One in every 91 children in the United States was diagnosed with autism last year. This number does not even include Asperger’s, PDD, or other spectrum disorders. The number of cases has dramatically risen since the early 2000s when one out of every 250 children was diagnosed. This shows that the number of diagnosed children on the spectrum is rapidly growing. Because of this, a plethora of articles and campaigns have recently focused on allocating more public money towards education, health, and social services for those affected. But this effort is about to be in vain for many.

I guess that many experts do not like the skyrocketing rate at which autism is diagnosed so they thought they should do something about it. It is just not the right thing to do. Instead of trying to prevent autism, or even just find out the exact cause of the condition, a panel of experts has decided to re-define autism. The proposed changes will tighten the definition of autism lessening the number of diagnosed cases every year. Many who had previously met the criteria for diagnosis will not meet it if these changes are put in place. What this means is that they will no longer be able to get access to necessary health programs, special education programs, or the needed social services programs.

The American Psychiatric Association has appointed a panel of experts to reassess what constitutes autism. If changed, which will most likely happen, the new definition will be published in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This change is the most significant in 17 years. The reason given for the alteration by the experts is that the definitions of most disorders on the spectrum are too vague and thus the reason for the skyrocketing number of cases. Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, director of the Child Study Center at the Yale School of Medicine and author of the proposal said that the changes would “nip it [surge in number of diagnosed cases] in the butt.” But is that what we need right now?! If 10 children who need and would otherwise benefit from social services and special educations do not qualify anymore, is it worth curbing the number of diagnoses? Should we worry about lowering the number of official cases or finding out why autism spectrum disorders happen? It is true that most of those who would be left out of the diagnosis are high-functioning. But that does not mean that they do not have special needs for which they would not qualify.

Under the current criteria for diagnosis, a person must exhibit at least 6 of 12 behaviors. After the changes, a person will have to exhibit 3 deficits in social interaction and communication and at least 2 repetitive behaviors, a much more narrow criteria. So even if a child exhibits 5 deficits in social interaction but only one type of repetitive behavior, they will not qualify.

Personally, this scares me. I do not think that parents ever want to hear that their child is on the spectrum so it is not like the association has to curb a growing trend because parents want access to free services or different education. When a child is diagnosed, everything changes for the family. It is not easy. I believe that this will cause more harm than good as children who could benefit from services and special education will be denied these programs just so there are fewer diagnosed cases a year. What do YOU think?