Well he did emphasise that he saw it as an "autistic personality [disorder]" (personality disorder was usually referred to as "psychopathy" back then) rather than describing it as a developmental disorder or disability.
However, he could not have said it was different from "Autism" because he and Kanner made their studies at roughly the same time, so "Autism" as the PDD it is known nowadays, did not exist. Hence there was no way he could have stated that it was significantly different from "Autism". :roll:
What REALLY irks me about Schafer et al is that they make out like autism meant lifelong profound retardation. Have they not bothered to read Kanner's original papers - didn't all his patients learn to speak eventually? Does that mean they all got "cured" (because according to Schafer if you're verbal enough to disagree with him you "can't be autistic") - and that without ABA or any other such "cures"? :-(
Well if I were you I REALLY wouldn't bother trying to debate with those folks. Logic doesn't even come into their arguments and you just end up more frustrated and confused because you get accused of "blaming" people etc.
My personal view is that they often have huge guilty consciences and as soon as anyone criticises their PoV, they project their own bad feelings into what you say or write to them :-( .
You can't tell from what they wrote WHY their son nearly died though. He might've ended up running into the road or something so you can't know whether or not this is due to co-morbids, surely?
You can't tell from what they wrote WHY their son nearly died though. He might've ended up running into the road or something so you can't know whether or not this is due to co-morbids, surely?
I wouldn't describe running into the road as a "complication of autism" any more than I would describe getting into a bar fight as a complication of neurotypicality.
You can't tell from what they wrote WHY their son nearly died though. He might've ended up running into the road or something so you can't know whether or not this is due to co-morbids, surely?
I wouldn't describe running into the road as a "complication of autism" any more than I would describe getting into a bar fight as a complication of neurotypicality.
I'm confused. How the hell does someone almost die of autism or any comorbids?
Some people are so stupid...
I feel sorry for the child that has to have such an idiotic parent.
Stella :-(
It sounds somewhat like they used the wrong term but yes, that was my point - we don't know WHAT they meant, so it seems wrong to say point blank that it must have been a "co-morbid".
I find it quite sad when any problems or difficulties are briskly blamed on "co-morbidities" without even knowing what they actually are.
Nobody dies from autism, Okay
That of course is true, and please do not take my comment solely in light of this thread/what you said. I generally find it sad, not specifically with regards to what you wrote.
This is not the first time I have hear/read people instantly jumping to the "Oh it MUST be co-morbids, NEVER autism" conclusion as soon as problems or complications etc. are mentioned, even though in most cases the things they pushed off onto "co-morbids" were things that many autistics experiences.
However I cannot think of any co-morbids that would cause death just in themselves, and since we don't know the situation the writer was describing, it could be anything from an accident stemming from lack of sense of danger to something totally unrelated to autism which the writer just felt was *appropriate* even though it wasn't.
I'm sorry I did not clarify this - I should have stated that this was a comment "In and of itself" rather than a direct comment on your post.
LOL I think Lenny has lost his marbles completely now! Maybe we should start a petition to send bags of marbles to Mr. Schafer? 8)
I do appreciate the letter from Laurie Enders though - what theories does Amy have on this?
Who knows his autistic kid might even enjoy them! 