AS = Autism Spectrum
(through the whole previous post)

I cannot foresee the future and I'm not sad about that.

If it read that way it was not quite what I meant! In personal terms the sheer level of difficulties I have experienced - combined with the cost in terms of lost productivity - would be hard to justify, albeit that is may possibly be justified if pitted against the rather amazing achievements of certain relatives which have contributed considerably to medical advances that are now mainstream.

One of the problems with the neurodiversity concept is the very fact that as a society we are already intervening. Medical practise -with the very laudable aim of "do no harm" intervenes to help procreation without really understanding properly the implications in terms of quality of life of resulting children. Further medical advances ensure that a higher percentage of children who would have died actually survive. Such interventions, it could well be argued, potentially result in an increased survival rate of those who are genetically less well endowed to be productive individuals within society. The cost in both societal and individual terms is enormous. The longer term implications for humanity are probably incalculable. I hate expressing these views as almost inevitably they come across as nazi style suggestions of eliminating the undesirables or "weaker" elements of a society. It has, however, to be said that we are already, as a society, changing our "genetic stock" through such interventions.

I wish I could encourage medics to look more closely at factors that modify the expression of genetic endowment. I am quite convinced that the endocrine system is absolutely fundamental in this respect. I cannot understand quite why research is not more focussed here. Neither can I understand why even outside of conception and pregnancy the issues relating the thyroid function are not better evaluated and treated in the UK. (Compare treatment guidelines in the UK for hypothyroidism with those in the US and Denmark - and with research start to consider the collossal impact of appropriate treatments for many people - currently denied to many in the UK as a result of our guidelines.) When you then ADD ON the known links with thyroid problems in pregnancy, pre-eclampsia and the very old fashioned diagnosis of "cretinism" in infants - I have very real reasons for wishing that there was some way to facilitate research into this area.

As a further aside, I look at the enormous funding put into research, I sometimes wish that there were some way in which the public could "vote" to ensure that funding went into research areas that reflected public concerns.

It is, indeed, interesting. But the woman in the wheelchair who decided to accept any child they managed to conceive was simply saying that life of any kind has a real value and that a child of any type was more important than not having a child. All completely natural and understandable. She was not being given a real choice. The real choice would to be to ask her whether, if she conceives, she would like to ensure that the child either had, or did not have, a disability. Now that proposition, I think,  raises slightly different issues....

PS to last reply. I am reminded of those in the deaf community who (as far as I recall) express a very firm wish that any children that they conceive DO have the same disability - simply because they will then "fit into" their community. This relates specifically to the original posting in this thread - it is "as if" having been identified as having a certain disability one is then allowed entry to a societal group (from which "normals" [whatever they are - and I have doubts that there is such a thing]  would be excluded de facto). This again, is natural - we all feel more comfortable when grouped with others who are similar to us. But it says little for societal integration or mainstream acceptance of individual differences.

Sorry to demonstrate my ignorance - but what are tx's? I'm probably demonstrating my aspie ignorance - tx=thankyou's? tx = credits or GP brownie points as assessed within the nhs quota/target system.....?? or Tick boxes? Wish I understood but am probably just demonstrating ignorance or a perceptual gap someplace! In any event I wonder WHY GPs are in favor of mass inclusion. Is it to reduce stigma, is it to increase the opportunity to pick up on family links between conditions, improve stats for research and hence optimise chances of tracking and developing strategies for intervention - or is it because early recognition allows acknowledgment of difficulties, which in and of itself may increase understanding and acceptance both for individuals, families and local communities (which may in and of itself serve to reduce the adverse experiences of many individuals who have specific difficulties of this type).

Hmmm - hence the case for mass diagnosis - and the neurodiversity goal. I think the "line" is a VERY valid concept. Aside from the fact that qualitative variations are also key and critical. One of the things that is putting me off diagnosis at the moment. Really dont think that it will help much and moreover that other peoples preconceptions are likely to create as many if not more problems than are potentially resolved through any possible (or remote) benefits of "recognition".

