Aspies For Freedom

Full Version: History behind Asperger's.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome as a mental disorder is fundamentally flawed. The scientific basis for it is founded on the unsound unscientific and amoral principles of eugenics. The original title of the eugenic disorder was “Autistic Psychopathy” prior to it being changed to Asperger’s Syndrome. It wasn’t however “autistic” that were the type of people that were being hunted for classification but “psychopaths”. The history behind the syndrome is taken from the Journal of the American Medical Association as reported at the time.

In 1937 The Vienna Psychiatric and Neurologic Association appointed a committee to study the problem of revised insanity laws for Austria. Prominent in the legislative program sponsored by this group was the establishment of state detention institutions for psychopaths who, although not insane within the legal definition, were nevertheless a public menace. Professor Berze pointed out in a lecture to the association that among the psychopaths of the “borderline” type who, in the absence of any definitive mental disease, cannot be declared “insane” are recruited those mentally subnormal criminals who constitute a permanent social menace. If one of these persons is convicted of an offence he may perhaps receive a light punishment or be placed under observation in a psychiatric institution for a time, then soon released as “not insane” to prey upon society. And this occurs even if the person presents an obvious picture of moral insanity. Under the existing Austrian law it is impossible to keep a criminal of the “borderline” type in permanent detention as the hospitals for the insane were already filled to capacity with genuine mental cases. The Vienna psychiatrists recommended not only the detention of dangerous psychopaths but a continuous systematic supervision of all psychopathic persons. This would assure special legal protection of the non-criminal psychopaths. Any abnormal person who believes that some one has wronged or offended him who accordingly utters threats, can, under the proposed legislation, be rendered harmless before he has had the time to make good his threats. (JAMA 109, 1937 page 1465)

In August 1938 The Congress of the European Society of Mental Hygiene met at Munich under the auspices of the German Committee for Mental Hygiene, a branch of the Society of German Neurologists. The following is taken from the recording of that congress. Professor Rudin of Munich presided. The mental hygiene movement is recognised to have originated in America, to have slowly gained headway in other countries after 1905 and to have spread much more rapidly since the world war. The German Association for Mental Hygiene was founded in 1925; it was superseded in 1935 by the mentioned committee. In recent years the latter has stressed the problems of eugenics in conformity with the German national attitude. Even at this congress of the European organization the first theme of discussion was “The Eugenic Marriage” introduced by Morgenthaler of Berne and Chairman Rudin. Morgenthaler spoke on the selection of the marriage partner. In his opinion, every healthy person should marry. Conversely, he opposes the marriage of a person who may be classed as incurably a member of one of the following groups: the feeble minded, the insane, excessively egocentric psychopaths, degenerate hysterics, drug addicts, homosexuals and manifest schizoids. He also is against the marriage of persons unsuited for a tranquil married life because of abnormal aggressiveness, passivity or introversion. (JAMA 111, 1938 No 26)

In 1939 The Society of German Neurologists and Psychiatrists met in Wiesbaden. The president, Professor Rudin, pointed out that psychiatry in its efforts for improving racial hygiene performed a timely and progressive service. He accredited psychiatry with having been the first division of medicine to point out to the state and the national socialist party the dangers latent in psychopathic persons and to give impetus to the well-known legal measures taken. It was fallacious to assume, he said, that psychiatry would become increasingly superfluous, because psychopaths according to the laws governing racial hygiene would soon die out. This assumption involves the danger of deterioration for the psychiatric profession, whereas psychiatry requires the most competent physicians, because it deals with many dangerously ill with hereditary psychoses. He said, “The individual therapeutist may bungle and mar one or two human lives, but the poor psychiatrist, whole generations”. Rudin warned against undermining the reputation of psychiatrists. (JAMA 113 1939 page 1501)

Following Austria’s annexation to the Third Reich in 1938 JAMA’s correspondent to Berlin recorded in Asperger’s Vienna on 4th February 1939 as follows:

“The New Wiener Medizinische Gesellschaft”

