AIBU to ask why ADHD and autism are dismissed as disabilities?

[SummerAtaris]

There’s been a tonne of threads about benefits recently and there seems to be a recurring theme that ‘only the most severe disabilities should get any help’ and they almost always mention that people suffering with MH health issues, or ‘non issues’ like ADHD should be cut off from help. I’d like to know what those people in particular think adhd is, and why they don’t consider it to be a disability.

I am 44 years old, I have level 1 autism and ‘combined type’ adhd. I have worked since I left school at 16. I raised my eldest 3 children from my first marriage by myself, all 3 are diagnosed with varying degrees of neurodivergences (didn’t know that at the time)

I am now married to a wonderful man, and we have children together, they are also ND.

It is a challenge every single day to just make myself wash & brush my teeth. And I need to try and herd 2
other people with the same issues to do the same.

I am massively in debt, because the filter that everyone else seems to have that tell you, no don’t do it, just isn’t there.

I literally cannot sleep. I try. But my brain is almost always stuck in a loop of catastrophising, and is running a chorus of a song that I hate over and over and over and there’s nothing I can do about it. When I do sleep I’m still catastrophising and have incredibly vivid nightmares and wake up sad, anxious and depressed and I can’t shake off my dreams easily.

I go from 7 or so days of zero sleep, then pass out and am comatose for 48-72 hours approx.

I forget to eat, I forget to drink water. I don’t know that I need the bathroom until my bladder is literally about to burst.

I suffer from boredom so extreme that I’ve attempted suicide multiple times.

‘Masking’ takes everything that I have. By the time I get home after any social event (by event I mean anything that needs me to present as a ‘normal’ person, school drops offs, appointments etc) leave me gasping for breath, physically stimming to the point my muscles are crying out and I still can’t stop, endlessly ruminating over conversations I had to participate in against my will.

This is not a comprehensive list. I’ll remember this post for the rest of my life and there will always be things I should have added to it.

My body is perfectly fine. I’m not disabled in that way. But my brain, my bodies operating system, IS disabled. I’m so tired of hearing that adhd and lower levels of autism are not disabling. They absolutely fucking are. I manage the school run these days and that’s pretty much it. I haven’t been able to work for around 8 years now.

Go ahead. Tell me how you’d employ me.

Five kids is far more than most people have. And just the school run severely impacts her. Telling people to have as many kids as they'd like without thinking through the practicalities isn't having their best interests at heart.

She has the kids and that wasn’t what some of the posts were saying. All sorts of people have children and struggle, even some that just have 1 or 2. Shoild those that struggle with 1 not have a second? Funny that wasn’t said. Some of those posts very much pin pointed that the disabled shouldn’t have children.

No, the clinical threshold for diagnosis is lower than the threshold for disability under the equality act. The threshold for diagnosis just requires clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning, which can be limited to specific situations. To qualify as disabled under the equality act, the condition must have a substantial and long term adverse effect on the person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities (such as eating, washing, dressing, shopping, or talking). As a result, some diagnosed autistic people meet the legal definition of disability and some do not. You'd be perfectly entitled to think it should be different, but that reflects how the law currently stands.

Nope

Under the UK Equality Act 2010, an autism diagnosis qualifies as a disability, provided the condition has a long-term (lasting 12 months or more) and substantial (more than minor or trivial) adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Autism is for life and under formal diagnostic frameworks like the DSM-5 and ICD-11, symptoms must cause"clinically significant impairment" in important areas of life (such as social, occupational, or educational functioning) to receive an autism diagnosis. That’s way more than minor or trivial and substantial.

We cannot afford to do this though!

As for 5 children. I think that big families were all well and good in the times when you could just send kids out to play by themselves. Now with all the parental input required it's not a good idea unless you've got some outside support. The only people I see coping with that many kids are people who are not only in good health but have much less need for sleep and down time than average. I think that we need to be more honest about this.

@StartingFreshFor2026 exactly. Mine fell in a pond on holiday just wouldnt listen or hold hands and ran off. I was sooo thin from all the running.
At 1yo or so eldest put stones in mouth including on the sandy beach, where did it even come from!?
We tried a nursery at 14m and the supervision wasnt close enough. So had to quit work. So at school age 5 put something up nose and had GA.But she knew not to do that as had been through a few month spate at age 3..
The joy of adhd doing things they know are dangerous or told off for before

Yes those that struggle with 1 children shouldnt have a 2nd child, of course. Is that a serious question?

Then hardly anybody would have children.

