This isn't Asperger's Syndrome where the person is pretty much normal, this is very severe!
We've been having a somewhat fractious debate recently about who may or may not be welcome round here...
...let's have another one, about the meaning of 'normal'...
Do not feed the troll.
I am so sick of tired of people calling other people trolls for no reason. So he came here and asked why the cure is bad and he made a point about LFA and the other bad stuff. How is that bad? He wanted to hear our opinions, not flames.
Children with autism appear to have a higher than normal risk for certain co-existing conditions
Most of us aren't against treating things like epilepsy or cancer. That said, there is a large selection bias here in that there has been very little research conducted on co-morbid conditions that are more common to neurotypicals than to autistics. This goes for a lot of other aspects too--there's a lot of money in figuring out "what's wrong with autistic people", and much less for doing basic research.
Anyway, why are a lot of us opposed to a cure? Personally, I see two issues. The first is the very real possibility of coercion and/or propoganda(from doctors to parents and parents to children). The second is that IMO the world needs a certain porportion of autistic people, especcially in fields that reguire high systemizing abilities, such as computer programming. By eliminating these traits, we could be hurting ourselves as a society.
Children with autism appear to have a higher than normal risk for certain co-existing conditions
Most of us aren't against treating things like epilepsy or cancer. That said, there is a large selection bias here in that there has been very little research conducted on co-morbid conditions that are more common to neurotypicals than to autistics. This goes for a lot of other aspects too--there's a lot of money in figuring out "what's wrong with autistic people", and much less for doing basic research.
Anyway, why are a lot of us opposed to a cure? Personally, I see two issues. The first is the very real possibility of coercion and/or propoganda(from doctors to parents and parents to children). The second is that IMO the world needs a certain porportion of autistic people, especcially in fields that reguire high systemizing abilities, such as computer programming. By eliminating these traits, we could be hurting ourselves as a society.
Black people have higher rates of sickle cell and only women get ovarian cancer.
As an autistic person and self-advocate, I'd be more than happy to learn skills (such as independent living stuff, speech therapy, job finding skills, etc.), and in fact I've been doing my best to advocate for them (which can be difficult when you have difficulty in initiating speech and the IEP meetings only last 30 minutes once or twice a year).
However, if someone said, "take this and you won't be autistic anymore" then I would refuse that.
While autism has been medically defined by deficits and common co-occuring conditions (such as seizures), that is not all that there is to autism. And I'm not just talking about those who go on to be engineers or otherwise considered intelligent or successful; other aspects to autism include a different kinds of perception, cognition, and problem-solving. While I am disabled by virtue of being autistic, and yes I have had significant delays in acquiring certain skills, such as toileting and organization, dressing and take much longer to understand and learn instructions, how I am is a valid way of being that can be accomodated and understood.
Also regarding IQ: there was a study done that using a heavily language-based IQ test called the WISC, and then taking that group of autistic people and giving them another test called Raven's progressive matrices, which is less language-based. On the WISC (lots of language), a third of the autistics scored as mentally ***, whereas on the Raven's (little language), only 10% scored as such, with some people previously considered mentally *** as scoring in the genius range. While people have as much a right to exist whatever they score on an IQ test, this goes to show just one of the many ways in which autistics have been misinterpreted and underestimated within the medical and psychological frameworks.
I just finished taking the WISC about a week ago, and while the spatial sections were in the high average range, the verbal section was in the low average (so I'm guessing 70-90), and this verbal score was obtained using responses that I had typed rather than spoken (it would have been much, much lower if I had not been allowed or able to type). In the last four years of high school I have been enrolled in a program for creative writing. I imagine that many young children given this test would not be able to type, much less be able to use speech to ask for the opportunity to type.
