Search for:
Aug 28 2023
Creating Autistic suffering: CAMHS advise “safe cutting” for Autistic children

This article was co-authored by Tanya Adkin and David Gray-Hammond

This article contains detailed discussion of self-harm and CAMHS failures

Please Sign this petition regarding CAMHS refusal to see Autistic children and attend this protest if you can.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Tanya’s work outside of this blog series, Tanya specialises in what services like CAMHS would call “complex presentations”. To consider it another way, Tanya is called in when professionals don’t know what to do. A lot of this work consists of working alongside independent social workers for the assessment, care and support planning, and delivery of short-term crisis intervention support to Autistic people who are experiencing complicating factors such as; criminal exploitation, co-occurring psychiatric conditions, disordered eating, “violent and challenging behaviour”, and self-injurious behaviours. David (in his professional life) is a qualified independent advocate who has spent quite some time deconstructing and shining a light on the failures of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). In this article we’re going to focus on a specific type of self-injurious behaviour in the form of cutting, and the guidelines surrounding it’s management.

CAMHS refusing to treat different people differently is a form of disability discrimination

This type of presentation is not unique to Autistic experience, however, there is an element of it that is unique and widely misunderstood by services. Services such as CAMHS are taking a one-size-fits-all harm reduction approach to cutting. The problem is that this does not take account of the sensory element of cutting for Autistic people. More and more often, what we are seeing, what we are hearing, is CAMHS advice which is essentially just to let Autistic children cut, but from a position of “safe cutting”. Let’s take a look at some of the NICE guidance in this area:

“During the psychosocial assessment, explore the functions of self-harm for the person. Take into account:

the person’s values, wishes and what matters to them

the need for psychological interventions, social care and support, or occupational or vocational rehabilitation
any learning disability, neurodevelopmental conditions or mental health problems
the person’s treatment preferences
that each person who self-harms does so for their own reasons
that each episode of self-harm should be treated in its own right, and a person’s reasons for self-harm may vary from episode to episode
whether it is appropriate to involve their family and carers; see the section on involving family members and carers.”

A portion of the guidance for self-harm within NICE guidelines, full guidance here.

If all of these things were fully taken into account in terms of Autistic children, “safe cutting” would never be the recommendation.

Interoception

Interoception is one of the eight senses, it is the ability to read and decipher internal bodily signals. This may include things such as; hunger, thirst, needing the toilet, emotions, but more importantly, it affects how we experience pain and injury. It’s almost a logical impossibility for Autistic children that are receiving the care of CAMHS to not have interoceptive differences. We know that 50-85% of Autistic people have alexithymia (interoceptive under-responsiveness in terms of emotion) (Click here for more information). We also know how bad things need to be for CAMHS to even accept a referral of an Autistic young person. Interoceptive differences have a high correlation with trauma and other mental health differences (Adkin, 2023). It stands to reason that Autistic people who meet a CAMHS threshold will have significant differences in their interoceptive sense.

Autistic children with interoceptive differences can not cut safely

What Autistic children need is the support that is outlined in NICE guidance. But because of a lack of competence (Adkin & Gray-Hammond, 2023) and understanding around interoception within the context of Autistic experience CAMHS have created dangerous situations for Autistic children and their families. When we look at suicidality rates in Autistic young people, rates of up to 28 times more than non-Autistic young people (Royal College of Psychiatrists, accessed 2023); does “safe cutting” play a role in this?

People who experience pain and injury differently, and dynamically, can not safely engage in self-injurious behaviours.

Why do Autistic people cut?

“Sensory disturbances are predictive of self-injury in Autistic people.”

Moseley et al (2020)

“there remains a concerning relationship between self-injury and suicidality which exists regardless of individual feelings on self-injury. This is consistent with the theoretical perspective that self-injury can be a “gateway” through which individuals acquire capability for lethal suicidal behaviors.”

Moseley et al (2020)

To summarise the above; A lot of Autistic people engage in self-injurious behaviour due to sensory difference. Self-injury among the Autistic population is highly predictive of suicidality.

