Capping the number of children diagnosed with autism

[roundtable]

Did I just hear that correctly on the news? The couple of sentences that they gave about it before moving on.

I'm hoping I've misunderstood but wtf?

That is not reasonable.

So once we've limited the amount of people with autism, what group of people do they move onto next?

Did I hear it correctly and are they being completely unreasonable? Without a doubt

This is awful. My 10 year old has aspergers syndrome. A diagnosis has helped him and us a lot. We don't get much in the way of help, even now, but we do get more understanding from professionals I think. If I tell a Dr or the school or whoever that he has autism and we find that these strategies help him they will listen now and don't just roll their eyes and think neurotic parent with a precious snowflake child. Ds1 likes having a reason and a name for how he feels and he likes going to sn groups.

blankface,

Thank you for that brilliant link.

Such a clear and visual summing-up. Will come in handy for dispelling a few common myths.

BrieChili your post rally explains the situation well. Thank you. Money invested in early help pays dividends literally later on.

And no I'm not a Tory hater Olie just want to call a spade a spade. The Conservatives are defunding the health service and education and other services. Look at what John Major former Conservative PM said about the current Conservative leadership: “The NHS is about as safe with them as a pet hamster would be with a hungry python,” Get real. They follow the classic actions - to defund a service, then users get disatisfied and then they call for it to be privatised.

The National Autism Society is having to do loads of work on this situation to point out that it is illegal to deny diagnosis of medical conditions on the grounds of costs. They shouldn't have to do so. It should never get to this.

Thanks to the other folk on this thread who have pointed out restriction of access to medical services. I didnt realise it is so bad. Really sad and wrong and we all need to wake up to whats going on.

It's as relevant as Tory cuts.

All regions are facing the same financial constraints. Not all areas are choosing to examine cutting the number of diagnoses (or stopping now they are at twice capacity). So ascribing it all to Tory nastiness, when it's not a party proposal seems wrong. The people, who are looking at cutting this area, rather than any other, are not Tories.

It's important for local people to get involved in local issues, so that the choices made are those the most community support. Or least community objection? Especially when it's a new area for rationing (something which has been going on since the start of the NHS, and which has never disappeared, regardless of government and level of cash spending)

Worth remembering also, the other side of the coin in that it was Labour who introduced private provision within NHS. One solution here might be to pay for the numbers of diagnoses required above the current NHS capacity in the area. I've no idea how the figures for that would stack up - any of the more expert posters know? I've read somewhere that it's at least £3k, but for all I know that might be miles out. Or the cost of doubling the size of the unit, so it meets current levels of demand (leave future-proofing to one side). Or just continue as it is, with waiting lists.

There has, sadly, never been a golden age where there was no rationing.

Sorry but that's nonsense. The Government set the budgets for the NHS. The CCG or trust will then set the priorities in each area. The local MP and/or council are utterly irrelevant in the decisions.

Tbh it is similar for sensory issues, speech issues and motor delays tbh. Nowadays your issues have to be pretty bad to get any help.

I'm not a "Tory hater".

And of course central government isn't saying "avoid giving any resources to ASD".

They just aren't giving enough money to keep the NHS running safely.

There wasn't a clear allocation of extra resources for ASD, at a time when it was being more recognised as a common issue.

There isn't enough ring fencing for mental health generally, so money gets spent on other things.

Similarly, no one forbids someone on benefits from sending their child to private school, but the amount of money coming in means it is extremely unlikely to be possible.

YY @herecomesthsun
"I'm not a "Tory hater".
"And of course central government isn't saying "avoid giving any resources to ASD".
"They just aren't giving enough money to keep the NHS running safely."

YY @ExplodedCloud
"The Government set the budgets for the NHS. The CCG or trust will then set the priorities in each area. "

^^These things were worth repeating!

CCGs are being forced to ration access to healthcare in an unprecedented manner due to the constraints on their budgets. The budgets are set by the government which is hellbent on starving the NHS of resources.

I'm not sure exactly how non-partisan The Health Foundation are...have only just discovered their site, and have better ways to be spending my Bank Holiday Sunday than background checking ...but there seem to be some legit facts and statistics there, for those interested.

www.health.org.uk/collection/research-and-policy-analysis

Pretty non-partisan in my experience.

Change.org petition on this very topic that could really benefit with a few more signatures - power of mumsnet and all that, please have a read and share if you feel appropriate

My DS is Aspergers with high cognitive function , he already gets far less support than those who are lower functioning ASD ...these cuts will effect people like him the most.

Flouncing,

Signed.

Snork,

That's useful to know. Thanks.

Signed Flouncing

People need assessment and diagnosis in order to seek reasonable adjustments both in education and the workplace.

How the hell are we meant to describe ourselves in the absence of a diagnosis/label? We would lose legal rights and undiagnosed people won't be able to ask for their rights.