standard for diagnostic health information). For healthcare professionals, a ‘diagnosis’ means they can provide support for autistic people that aligns with their needs – as identified in these frameworks.
It can feel uncomfortable for individuals
However, some feel that the term perpetuates a medicalised view of autism, framing it as a disorder rather than a natural variation in human neurobiology. Understandably, they want to champion autism as a difference to be understood and respected. Rather than a medical condition, it is a meaningful part of someone’s identity that defines how they perceive and interact with the world. To be ‘diagnosed’ can reinforce stigma and misconceptions associated with autism.
But some find it helpful
But others find the term ‘diagnosis’ empowering. It validates their experiences, providing a context to understand themselves better and explain their needs to others. For children and adults navigating systems like education or employment, the official recognition that comes with a diagnosis is often essential for getting reasonable adjustments at school or at work and protections under UK law, such as the Equality Act 2010. Medical terminology can also bring clarity and help people advocate for their needs effectively and find a sense of belonging within the wider neurodiverse community.
Are there alternatives?
The term ‘identify’ or ‘identification’ can be a useful alternative – so a person can ‘identify as being autistic’ or they can gain an autism identification. This can include people who may not have gone through a medical process of being diagnosed but view themselves as autistic. It also helps the people around them understand them better without the connotation of a medical condition.
Finding a middle ground
At Spicy Minds, we understand that the nuances of language are important and what feels right for one person, may be uncomfortable for another. We try, whenever possible, to respect those differences and use language that resonates with the autistic community. We use the term ‘diagnosis’ in the context of describing a medical process. At all other times, we prefer to describe people as ‘identifying as’ autistic.
Our view is that helping people to understand their own (or their child’s) autistic traits and get the right support can often be more helpful than a binary ‘autistic’ or ‘not autistic’ pronouncement, particularly when families are right at the start of their journey into understanding their child’s traits.