CAMHS use “safe cutting” to guard resources

Advising safe cutting actually serves as a way of removing young people from CAMHS caseloads by normalising self-injurious behaviour. It offers false reassurance to parents that this is okay and that their child is not at risk, because CAMHS said so. It is a classic case of services abusing their perceived authority to gatekeep resources. “Safe cutting” advice is bypassing the NICE guidance in a way that removes the responsibility from CAMHS and places it onto the young person. If a young person suffers significant injury under the advice of “safe cutting”, it is the parents and carers who will be facing safeguarding investigations, not services like CAMHS.

So, How should CAMHS deal with this?

We need competent and effective assessment, care planning, and intervention delivery. Any approach to self-injury needs to take account of the Autistic young person’s sensory profile, and adapt it’s strategy to that. They need sensory-integration occupational therapy assessment and provision to address sensory needs. This is needed to address the sensory need that self-injury is meeting. They need social care assessments that are thorough and holistic, taking into account individual needs, educational needs, and medical needs. They need social workers that are competent in neurodivergent experience to ensure effective, multi-agency care and support planning and delivery.

What can you do if you have received this advice?

If you have been advised that “safe cutting” is the answer to self-injurious behaviour, please refer back to the linked NICE guidelines. Be prepared to follow formal complaint policies, when undoubtedly the guidance has not be followed, and ensure that you request occupational therapy input as per NICE guidelines.

Please Sign this petition regarding CAMHS refusal to see Autistic children and attend this protest if you can.

References

Adkin, T. (2023). What is meerkat mode and how does it relate to AuDHD? Emergent Divergence.

Moseley, R. L., Gregory, N. J., Smith, P., Allison, C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2020). Links between self-injury and suicidality in autism. Molecular autism, 11, 1-15.

RCP (Accessed 2023) Suicide and Autism, a national crisis. Royal College of Psychiatrists

Tanya Adkin 0 Comments
Aug 28 2023
Creating Autistic Suffering: The Self-Diagnosis Debate

This article was co-authored by David Gray-Hammond and Tanya Adkin

There are many other nuances to Autistic self-diagnosis debate considering colonialism, racism, misogyny, and transphobia (to name a few) that others with more lived experience would be better placed to highlight. This article is not the whole issue (links at the end). We seek to address some of the most obvious points within the confines of a blog post.

There is a long-standing debate around the validity of people who self-identify as Autistic without formal diagnosis. One of the main arguments we see against self-identification is “what if they get it wrong?”. We would respond with “how can it be wrong?”. Autism is an abstract concept, the diagnostic criteria is fundamentally flawed, based only on white western boys who are displaying trauma responses. Autism does not exist as a tangible entity. You can’t touch it, manipulate it, you can’t interact with it. What actually exists is Autistic people.

So, what if it is wrong?

Notwithstanding the above point that self-identification cannot actually be wrong, lets just pretend that it can be for the sake of this next section. What if somebody identifying as Autistic is in fact experiencing a different flavour of neurodivergence? The rate of co-occurrence between Autistic people and other neurodivergences, conceptualised as “mental health conditions” is ridiculously high (more on that here). Tanya and David often joke that we have never met a ‘ready-salted’ Autistic; that is to say, we have never met an Autistic person that comes in only one flavour, without co-occurring conditions. This means that statistically, Autistic people are more likely to be recognised with co-occurring mental health differences than the neurotypical population.

“It’s trendy to be Autistic”

People who make the argument that self-diagnosed individuals are following a trend fundamentally misunderstand the neurodiversity movement. The neurodiversity movement is born from the collective frustration and mistreatment of neurodivergent people. No one is identifying as Autistic for fun. We come to this understanding because we are desperate to find relief from a world that has systematically oppressed and harassed us. Another misunderstanding here is around what being neurotypical is. We have a false dichotomy of ND vs NT, but neurotypicality is a performance, not a neurocognitive style (Walker, 2021). It is an ability to fit in with the world neuronormative standards. To consider it another way, if you identify with the Autistic label, you almost definitely can’t perform neurotypicality at the very least.

What is the neurodiversity movement and how does it relate to self-identification?