(I wasn't able to request with speech to type; he had consulted another person in special services about my speech difficulties and she told him I did better if I typed, so he redid the section with me typing responses). I am 18, so just imagine if there was someone who had less speech than me, and who either couldn't type yet or wasn't given the option, had taken this test (as has happened quite often I am sure). In fact, I am lucky that when I have taken these IQ tests, it has only been after 5-10 years after going through school, learning to type, writing essays with good grades, going into AP classes, and such, so that they acknowledge (as the psychologist did) that the IQ scores indicate more of a lower limit than a higher limit or true estimation of my abilities. Most kids don't get this benefit of the doubt kind of response, even when research clearly shows that many of them indeed should.
Also, if a pre-natal test for autism (such as exists for Down Syndrome, such as Autism Speaks raises funds for) were created, then that would lead to the abortion of a lot of autistic people, and it would be highly unlikely that the test would be able to indicate functioning level anway, even if that were a good way to divide us into people "better off living" and "better off not living" (which I greatly disagree).
And if they somehow developed a way to get rid of autism in a person already born, then autistic people wouldn't get a chance to decide for ourselves. And it's not just parents of so-called "low-functioning" people who want autism to go away. I know of at least one person who's publicly stated that she wanted to get rid of her son's being autistic because of her fears of him "not fitting in", though his diagnosis was Asperger and from what I read, he seemed more independent than I am at an older age from him. There is a good quote that rings true that goes something like "if there is a good way to divide us based on functioning level, you wouldn't be able to define it by our opinions on cure."
I also know that there are parents who are threatened to have (or have taken) their kids away because they wouldn't give their kid a psychiatric medication (sometimes even in the face of evidence that said medications gave the kid terrible physical side effects). If there was a way that parents would get rid of autism, and the parents refused, people would look at them as though they're abusing or neglecting their child rather than respecting their differences and trying to make a better world for them by advocating for acceptance, accommodations, and skills teaching.
There are also a number of parents who, after hearing the diagnosis, were very eager to get rid of their kid's autistic behaviors, but that after awhile, and they learn more about autism than just what they've heard form Autism Speaks or Rain Man, they realize that it's not cure, but treatment and acceptance that they're really looking for. This happens on many levels, regardless of functioning of said child.
So while I would like to say, "let's make a cure, and give it only to people who want it", it is sadly unrealistic in this world that we could entrust the governments, the social and medical institutions to this responsibility. There is simply too much misunderstanding about disabled people (which not all autistic people are, but many of us certainly are). I certainly want a future where I could raise a child in a world that doesn't look at their mother as a defective person, and who (if on the spectrum, as would be likely if I had a child) would understand that they are valued just as they are, not not regarded a burden for existing as who she is.
*that's supposed to read:
would understand that they are valued just as they are, and not regarded a burden for existing as who he or she is.
we are not against treatment for autism, we against a cure for those auties.
If I could find a cure for this, I would. I'd never want to subject anyone to the way I feel.
Welcome RedRevolver.
I am curious to know how you feel.
What is it that you would cure? And what would you do with my strengths?
... it mentioned that there are some not-so-ideal things
There have been suggestions made that autism is worse than cancer.
There is a significant increased risk of skin cancer amongst people with pale skins, but there is no worldwide outcry against those same people being allowed to go outside. Instead, we teach them about sunscreens and hats and gloves and long sleeves and long pants. Sometimes they will forget or misjudge and get severe sunburn and/or skin cancer. Although this is traumatic for their family and expensive for the community there are no demands for funding to develop ways of genetically increasing their melanin levels to give them dark brown or black skin.
... Add to that the immense difficulty of social interaction, and humans are by nature social creatures
The trouble with generalisations is that they tend to become self-fulfilling prophesies. For example:
1) You are a social creature. You go out with the intention of meeting/interacting with other people. The people that you meet are social creatures. Therefore, all humans are social creatures.
2) I am not a social creature. I do not go out with the intention of meeting/interacting with other people. I do go out to obtain food and to source or research ideas. The people I meet are working at their jobs, producing and/or distributing food or ideas. Therefore, all people produce and/or distribute food or ideas.
My f2f (face to face) relationships are acceptable if and when I know what to do, how long it will last, and whether I have any control of the environment ... light, noise, smell, temperature, proximity of others ...
