Depending where you live, it may be required to get help from specific service providers.
Some countries like the Netherlands recognize the “Auti-pass” for granting disability accommodations.
Its barely anything a neurotypical would desire and my wife suffers imposter syndrome every time using it because we don’t look different.
I suspect the “fear” is that because Autism
is permanent you could use it to build a case, convincing the right people that you are unable to work and should receive government benefits/income.
This is in the face of the majority of Autists wanting to work, even if they cant and government benefit’s usually hardly being enough to survive on.
Interesting. In that case, I think the general practitioners could just trust that the thorough assessment would do it’s job properly and avoid misdiagnosis. It’s not like the GP is the one providing the diagnosis at all. They’re just putting in the referral.
Furthermore, even when it comes to the actual evaluators, I think that the stance could be that it’s better to incorrectly give people benefits than to incorrectly deny people benefits. By playing benefits police, they are denying services to individuals that really need them just to avoid giving them to those that don’t. Even with the Auti-pass and whatever other benefits come along with the diagnosis, it’s not an amazing life of luxury. The whole thing just strikes me as ridiculous and ultimately rooted in latent power and control issues.
Depending where you live, it may be required to get help from specific service providers.
Some countries like the Netherlands recognize the “Auti-pass” for granting disability accommodations.
Its barely anything a neurotypical would desire and my wife suffers imposter syndrome every time using it because we don’t look different.
I suspect the “fear” is that because Autism is permanent you could use it to build a case, convincing the right people that you are unable to work and should receive government benefits/income.
This is in the face of the majority of Autists wanting to work, even if they cant and government benefit’s usually hardly being enough to survive on.
Interesting. In that case, I think the general practitioners could just trust that the thorough assessment would do it’s job properly and avoid misdiagnosis. It’s not like the GP is the one providing the diagnosis at all. They’re just putting in the referral.
Furthermore, even when it comes to the actual evaluators, I think that the stance could be that it’s better to incorrectly give people benefits than to incorrectly deny people benefits. By playing benefits police, they are denying services to individuals that really need them just to avoid giving them to those that don’t. Even with the Auti-pass and whatever other benefits come along with the diagnosis, it’s not an amazing life of luxury. The whole thing just strikes me as ridiculous and ultimately rooted in latent power and control issues.