The neurodiversity movement is, at it’s core, a social justice movement. Those who identify as neurodivergent are situating themselves within the social model of disability. It is a political stance, one that places the person in opposition to the medicalisation of human minds. It is a movement that exposes the flaws of our current capitalist and neoliberal culture in the west that seeks to pathologise anything that does not conform to an attitude of profit-driven, self-reliant, neurotypicality. When we tell people not to self-diagnose, or identify outside of diagnostic models, we are inadvertently bolstering the psychiatric industrial complex that serves to medicalise dissent from our current systems of oppression. Therefore, by opposing self-identification, we are policing peoples political expression, which is a product of privilege and frankly makes you a bit of an arsehole.

The validity of the autism diagnostic criteria

Problems with the diagnostic criteria are well documented, we don’t have space to list every single issue, but there is more to be found here. What should we do about identification? Does this mean that nobody should ever be identified as Autistic? Absolutely not. There is research specifically on the flaws within the diagnostic criteria, so what do we have as an alternative? This is where Autistic-led theory comes into it’s own.

Specifically, the double empathy problem (Milton, 2012). Research tells us that Autistic to Autistic communication is more reciprocal and of better quality than Autistic to non-Autistic communication (Crompton et al, 2020). Research also tells us that neurotypical people perceive Autistic people unfavourably (Mitchell, Sheppard, & Cassidy, 2021). Botha (2021) evidences Autistic community-connectedness as a buffer against minority stress. To bring these points together, if you communicate more effectively with other Autistic people, if you find that neurotypical people dislike you for no reason, and if you find being part of an Autistic community massively reduces the minority stress that you experience; the research suggests that these things are far more effective at identifying Autistic people than flawed diagnostic criteria from old white men who studied little white boys.

To conclude

So, next time someone tries to tell you they are Autistic, try believing them. We don’t need old, stale, and pale neurotypicals to validate our internal experience of the world, and give us permission to exist. We are more than capable of knowing ourselves. If it helps us live more authentically, and reduces the stress we experience, then we should not be policing that. To speak against self-diagnosis is to parade one’s own ignorance for all to see.

If you think you’re Autistic, welcome to the community, we hope you find your home here.

Further reading

Racism- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13623613211043643

Gender-https://www.forbes.com/sites/anuradhavaranasi/2022/08/31/autism-diagnosis-has-a-gender-bias-problem/

Transphobia- https://www.theautismcoach.co.uk/blog/transphobia-and-autism

References

Botha, M. (2020). Autistic community connectedness as a buffer against the effects of minority stress (Doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey).

Crompton, C. J., Sharp, M., Axbey, H., Fletcher-Watson, S., Flynn, E. G., & Ropar, D. (2020). Neurotype-matching, but not being autistic, influences self and observer ratings of interpersonal rapport. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2961.

Milton, D. E. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The ‘double empathy problem’. Disability & society, 27(6), 883-887.

Mitchell, P., Sheppard, E., & Cassidy, S. (2021). Autism and the double empathy problem: Implications for development and mental health. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 1-18.

Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on on the neurodiversity paradigm, Autistic empowerment, and post-normal possibilities. Autonomous Press.

David Gray-Hammond 0 Comments
Aug 27 2023
AuDHD addicts don’t respond to shame the way you want them to: Here is why

I have written before about how How the shame cycle barricades us from recovery in terms of addiction. In particular, here, I think about people who are AuDHD. If you exist at that particular intersection of experience, there is an increased likelihood that you use substances to improve your own wellbeing. Where there is self-medication, there is an increased risk of addiction. Where their is addiction, there are people trying to shame them into quitting.

Autism, ADHD, and shame

Being neurodivergent usually comes with a level of shame. This is due to the fact that society uses neuronormativity to police how we think, feel, act, and emote. It is estimated that ADHD children receive around 20,000 negative or corrective comments by age 10. Let us not forget that if a child is AuDHD, then there is a risk that they have been exposed to harmful interventions such as ABA or perhaps even MMS to try and make them “indistinguishable from their peers”.

When we consider this with respect to AuDHD adults, we are literally creating a factory line that takes children and turns them into adults who believe that who they are is wrong, invalid, a failure, or subhuman. To be AuDHD is to be constantly told why you are not enough. I believe from this you can already see why we may turn to drugs and alcohol to feel better.

Why does shame not stop addiction?

Clockwise arrows move between the words “shamed by people” and “use to cope” around the word “addiction”.

