Search results

Clinically, it is often observed that autistic people may have a heightened need for rules and may find rule violations very distressing. It is clinically plausible that autistic individuals may be prone to hyper-morality and greater reactivity and adverse experiences arising from moral threats and violations. Such adverse experiences may, in some instances, lead to moral distress (MD) or in more extreme cases moral injury. Thus, this study aims to examine how MD can operate in the context of autism.

The authors explore clinical hypotheses on how MD can intersect with different features of autism by drawing on clinical and research knowledge of autism spectrum disorder and how it contextualises experiences of morality.

Based on a review of the literature and theory, the authors hypothesise that autistic individuals may be more prone to MD where they have a lower threshold for MD. As a result of this lower threshold, they may have more frequent exposure to MD, experience more immediate and intense subjective reactions to moral transgressions, for more protracted periods. Also, they may find it more difficult to over-ride and neutralise moral outrage. As a result, they may be more susceptible to mental health sequelae and impaired social and occupational functioning. Practical recommendations are made for clinicians supporting people with autism with a propensity for MD or moral injury, to improve their quality of life.

Practical recommendations are made for clinicians supporting people with autism with a propensity for MD or moral injury, to improve their quality of life.

Understanding MD in an autistic context is important for detecting and treating the adverse impacts of MD on autistic individuals. Importantly, erroneous preconceptions about moral reasoning in autism need to be mitigated to fully understand the moral experiences and harness the many strengths of people with autism.

Adolescence and emerging adulthood are key developmental stages with high risk for trauma exposure and the development of mental and substance-use disorders (SUDs). This study aims to compare the clinical profiles of adolescents (aged 12–17 years) and emerging adults (aged 18–25 years) presenting for treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and SUD.

Data was collected from the baseline assessment of individuals (n = 55) taking part in a randomized controlled trial examining the efficacy of an integrated psychological therapy for co-occurring PTSD and SUDs (PTSD+SUD) in young people.

Both age groups demonstrated complex and severe clinical profiles, including high-frequency trauma exposure, and very poor mental health reflected on measures of PTSD, SUD, suicidality and domains of social, emotional, behavioral and family functioning. There were few differences in clinical characteristics between the two groups.

Similarity between the two groups suggests that the complex problems seen in emerging adults with PTSD + SUD are likely to have had their onset in adolescence or earlier and to have been present for several years by the time individuals present for treatment.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to compare the demographic and clinical profiles of adolescents and emerging adults with PTSD + SUD. These findings yield important implications for practice and policy for this vulnerable group. Evidence-based prevention and early intervention approaches and access to care are critical. Alongside trauma-focused treatment, there is a critical need for integrated, trauma-informed approaches specifically tailored to young people with PTSD + SUD.