My chosen social relationships are with people who are willing to explore their thoughts and ideas and put them in writing.
... the delayed learning, some of which can be so severe the child cannot walk (Okay, that's anectodal evidence, but still.)
There is no evidence that Autism Spectrum Disorders 'cause' any other condition.
There are different types of epilepsy and they can occur at any age.
If you are referring to dyslexia and/or ADD, I have both.
If you are referrring to mental retardation (eg, neurological lesions), they may occur alongside many other conditions.
If you are referring to hypotonia, again that can occur alongside many other conditions.
If you are referring to 'imitative and imaginative play', or 'sharing', or 'emotion', then please be aware that I do all of those things in my own way, and if that does not meet your acceptability criteria then I would say that they work well enough. And besides, each can be a component of other conditions.
... what is so bad about at least trying to treat Autism? This isn't Asperger's Syndrome where the person is pretty much normal, this is very severe!
You need to give more thought to what you consider is 'normal' about 'being normal'.
I have AS, but am not 'pretty much normal'. I am a reasonable actor, if the play does not go on too long.
If you cure my inabilities, what would happen to my abilities?
Who would decide the cut-off point between LFA and HFA?
Who would decide what happens to people who refuse treatment?
What happens to people who refuse to abort their child?
What if people cannot afford treatment?
... I just haven't found much on the other side of the Autism Treatment thing, and a lot of this site is fairl vague, so if you would be so kind as to throw in your two cents for the sake of learning, that would be very helpful. Thanks.
If you want to read about alternative views from different places on the spectrum, you could read the works of Daniel Tammet, Luke Jackson, Stephen Wiltshire, Marc Segar, Temple Grandin, Donna Williams, Wendy Lawson, Gunilla Gerland, Laura Tsconik, Liane Holliday Willey, and Michelle Dawson.
If you are suggesting that I need help with shopping or housework, then a cure is not going to fix it. If those things are so important to you, then do it yourself.
Although I take a lot of medication for co-morbid conditions, the thought of being selectively or wholistically altered to meet the demands of people who already consider me to be deficient or defective is terrifying. People who just want to help? Terrifying. People who enjoy going to public events? Terrifying.
If you want to cure the distress of our families, then provide them with social and emotional support while they help us find our way. If you really want to help, you could redirect those millions of 'curebie' dollars toward services and facilities and for training (for you).
Also, a number of us can be very social, but have a hard time meeting people who accept our differences. I used to have a very hard time making and keeping friends, and was mostly a reject. Then I switched high schools to an art school, and suddenly I had a lot of good friends I was close to.
The ways I am social, are a bit different to NT relationships. But I care about them and show it, and they care about me and show it, and we hang out, converse, and do fun activities together. We also share hard times on each other, whether merely to vent or to figure out a solution. I didn't gain any special inclinations or abilities when transferring schools; I just met people who were willing to communicate with me.
I had met some people who would do this before, a small handful of people, but when I got to my high school, there were many more people to be potential friends.
Imagine that you wen to school with only a very small fraction of the people who actually attended, say maybe 5% of the people who went to school. These are the people who have a fair chance of being willing to talk to you or be seen with you. It gets a little harder to find someone you get on well with, when the pool can be so limited.
Also, being bullied from when very young - as happens to the majority of us - can train you to see maliciousness in even harmless jokes, which can make you seem overly sensitive or serious and put off friends, when in fact you're just employing a survival tactic.
Well a good starting meaning of the word cure, would be to remove a disease or ailment from a person. that is how it is commonly interpited as.
But what if it wasn't a matter of physically altering the brain? What if we could buy a bottle of oxytocin nasal spray over the counter, snort some, and have NT skills for a day or two as needed (job interview, wedding, big social event etc) and then go back to Aspieland when it was over?
Maybe it's the black-and-white thinking thing coming out, but I'd always considered "cure" to mean permanent and irreversible. But what if that doesn't have to be the case?
How is autism an evolutionary advantage? How does it better enable one to deal with one's environment, which is all evolution is concerned with?