The fact that the autism diagnostic criteria require “clinically significant impairment” for diagnosis does not mean the same thing as the Equality Act criteria. They are related concepts, but they are not the same. The Equality Act looks specifically at whether the condition has a substantial and long term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities in their actual circumstances.Outside of a small number of conditions, which do not include autism, no condition automatically qualifies someone as disabled under the Equality Act. The burden is still on the individual to show how their condition affects their day to day life and whether that impact reaches the legal threshold. That is why an autism diagnosis alone is not automatic proof of disability. Equally, someone can still be considered disabled under the Equality Act without having a formal diagnosis of any specific condition at all.The autism diagnostic criteria themselves also recognise that autistic people vary greatly in presentation and support needs. Many autistic people are able to mask traits, develop coping strategies, and structure their lives around their strengths. Many people, particularly those with lower support needs, may function very successfully in careers and lifestyles well suited to their strengths and live fully independently without experiencing substantial impairment in the legal sense. In those circumstances they may not meet the Equality Act definition of disability, and many would not personally consider themselves disabled either. This is also why many people end up having to go through employment tribunals and other legal processes specifically to establish that, in their particular case, their autism amounts to a disability under the Equality Act. The diagnosis itself is not enough. I'm not sure how many other ways I can try to explain it, so I'm going to leave it here.

Yes you better had as you’re continuously contradicting yourself and nitpicking unnecessarily.

Because, as mentioned, either diagnosis does not automatically mean disability. If you disagree, google Tony Attwood and his diagnosis of autism.

It’s a moot point .

The Equality Act looks specifically at whether the condition has a substantial and long term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities in their actual circumstances.

To get an autism diagnosis under formal diagnostic frameworks like the DSM-5 and ICD-11, symptoms must cause"clinically significant impairment" in important areas of life (such as social, occupational, or educational functioning) to receive an autism diagnosis. A diagnosis is for life and clinicians must verify that these traits were apparent during your developmental period (typically before age 3), even if they went completely unnoticed or unrecorded at the time.

One wonders if posters like to pick apart to ridiculous levels more visable disabilities.

"Clinically significant" and "substantial adverse impact" are different words with different meanings though?

Isn't the richest most successful man on the planet on the spectrum? How has it impaired him exactly?

I agree, and that happens a lot on here. You also get posters saying that anyone on PIP that has kids is taking the piss as having kids is "harder than being disabled".
If someone has the kids already, what is to be gained by telling them they should not have had them? It is just putting the boot in.

Has he spoken about how it has impaired him? Does he need to?

Well there’s the point that half his children do t want to know him, or the fact he’s totally tactless, he doesn’t appear to able to maintain relationships either personally or professionally for very long. and that’s just what i know of him as a person who actually avoids articles about him. if you actually knew him you might see plenty of ways it disadvantages him.

@OwlBeThere this is true and the only things I know about him as well but I never see anyone defend him, people just think he's a prick. I don't see anyone saying "it's not his fault, he's on the spectrum" or that he needs support and understanding.

I agree with all of this, however I recognize that I also CAN manage work even under huge amounts of stress, even though the work.itself comes with stress. I am.lucku to be academic and therefore earn well AND not have to work as hard as someone.less academic to study etc. I work much harder than average at trying.to carry out self care etc and at managing levels of pain due to hyper mobility and endometriosis

My children have been a turning point t though because what I CANT do is split myself in 2. When I've a child in hospital, a child in crisis, a child who I can't get I to his classroom without a struggle until 9.30 regularly, a child who doesn't sleep, a child who can't tolerate changes in plans and routine etc etc and those things have meant reduced hours, changed roles na loss of income.

We NEED his CDP payments because they give us room to breath. Room to say yes to sporting activities he may.not be able to attend after a point, room to drop a day and work and take reduced lah for flexibility, room to catch up.on sleep. Room to get a taxi when he can't be transported otherwise to a beneficial activity. We will absolutely be encouraging our kids to find careers that they can work in. My autistic husband has a great career in IT while.i have a very niche career as a woman with ADHD.

There are those dealing with children who are non verbal, who will never live independently etc and who really can't work for these reasons. I'm fortunate we have the options we have, as are you

if you actually knew him you might see plenty of ways it disadvantages him
It does disadvantage him in some ways, but it is also counter balanced by all he has that others couldn't start dreaming of that massively advantage him.

The cast majority of people are disadvantaged somehow. Be it level of intelligence, look, health, where they are born, to whom they are born, fate, etc....

If we consider that everyone disadvantage in one way should be considered disabled, that leaves very few people.

You could take a famous athlete with lower IQ, are they disabled?

A person with unfortunate ugly features, but with a very loving partner, children, family and friends. Are they disabled?

A person with a genetic disorder, but that is managed well and their life expectancy is not affected. Are they disabled?

How are you defining "managed well" for the person with a genetic disorder? Many disabled people manage well but they still have challenges and are disabled by their environment

Every body faces challenges in life! I happen to have a rare genetic disorder that puts me at a much higher risk of developing a certain cancer. I am screened annually. I'm disadvantaged from this perspective, but the fact that I got a diagnosis and receive free screening, and that I'm intelligent enough to understand what I need to do, and that all together, I'm expected to live in my 80s means that I'm not disabled.

Again, if everyone facing challenges in their lives deemed themselves to be disabled, there would be very few non disabled people left.

This is the way it's going though with the growing number of people embracing the label of disabled.