Last Wednesday I had a meeting
with the asperger’s diagnosis person for them to clarify their ‘inconclusive’
diagnosis; meanwhile I wait for their report in writing.
As expected this meeting didn’t
really help – they aren’t going to change their position even though ‘inconclusive’
surely must default to ‘conclusive’ if any of this is going to matter. In other
words, why don’t you err on the side of caution? Why wouldn’t you give the
patient the benefit of the doubt? Otherwise why not admit that it is
conclusive: conclusively negative? At least be honest.
The reason they give is down to a
lack of developmental history to cross reference. I don’t know if this is
simply the way the testing process is structured, for right or wrong, and
therefore out of the clinician’s hand. My feeling, if I’m honest, is that, if
someone has the ‘symptoms’ (words are poor substitutes here, I am not an expert
in any of this) then what does their history matter, and if it’s not one
condition in particular, so what? These are ultimately just labels; names for
disabilities and disorders people face.
That said there was one glaring
issue that warrants discussion. I had given them, as supporting evidence, the
report provided by the Work Psychologist. When I asked what they made of this the
clinician mentioned the following issues:
- The test undertaken by the WP was out of date (whether or not this is actually a problem I don’t know).
- The WP didn’t record the actual scores of the test: the clinician said, on the face of it the deviances in areas of understanding revealed were not per se a problem, but without knowing how strong those deviances were it was meaningless.
- The report mentions something called ‘Non Verbal Learning Disability’, but the clinician denied this even existed.
I subsequently put this to the
Work Psychologist. If her report is compromised then I wanted to know why.
Unfortunately the records were not kept past two years. Apparently this is
standard procedure. However she did say that the test being out of date is
irrelevant, and also said that NVLD does exist. Upon refletion why on earth
whould she go to the trouble of lying about a non-existent condition? That
seems an extraordinary thing to do; I looked it up on google just to see if it
was real. It is. This is a condition, the peculiarities of which I don’t
understand and are a separate matter, that, despite what the clinician said, is
a thing.
So where does that leave me? For
all I know that one detail could be the key to unlocking all this. somehow I doubt
it; I intend to confront the clinician when the report arrives about this. Why
does she claim something that does exist as a disorder doesn’t exist. It’s
precisely this that makes it difficult for mental health sufferers (and
physical health sufferers for that matter, it’s the same issue) to get taken
seriously. Without proper – i.e. recognised – diagnosis for one thing it makes
claiming things like DLA/PIP impossible. It will
certainly make a reassessment, which, now that my claim passes the 6 month
mark, is a possibility.
This to me seems utterly
irresponsible: I am caught between two experts neither of whom seem to be able
to ultimately help me. To be fair the WP has offered to take another look at
the report and, if the clinician is willing, to actually talk directly to her. I’m
not confident this would achieve much but I am of course grateful she is
offering to help; it’s just a pity that help doesn’t go further. Why, you might
ask, can she not diagnose herself? She is a psychologist after all!
To summarise it’s another example
of this fragmented system and how, when it’s there to help, it’s fatally
reluctant to do what’s needed. Getting an actual diagnosis seems to be the last
thing they want to do; a thousand and one reasons are given as to why they can’t
and why they seem reluctant. Unfortunately, while these reasons seem credible
and compelling, they don’t really get you to a place of actual help. Even the
DWP’s own Work Psychology service eludes me: just what are they actually for? This
process has taken 5 months and I’m in the same place as when I started.
I don't think that psychologists are allowed to diagnose, only psychiatrists.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that jumps out from your posts about this pursuit of diagnosis is the large number of people being paid a salary to achieve the outcome of a diagnosis and the fact that they aren't actually diagnosing you.
Parasite is another useful P word!
I have to assume I was seen by people at least able to make a diagnosis, assuming they felt one was required. I don't know the exact credentials of the people concerned, or whether their assessment is then passed to someone who is able.
DeleteIt's just a lot of nonsense. They all seem intent to keep you at arm's length rather than be helpful. In fact the assessor, at the meeting, mentioned the Disability legislation when i brought uup dealing with the DWP.
It seems they are reluctant to get involved because the legislation ironically makes it easier for people who should be in a support role to abrogate their responsiblity. The legislation means that employers have to make allowances (whether they do or not is another matter - who can prove you weren't hired for reasons of health?) and so the support network can shift the burden of responsibility.
The law of unintended consequences perhaps.