“In the train of events under the new regime in Austria the famous Gesellschaft der Aerzte, like many other time-honoured organisations, has lately been dissolved. In 1937 the centenary of the society was celebrated in a manner befitting so illustrious a medical body. The greatest German names in the world of medicine enthusiastically participated in this celebration. The list of speakers and scientific lecturers was brilliant and in keeping with the accomplishments of the society and its reputation. But its continuance was not to be tolerated by the Nazi rulers of Vienna, and, like all the other medical societies, it was disestablished, in the 101st year of its existence. In its stead a new Wiener medizinsche Gesellschaft was created, designed to serve medical practitioners and scientific research. Naturally only Aryan doctors are admitted to membership and in addition foreigners who are unquestionably in sympathy with the regime. The plan of the new society includes sections for the various special disciplines to take the place of the former societies of specialists. There is also newly added a special section for military medicine. The president of the new society is no distinguished clinician; he is the Nazi district governor of Vienna, that is to say a politician who is also an official of the Nazi bureau of national health.

In his inaugural address, February 4, the new president himself stated that he was well aware that many representatives of science were not wholly in accord with the establishment of the new organisation under political rather than under scientific auspices. The president is Dr O. Planner-Plan. This political control has become necessary, he stated, because as district governor he is better informed about local public health affairs than anyone else. Since he has the representatives of science at his beck and call, it is possible for him to draw on consultant opinion in any problem which may arise. As he put it, “Prominent representatives of the various specialities may be commissioned to give an opinion with regard to any questions, and thus their abundant knowledge will be made to serve the nations health.” Dr. Planner-Plan’s address was embroidered with a wealth of detail, which may be briefly summarized: The present speedy tempo of the national work program in Germany not only should be maintained but should be surpassed. This means that a maximal expenditure of energy will be demanded of all German workers and soldiers. A further objective is conservation of the prolonged efficiency of the nations workers. In this connection the physicians have an important mission to fulfil. Specialising physicians, too, have their respective duties, which the president went on to enumerate. At each session of the new society a lecture and demonstrations will be given. It is further planned to correct certain bad features of medical practice; above all, an endeavour will be made to effect better collaboration between directors of clinics and specialists active as consultants.

THE NAZI CREED WITH REGARD TO MEDICINE

The principle address at the inaugural session was delivered by Prof. Franz Hamburger, ordinarius in paediatrics (and successor of Pirquet), long known for his Nazi sympathies. He climaxed his talk with the following pronouncement: “National socialism means a revolution in every sphere of our civilisation and culture. No phase of western culture is unaffected by it. Most noteworthy of all, and what must remain most noteworthy, is the revolution in the realm of medical science, in the field of public health.” The speaker went on to say that, despite the achievements of natural science within the past 150 years, medicine had been on the wrong track. “Medicine has now progressed beyond its old frontiers and has broken out of its shell, thanks to the philosophy and deeds of the fuhrer.” The healing art of yesterday has become the planned hygiene of today, the medical knowledge of mankind. Thus paediatrics becomes the medical study of children, gynaecology the medical study of women and so on. “With admiral clarity and logic the fuhrer points the way into these fields, “like a physician by the grace of God he shows us the path to health.” The rubbish of which physicians must free themselves is the dross of misapplied science, that pseudoscience in medicine which opposes itself to the clearly ascertainable facts of everyday experience. Hamburger then assailed “that freedom from preconception” which has been such a source of pride. “A real renascence of medical science, on Nazi foundations, must take place.” That which is taught by university professors must be completely founded on the tenents of the Nazi program of life and health. “This should be easier for him (the teacher) because national socialism rests on an absolutely sound biological basis.” The chief spokesmen of the various medical disciplines at the universities must be confirmed Nazis; this applies especially to clinicians. Hamburger went on to deprecate the “arrogance of physicians” and to put in a good word for “nature medicine,” which, he said, ought not to be too lightly esteemed. “National socialism, unlike any other political philosophy or party program, is in accord with the natural history and biology of man. And because national socialism considers all known physiologic data from nature and from human behaviour, it merely represents truths about man. It is accordingly well suited to the direction of the health of our people.” Hamburger then turned his fire in succession on Catholicism, liberalism and socialism. He next entered into a discussion of several general problems, in the course of which he said that only a wrongly educated, intellectually biased patient would wish to know the diagnosis-and more along the same line.
(JAMA 112 1939 page 1981)

Hans Asperger worked as the Director of the Department of Orthopaedagogy at the Children’s Clinic of the University of Vienna under president Franz Hamburger. His postdoctoral thesis entitled “Autistic Psychopathy” in Childhood, submitted to the medical faculty at the university was entered for publication in Archiv fur Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten on 8th October 1943.