Love the 1/i 5/s 3/e - ...keyboard probs? (had similar and had to get an external keyboard for my laptop...cheapie solution when stuck.) Amazing that they market laptops so readily but fail to ensure or to point out at the time of purchase that the keyboards will not cope with normal use. Was told that they were supposed to be SECONDARY to having a standalone PC(!) ..after the event, of course. But then, to stretch a point in lateral thinking maybe us late diagnosed aspies are struggling just like the laptop keyboards - trying to function in a usage setting that we were never intended to fulfil - hence in need of adaptive aids/strategies (!) Just like the PC salesmen, we need to earn a crust and are tempted to try to slot into round holes even when we are square in shape. Perhaps we need to remarket ourselves(!)

I would like to stress that this is only my opinion and open too change after discussion and I am not widely read on these matters.

Any screening of a foetus for possible spectrum range and subsequent abortion if not found to "meet the specs" would lead to a devasting loss in human biodiversity not too mention the positive and healthy affects on culture and society.

I have heard that potatoes and wheat are currently limited too a few strains that are prefered for various reasons (ease of growing, hardiness, cost effective) and that scientests are building a "seed bank" of different strains as they realise the danger of these plants been limited to a few variations and succeptible to disease/climate change/other enviromental factors.

Why would we put the human race in a similar position? Sure some people may experience suffering fitting the social norm due to their brain wiring because they experience life on a different level. But you have to consider that they may go on to do great things or perceive things in a way that people like me or you may never be able to.

I'm not a pro lifer per say and understand why a single mother who may not be able to look after a unborn child and abort it out of kindness. But screening for certain characteristics scares me because it could be a slippery slope to someone else deciding they can build a "master race".

Diversity is a strength, with all it's highs and lows(as perceived by each person). If you sit 20 people in a theatre to watch a play and ask each person to tell you about the themes/messages after it's finished the responses would be varied and similar and uniquely interesting.

Again this is just my opinon and open to change/discussion.

I agree that this is one danger. Another is that in many situations if you mention "Aspergers" people (including teachers) FAIL to spot the very real ABILITIES that many people with Aspergers may have and assume general learning difficulties. Problem with all "labels" I guess. But this is an essential area to consider in deciding whether to "disclose" or seek diagnosis in the first instance. Other  peoples misperceptions can be damaging insofar as they may change responses and limit opportunities even with the best of intentions.

To use a physical analogy - someone may be registered blind: more often than not they will actually HAVE some element of vision, but the "normal" population hears "blind" and assumes "totally blind" without properly understanding the fact that in any "disability" there is an enormous range of individual ability and that they will need to ask questions if they want to really understand and respond appropriately to individual needs. Further, there are many documented cases of people thinking that someone is actually "malingering" and pretending to be blind because they observe that they respond to certain visual elements in everyday life. Not a good recipe for effective communication, given that people are often not straight forward enough in their communications to ask and clarify if there is something they do not understand so the scope for misunderstanding is much increased.

This is one of the reasons why I am delaying seeking formal diagnosis for the time being. I actually tested it out recently with a tutor on a local community education course......just out of curiosity mentioning privately that I was in the process of seeking diagnosis. The tutor does not know me well. A few weeks later she mentioned that she did not think... or that she had no evidence... that I had the capability to teach myself new skills. This was a fascinating insight - I haven't yet bothered to correct her as I would need to take her on one side and privately challenge her assumptions. It is specially amusing as I am educated to MSc level with distinctions at dissertation level and elsewhere. I would have been unable to achieve as much as I have done had I not developed particular strategies to overcome some of my personal limitations and been capable of independent learning. I have also taught others - often in subjects that required that I learn creative skills in particular areas in order to teach them to people with disabilities.

It has taught me to be VERY wary of seeking formal diagnosis. Once diagnosed the "label" is on ones medical record. And one is then subject to other peoples misconceptions - which in the medical field is especially problematic. Most medics know a LOT less about learning difficulties than I do. I worked in the dyslexia field for a decade at one stage. So it is easy for me to forget quite how badly informed many people are, even professionals who really should be more aware because they work with people. Misconceptions are rife and potentially a very real problem.