@Gubb1e There are too many problems with that logic though.
First, PDA strategies are good practice.
Similar strategies are widely practiced inside & outside of autism, independently of PDA and have been for years.
First, PDA strategies are good practice.
Similar strategies are widely practiced inside & outside of autism, independently of PDA and have been for years.
@Gubb1e Most disorders are not that good at guiding prognoses or support packages.
There is no evidence of differential treatment between suggested autism subtypes.
SEND system is needs based, CYP should NOT need a PDA dx to get appropriate strategies.
There is no evidence of differential treatment between suggested autism subtypes.
SEND system is needs based, CYP should NOT need a PDA dx to get appropriate strategies.
@Gubb1e Arguments about rights to a PDA dx due to its strategies, are universal & therefore applicable to many persons, including many non-autistic persons.
@Gubb1e Proposing PDA is clinically needed due to its strategies is a reason why PDA is controversial, as it turns accepted mental disorder's classification upside down.
@Gubb1e It is also starting backwards, so giving it to people for use of its strategies & then trying to show it is different to other mental disorders. @milton_damian I believe this was your comment?
@Gubb1e @milton_damian I do not think PDA is clinically needed. I definitely have valid reasons against people saying PDA is autism. I accept it is not going anywhere, but it needs to be pursued scientifically & at its broadest predicted extent.
@Gubb1e @milton_damian All we have really done so far is basically investigate the opinions of a small group of autism experts, when other's opinions on PDA are likely to be just as valid.
I have severe ethical concerns over how PDA is being pursued.
I have severe ethical concerns over how PDA is being pursued.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