Hans Asperger’s thesis is consistent with the eugenic approach as set out by Franz Hamburger. The lead term he uses at the start of his paper is “psychopath” as the description for the group of people he is studying. On page two of his paper he sets out the following “The attempt is made to characterise and categorise personalities, especially psychopathic personalities…. It is impossible here to enter into a discussion of the numerous existing character theories, never mind the typologies of psychopathic characters. Just as an example for them all, the most well known and for practicality’s sake, the most useful categorisation system… differentiates between the hyperthymic, depressive, insecure, fanatic, attention-seeking, temperamental, explosive, emotionally-cold, will-less, asthenic psychopaths”.

The method of study coincides with Hamburgers approach, which is “The rubbish of which physicians must free themselves is the dross of misapplied science, that pseudoscience in medicine which opposes itself to the clearly ascertainable facts of everyday experience.” Asperger provides the method of observation “as a typology,… which dispenses with a system built according to logical points of view because such a system does not for us appear to correspond to the reality of life.”

As Hamburger put it “national socialism rests on an absolutely sound biological basis.” It would appear some sixty years after the catastrophe that nazi eugenics created we are agreeing with him in taking up Asperger’s diagnosis.

Author “Autistic Shoes : Evolution of Behaviour”

earthmonkey Wrote:
Besides, as Simen pointed out, his view is a lot more mainstream than many of our views. So if we plan to be effective adovcates for these issues, why not begin by debating with someone on this forum? For many people, the issue of selective abortion is not so obvious as it may seem to many of us. For me, it seems obvious that same-sex marriage should be legal. But many people are opposed to it, and it is not any use to go publicly and proclaim, "Well, it's so obvious that it should be legal, we shouldn't even have a debate on it." How is that effective advocacy?


Very good point.

As a side note - not intended as a slight against Simen, or as a statement of what should be allowed on this site - when I want to practice cure debating, a good place to go is the "Autism Speaks" forums. It not only hones your debating skills, but it teaches you how to hold your emotions in check during debates, as any anti-cure people expressing even a hint of anger are banned. Also, it's about the only place where debating the issue does any good - here we're just preaching to the converted. I think I've actually gotten through to a few people over there, which is quite heartening.

Simen Wrote:
Well, I would prefer if they channeled their anger towards something other than personal attacks.


In an ideal world, absolutely - I'm not condoning personal attacks, and I usually try to prevent them, or ask people to cease them.

I'm just letting you know that they're inevitable in these sorts of debates, and that they're probably not going to go away. Perhaps the best way to deal with them is to reply with something along the lines of "Post ignored due to personal attack", and then continue with the debate.

Simen
As an example of the impact that aborting or killing certain fetuses will have on the population, I'll give China as an example.  In the 50's and 60's it was very common for people to kill female children because they wanted the name to carry on.  The impact of this is that age group has quite a large number of men and not many women in which to breed with, so now they have to marry the younger women.  People didn't stop doing it though, even when they saw the impact on the population.  The government finally had to step in.

Now the problem with allowing parents to abort autistic fetuses is that autistics are actually a necessary part of our population, ie. research, IT, science, math, etc etc.  Like in China though, if allowed to do it, parents will because they see it as not their problem what happens in society.  This is because they will have been given the option to get rid of child that will be deemed flawed and to try again for this lovely perfect child.

Lucie1 Wrote:
Zacchie - suggesting that Simen indicated autism is bad is a bit stretch - seems really unfair.


