Jump to content
CrazyBoards.org

Recommended Posts

Ideally, I would tag certain people. But in light of recent happenings, I fear it would come across as patronising

 

Monash health couldn't organise a root in brothel, so it'll be a while off. But I have full assessment coming up

 

I'ze scared. I don't want to do a long long appointment

 

But any insight into the process appreciated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This I will respond to, considering you are in need. It is best to go into those assessments blind, I have to say. Don't research them or what they are assessing. That's the most accurate way to ensure your chances at being properly assigned your support needs level and receiving an accurate report going over such, and improves your chances in the future of accessing accommodation. 

I will not give anything further on my opinion regarding such process or the people who do them, as recent mod intervention indicates that would be an unwise thing to do. Not so sure I should provide insight on the supports need level part of it either, because that would veer in that direction as well.

 

 

 

Edited by Hopelessly Broken
Read the OP wrong initially.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean by that is I am questioning how not being allowed to take a negative direction on psychiatry and mental health professionals applies to autism and autistic people specifically. I don't care to put myself in a position where I have crossed a line and get reprimanded for it, but I also don't appreciate having to be too vague or having to censor what is generally known in the autistic community to be a very, well, flawed and fucked up process that neurotypicals gain from. 

It is well accepted by us that neurotypical professionals are, how do I put it? Ill-informed? And that they use processes and assess things that are just beyond fucked up and not in the best interest of us whatsoever. Is being honest about that crossing such a line?

Edited by Hopelessly Broken
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dogman, I understand the difficulty with having an extensive test.  Mine's a different kind (neuropsych instead) and I'm worried.  But mine is not until 1/4 and I have promised myself that I will not send two months worrying about it.  I'll wait until it gets closer 😉

I agree with HB that entering blind is the thing to do.  In my situation, I know some of the tests on one of the IQ test.  He told me that I needed to tell the person conducting the exam that I have some familiarity with it and leave it to her judgment as to whether oto use it or not. 

best of luck. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other notes that can be taken as applicable:

*If you are someone who experiences autistic burnout and/or shutdown, as much as is feasible, plan and be prepared for them in advance

*General exhaustion after these is to be expected. Accommodate where you can, as necessary

*Do your best not to mask 

*Be prepared for ableism and the risk of trauma triggers

*Assessment questions about your adaptive functioning and daily living skills, if asked (a proper assessment should, but a lot of NT pros are not trained in how autism can impact them, so don't ask) should be answered on the basis of when you are struggling most and need the most support, so that those times are accounted for and contribute towards the second support needs level criterion

*Don't go in making it clear that you have more knowledge than them or with folders of info you have gathered on yourself and your life, as they are relevant to being autistic and specific diagnostic criterion. I know that is quite standard, usual behaviour and the most sensical way of approaching these types of things for many of us. Don't do it. It will not be worth having to deal with the consequences. 

*At the end of it all, when you get your reports back, again, be prepared for ableism and a lot of it, also be prepared for a general lack of detail and holistic conclusion, and even a lack of sense in general. Don't think this document will help you in the process of self-understanding and acceptance, because it will more than likely do the complete opposite.

*Take care of yourself and remember that you are always worthwhile, always have value, are always important and that the only one who can define you, is you. Your legitimate challenges and what you class as a legitimate deficits do not make you deficient or inferior, and you are not some less than faulty product. Neurotypicals and their way of life and functioning are not there to erase you or any of the above. 

*Don't go in with unrealistic expectations. Some people go in with the impression that because the DSM 5 includes support needs "level", that having a diagnosis will be phenomenal and inherently positive, and actually get them support. Don't do that.

That's all for now.

Edited by Hopelessly Broken
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Hopelessly Broken said:

What I mean by that is I am questioning how not being allowed to take a negative direction on psychiatry and mental health professionals applies to autism and autistic people specifically. I don't care to put myself in a position where I have crossed a line and get reprimanded for it, but I also don't appreciate having to be too vague or having to censor what is generally known in the autistic community to be a very, well, flawed and fucked up process that neurotypicals gain from. 

It is well accepted by us that neurotypical professionals are, how do I put it? Ill-informed? And that they use processes and assess things that are just beyond fucked up and not in the best interest of us whatsoever. Is being honest about that crossing such a line?

Let me try to clarify. Crazyboards policy in this regard is rooted in our responsibility toward the vulnerable individuals who join this community in search of peer support as they struggle with often debilitating and sometimes potentially life-threatening mental illness. This is a critical matter. We have lost people on our watch. We strongly believe we have a duty of care toward our members to ensure that if we can do them no good, at least we do no harm. One of the most precarious positions we find ourselves in is having an influence on a member’s decisions about whether and how to work with his or her care team, or to seek professional aid in the first place.

