Should the DSM V drop Asperger syndrome?

Ghaziuddin (2010) wrote a position paper. He argued that DSM-V should keep Asperger syndrome as a separate label. He offered new wording to fix the criteria instead of deleting the name.

The paper is theoretical. It does not test kids or run trials. It talks about why the label still helps clinicians and families.

The author found that dropping the label could erase useful history. He says the name guides treatment and self-identity. He offers tweaked rules so the diagnosis can stay.

Finucane et al. (2023) looks like a contradiction but is not. They defend the DSM-5 term "autism spectrum disorder" after Asperger was removed. The 2023 letter accepts the change; Ghaziuddin (2010) fought it. The field simply moved on.

Tassé et al. (2013) and Luckasson et al. (2013) do the same dance for intellectual disability. They ask ICD-11 to drop "mental retardation" and adopt new wording. All three papers push for cleaner labels, but only Mohammad tries to save the old one.

Wolfensberger (2011) adds a twist. He warns that forcing "people-first" talk can backfire. His point supports Mohammad: sudden language swaps can confuse clinicians and families.

You still hear parents say "Asperger's" even though DSM-5 deleted it. Knowing the back-story helps you explain why the term vanished and why some clients cling to it. Use the current DSM-5 codes in reports, but respect the client’s preferred language during conversation.