I know that Simen doesn't think autism is bad. I was more referring to the fact that this site is a haven from the cultural idea that "autism is bad", and the points of view that come with it (pro-cure, pro-eugenics, pro-aversive ABA, etc).

My opinion of Simen, which I know will be refuted, is that he likes debating as an intellectual exercise, and doesn't understand some of the emotional reactions people have to his words.

Simen Wrote:
Actually, they won't if they don't think of it as pure evil, so the task then becomes to make sure they don't.


I think you're missing the point.  The ONLY reason for there to be abortion based on a genetic testing of autism would be if autism was considered to be a major flaw in a child's personality.  If Autism wasn't considered bad, then doctors would not be allowed to give parents the option of aborting.

Batman55 Wrote:

Bella Wrote:
Simen
As an example of the impact that aborting or killing certain fetuses will have on the population, I'll give China as an example.  In the 50's and 60's it was very common for people to kill female children because they wanted the name to carry on.  The impact of this is that age group has quite a large number of men and not many women in which to breed with, so now they have to marry the younger women.  People didn't stop doing it though, even when they saw the impact on the population.  The government finally had to step in.

Now the problem with allowing parents to abort autistic fetuses is that autistics are actually a necessary part of our population, ie. research, IT, science, math, etc etc.  Like in China though, if allowed to do it, parents will because they see it as not their problem what happens in society.  This is because they will have been given the option to get rid of child that will be deemed flawed and to try again for this lovely perfect child.


I realize you are not talking about me or anyone specifically in this post, but what about those autistics who are not good at school, math, science, or programming?  Are they less valuable than autistics who are?


Well that was my etc etc in that post.  I'm not particularly good at math, science or programming either.  I was mainly wanting to point out that autistics are an important part of our society... of course they could be our artists too or our counsellors, writers etc etc... I can't go through all of the creations that impact on society, but I was merely giving examples that nobody could dispute the worth of.  Ideas are also very important, as are different ways of thinking about things.

Simen Wrote:
Yes, they would. Now, there's the option of aborting based on any reason whatsoever--as long as it's inside the legal window, early in the pregnancy, you can abort for any reason you'd like, including reasons that are nothing short of spectacularly stupid (using abortion as prevention, for instance). This is how it works now, and how it must work.

But I can see your point. Since there aren't any prenatal tests for autism, I don't know how many would abort based on it, but we can find similar numbers for Down's. In Norway, 2005 numbers indicate that 84.6% of those who knew their child would have (or be likely to have) Down's Syndrome before birth, chose abortion (source).

Clearly, we gotta be careful. On the other hand, we must be careful not to rely too much on the "natural order" of things, and appeal to nature, because then we have the plain fact that many people who would otherwise be left to die and thus be removed from the gene-pool now survive, and this clearly isn't natural, and this kind of thinking leads to social darwinism, which is the last thing we'd want.

In any case, you simply cannot focus on the achievements of (alleged) autists when arguing against selective abortion, because this encourages the sort of thinking that says our value is entirely dependent on our achievements in life, and people could use this in a cost/benefit analysis and come up with the idea that we can afford to scrap all autists, since their benefits are outweighed by their costs, and their value is entirely dependent on this balance. Frankly, it's a quite inhuman view, IMO, to connect our value with our achievements in this way. Most people never do much to propel the human race any more forward than it was when they were born. Most of us, regardless of our native neurology, simply aren't extraordinary and won't have any extraordinary achievements to point to at the end of our life. By definition, not everyone can be extraordinary, because then the extraordinary becomes the mundane.


The other reasons for aborting are separate to the reasons for aborting based on a child's genes.  Those are reasons based on actually wanting a baby or not wanting a baby and not to do with anything to do with who the baby will become, and thus a different debate.

My point with all the things I have said is society in general terms has a negative view of autism.  The only way to convince the general population that autistic people aren't just a drain on society is to convince them that autistics are just as capable of achieving something as anybody else.  This points autistics out as thinking, intelligent beings and is the only way I can think of to make people think twice about aborting based on a stereotypical view of autism.

Pages: 1 2 3 4
Reference URL's