No one here is qualified to assess an individual’s condition or make treatment recommendations over an electronic forum - not even someone with a professional credential, who should be ethically constrained from attempting to do so. For that reason, we have always prohibited all members from identifying themselves as professional care providers in any capacity. We might have some among us; don’t want to know. This is about support for sufferers by sufferers.

We operate under a principal that science is the foundation of understanding of the brain and its maladies, that research provides some realistic progress, that that research has produced pharmaceuticals that offer a degree of treatment, that psychotherapy can be an effective intervention, and that best results are usually achieved through a combination of both. We actively seek and disseminate information on science-based new and alternative approaches to treatment.

We are realistic about the nature of our plight - it sucks to be us. Brain science is a toddler among disciplines, and we do not look for miracle cures. We look for treatments that make unlivable lives livable, and save lives that would end needlessly. We celebrate cases where a person can put their MI behind them, but acknowledge that those are the fortunate minority.

We are a peer community, all in the same unhappy boat, and we all have a responsibility to support one another. We cannot have members below the waterline drilling holes in the hull.

Therefore, we moderate to ensure that the content of the boards does not conflict with our mission. We are not acolytes of Big Pharma, which, as a capitalist juggernaut, is plenty suspect. Nor are we supplicants to the disciplines of psychiatry and psychology, which are only as useful as their professional integrity, their institutional organization, and the rigor of their research. We maintain a critical stance toward all the institutions, as, however professional they may claim to be, we’re still fucking miserable. There is plenty of room for criticism.

The criticism, however, must be realistic, fact-based, specific to the practitioners, practices, care systems, or corporations involved, and not characterized in broad, vague terms intended to characterize an entire institution or practice in a certain way, particularly if the claim cannot be directly substantiated. Plainly, you can’t say psychiatry causes more harm than good because you cannot prove that, and you run the risk of harming another member by persuading him to give up on his care. This is not the same as saying that, in your experience, psychiatry has done you more harm than good, or even that every shrink you’ve ever encountered has been a quack. Those statements are limited to your own situation and experience. As long as you don’t attempt to extrapolate them to characterize mental health care in general everywhere, you are simply speaking from experience. That’s not only fine, that’s the point of the forum.

It’s also acceptable to posit arguments about the nature of institutions, cultural and social trends, personality types, etc. etc. in the context of reasoned analysis, debate, and observation, as long as you have some ground to stand on, and as long as you have taken into account your responsibility to adhere to the basic principles of the forum.

Say what you will, but Do no harm. Let the knowledge that your words might influence someone guide you. Let your responsibility to your peers guide you. The final arbitrators of what is harmful are the Moderators. We will protect our members at the cost of your speech only if we must.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of that I get. For mental illness. For autism and the process of diagnosing autism, of assigning support needs levels and providing, or the lack thereof providing, support and accommodations relative to autism..... Not so much, because, the science on that is written and defined almost exclusively by neurotypicals. Most of us query that autism even belongs under psychiatry at all, is that not for good reason, and is being honest about what those processes are like not for good reason; to support other autistics and give them the information to make informed decisions wherein the likely benefit is greater than likely harm?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr Jon (Consultant pdoc who is referring to clinical psychologist for assessment) says that the assessment is important "For psychoeducation"

 

I am unclear what that meant. Maybe like "Educating" first nations people (make them pretend to have European values)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it really matters, after all, I am just a member, but I agree with all of that, when it is applied to mental illness. Agree with it firmly, regardless of my personal experience, which, as unfortunate as it is, is just that. You can see that I clearly answered a specific question recently, elsewhere on the forums, that someone asked me, that would have put them in potentially grave harm if I had of given them a different answer, as much as they clearly didn't like the answer. But as a peer, them liking the information given to them is not the aim, giving them true information that keeps them out of harm's way is.

With autism, doing that often means having to criticise psychiatry and psychology, because that is the only option they fucking give us. See what I mean?

Edited by Hopelessly Broken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DogMan said:

Dr Jon (Consultant pdoc who is referring to clinical psychologist for assessment) says that the assessment is important "For psychoeducation"

 

I am unclear what that meant. Maybe like "Educating" first nations people (make them pretend to have European values)

Essentially, yes. Psychoeducation is what they call educating patients/clients about their condition.

But the idea that being diagnosed will do that, like I wrote, well, unfortunately it isn't wise to expect that result, because it more than likely won't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...