Addiction is insidious. It creeps into your life and slowly dismantles it. Stripping away your sense of identity, your relationships, your economic stability. It slowly takes everything from you until it is ready to take you away from the world. Addiction is not a moral failing, and it certainly is not a choice. No one wakes up one morning and decides to give away their liberty in the pursuit of oblivion.

One of the reasons we seek that oblivion is because the pain we experience is so intense that we would rather feel nothing at all. Shame adds to this pain. It eats away at us, tells us we should hide and obfuscate those parts of us that need to be in the light. If open communication is the key to recovery, then shame is the barricade keeping us from it. For this reason, shame will only ever keep us heading back towards oblivion.

What helps AuDHD people recover from addiction?

As we have discussed. AuDHD people are already driven to conceal themselves from childhood. Driving that further by shaming their drug use only serves to entrench that more deeply. In order to recover, we need to be able to communicate our inner experience openly and honestly. We have to create environments where a more natural embodiment of our internal experience is not something that will be penalised. To consider it another way; we have to let people be themselves.

Before we can be ourselves, we have to know ourselves. This is why community connectedness is so very important. Aside from an overall reduction in minority stress, it allows us to learn about ourselves through shared experience with others. By engaging in natural communication and AuSociality, we learn what it is to be us, and how to improve our wellbeing. When we begin to feel good about ourselves, it becomes easier to tackle addiction.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to addiction recovery, but I am certain that shaming AuDHD addicts will never achieve what you hope it will. If we want to save lives, we have to begin creating safe and nurturing spaces, not driving people back to the oblivion they already feel they deserve.

David Gray-Hammond 0 Comments
Aug 21 2023
Here are the reasons why CAMHS endangers Autistic children

If you believe that there are no issues with the way that Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) treats UK Autistic children and young people, I would direct you to take a look at the ongoing petition that has over 200,000 signatures. That’s a fifth of a million people who have witnessed the failures and harms exacted on Autistic children and young people by a service that is meant to save them.

Something that I keep coming back to is that CAMHS as a service needs to do more than open it’s doors to our children. In it’s current state, CAMHS could do more harm than good. I very strongly believe that in order for CAMHS to be a fit place to support Autistic people, they need to change on a fundamental level. In light of this, here are some of the issues within the current system.

Safeguarding instead of mental health care

One of the most common stories that we hear surrounding CAMHS is families of Autistic children finding themselves being referred to safeguarding services within their local authority (LA). This has become a prevalent issue that can make accessing services feel hostile and dangerous. Given that parents of Autistic children are often disabled themselves, it seems pertinent to note the increased rate at which they experience Institutionalised Parent/Carer Blame (IPCB).

This highlights a significant issue with the move over to Single Point of Access (SPoA) referrals. There can be significant disparities from area to area in triage outcomes meaning that Autistic young people and their families often do not get access to the services they need.

Lack of knowledge around Autistic and neurodivergent experience

I have spoken at length about the impact that a lack of cultural competency among professionals can have. In particular I would highlight this article I co-authored with Tanya Adkin. It is impossible for professionals to be safe for Autistic young people while they are lacking essential knowledge that can only be found by engaging with the Autistic community.

Many of the professionals within CAMHS are working from outdated and stereotyped knowledge around what autism looks like and how best to support Autistic people. This lack of knowledge can and does endanger the health and wellbeing of our children and young people. It highlights a level of disdain for minority communities when they ask for professionals to learn from them and not from an outdated textbook.

Poor handling of children vulnerable to exploitation

This is a significant issue for Autistic young people. In particular I think of the case of Ben Nelson-Roux. This young person died a victim of exploitation due to multi-agency failure (as documented in the linked article). Had CAMHS had a better professional practice regarding neurodivergence and exploitation, his story may not have ended in tragedy.

We have to highlight here the power that CAMHS have in cases such as these. When CAMHS fail to take criminal exploitation seriously, it has knock on effects for the support they receive from all services involved. CAMHS as a whole needs to be significantly more skilled in this area due to it’s prevalence among Autistic demographics.

Defensive Practice

Defensive practice occurs most commonly when services are more concerned with metrics than people. Within CAMHS this often manifests in refusals for support, and labeling service users as “not engaging” when inappropriate approaches are used for neurodivergent young people.

