Has the spectrum become too wide? The global debate over the definition of autism intensifies

The scientific and public debate over the boundaries of the definition of autism is escalating following a position published by veteran autism researcher Professor Uta Frith. Frith argued that diagnostic criteria and the way they are currently applied have been significantly expanded, which she claims leads to the misdiagnosis of people, especially those diagnosed at an older age, who do not suffer from classic autism but from other mental or behavioral conditions.

These claims have sparked a widespread stir in the scientific community and among activists on the spectrum, accompanied by sharp attacks and heated reactions online. Conversely, many researchers and activists warn that casting doubt on existing diagnoses could harm the legitimacy of new patients, reduce access to support and assistance services, and perpetuate the under-diagnosis that has persisted for years, especially among women.

The controversy focuses on the dramatic change that the concept of the "spectrum" has brought about in recent decades, which has united under one roof those with complex disabilities alongside people with high functioning. While some experts suggest re-examining the boundaries of the category to prevent the blurring of unique needs, others argue that expanding the definition is part of a necessary scientific advancement in identifying diverse manifestations of autism.

In aid and diagnostic organizations, it is emphasized that the theoretical discussion about the boundaries of the definition does not change the validity of comprehensive clinical assessments performed on patients. It is now estimated in the field that the sharp public confrontation will continue to spark heated discussions among professionals and the medical system around the world, ahead of the formulation of future position papers.