This might also manifest as the overuse or inappropriate use of restrictive practices and deprivation of liberty. Again, this tends to arise from a need to meet targets and achieve certain metrics rather than meaningfully support young people.

Gate-keeping of services

This one is the whole reason we’re here, and fits in with the aforementioned defensive practice. When you don’t have the skills to support a neurodivergent person, you simply refuse them access to services. This gate keeping is deadly for some young people, and trust policies that allow for it to happen play a role in the disturbingly elevated suicidality rate for Autistic young people.

Autistic people experience a great deal of psychological distress in a world that is actively hostile towards them, and yet CAMHS fails to provide them with meaningful support. In many cases they fail to provide any support at all. If we want to see an improvement in the metrics that matter (for example, measure of quality of life), much of the current mental health system in the UK needs to be restructured. This will not be a quick campaign, but it will be effective.

Please support the ongoing campaign around CAMHS and Autistic young people by signing this petition and attending this protest.

David Gray-Hammond 0 Comments
Aug 19 2023
Marginalised groups should not be responsible for ending stigma

When we think of stigma, we often think of awareness campaigns and personal disclosure of our struggles. On the face of it, these appear to be helpful in stigma reduction. However, as with all things like this, it is not nearly as simple as that. Autism has been the focus of many stigma reduction campaigns, but people are rarely Autistic as a standalone identity, and there are (more often than not) multiple marginalities within Autistic lives.

Autism is not the only sources of stigma in neurodivergent lives

When considering my own experience, one identity of mine that is particularly relevant to this conversation is Schizophrenia. Psychotic disorders have been positioned as the most “dangerous” of mental health concerns. People assume a poor prognosis with a high potential for violence.

Schizophrenia, in my opinion, is a good measure of saneism and ableism in society. Despite Schizophrenic people only having a modestly increased risk of violence, the media fails to report responsibly. Nuances such as the socioeconomic factors of violence in this population are rarely accounted for. In the same way, much of the stigma surrounding neurodivergence and other marginalised identities is driven by poor understanding of colonial oppression and sloppy reporting by journalists. When considering the sources of stigma in a person’s life, we have to consider intersectionality and minority stress.

Individualism and the stigma surrounding neurodivergence

When considering the role of individualism in the perpetuation of stigma surrounding neurodivergence, we have to first understand the role of psychiatry. The field of psychiatric medicine centres most neurodivergence ad “mental illness”. It places the issue within the body of an individual and requires them to “recover”. This individualisation is responsible not just for the coercion that occurs within the psychiatric profession. It is also responsible for the use of quack cures such as MMS and chelation “therapy” that do a great deal of harm.

The ableism and sanism that surround neurodivergence means that we are often coerced into harmful “treatment” or abused by those closest to us. We are dehumanised by stigma and forced to endure a world that views our existence as an abberation rather than a natural part of human diversity.

Why is it wrong to expect victims of stigma to tackle their own stigma?

When we consider marginalised groups, we have to consider that, for most of us, dismantling stigma is usually an expectation of free labour. Far too often, we are expected to expose the most vulnerable parts of ourselves to a world that, in most cases, will respond with vitriol. Raising awareness through vulnerability can be life threatening for many of us.

We also have to note the effect of privilege in stigma reduction efforts. White people such as myself are better able to expose the less acce0ted parts of themselves. If a BIPOC Autistic or Schizophrenic (considering my own neurodivergence) person were to lay bare their most hidden parts, their life could be endangered. For me, the stigma I face is dangerous, but not nearly as life-threatening as that of my further marginalised neurokin.

Conclusion

Marginalised people are left to raise awareness in a world that does not want to listen. It should not be us doing the work to dismantle stigma. Instead, those perpetuating it should be practising enough introspection to realise the conditioning that our neoliberalism world has used to dehumanised people such as myself. The expectation that we will do the work is fundamentally flawed in a world that does not care enough to practice insight.

Until such a time that wider society is ready and willing to see its own role in our oppression and marginalisation, we will continue to be mistreated. It should not be our job to tackle structural oppression while also trying to survive it. That is what most of us are pouring our energy into; survival.

David Gray-Hammond 0 Comments
Verified by MonsterInsights