As I mentioned in the other thread, I am interested in starting a cordial discussion on the Cure vs. no-cure issue.  

I am sure many of you have strong opinions and have seen the same debate rehashed many times, but I have not, so if you will humor me I am going to make a new thread about it.

Rules:
Please try to explain your entire chain of reasoning.  Like I said, you may have had this debate many times, but I and presumably others have not.  I would like to hear the whole story on both sides.

If for whatever reason this does up in flames, I will ask the moderators to kill the thread.

My thoughts:
I am neither for or against a "cure" for autism.  

I am pro-mitigation, by that I mean that I absolutely do not want to remove the autism spectrum from the population because I value the contributions associated with neurodiversity.

On the other hand I would like to reduce the major negative effects of associated with /severe/ autism.

In my view HFA/AS is a very, very good thing, but severe crippling autism is not.

To put it in very simple terms:
Eccentric genius = good for both the individual and society
Catatonic cripple = not good for both individual and society

If there was a way to mitigate the development so that the majority of all future autistic children fell into the HFA/AS range I would be delighted, but I would never support 'curing' or eliminating it from the population.

I'm sure members will be able to provide you with links to various threads where these issues have been discussed.

Before you can discuss a cure you have to be clear what it is you are curing. In other words clear about what autism is.
Curing debilitating comorbids is not curing autism.

Re your post

Then we need to educate people to stop crippling autistics.

That is very true for all neurotypes. When they do find a cure for catatonia it will be for all neurotypes - but autism dollars will probably have been used to find it.

Catatonic autism is very rare unless you're talking about the autistics who've been put under a chemical cosh for the benefit of their carers.
That's not their fault, they didn't consent to it, its just the cheapest way.

To put it cynically: from the POV of someone with an IQ ~130, everyone in the IQ range <120 is an intellectual cripple. Thus, 98 % of the poplulation. Independent of whether on the autistic spectrum or not. A few LFAs don't change much.
You still have to live with them (LFA as well as "normal" NTs).

Bottom line: what do you want to change, apart from the attitude of the majority?

I feel the same way sometimes, but I draw the line a little lower for lower IQ people who can at least follow instruction.

What I am saying is, instead of testing to detect and remove autism from the population to "Cure" it.  I think it would be better served to find ways to simply moderate the severity toward the HFA end of the spectrum instead of trying to "cure" it.

Many who are HFA who score well on IQ tests also have serious difficulties with issues including focus, sluggish cognitive tempo, social interaction, and so on. HFA is not always a bed of roses.

Usually when I hear talk about a "cure" they are actually referring to prevention.  e.g. prenatal testing to detect and abort.

Which is something I do not agree with.

Actually that is a very good point.  Environment has a great deal of influence on the development of all children, not just autistic ones.

Bad parenting can "cripple" any kid, but in this case I was referring to very low functioning autistics of all ages.

This post was last modified: 10-20-2012 12:21 AM by Smurfy.

Uh..... Um....

*sighs*

Sheesh.....

This is what I was using as a general guideline to distinguish between HFA and LFA.

http://www.astridvanwoerkom.com/en/autis...oning.html

If there is a better set of criteria that are mores suitable, please share them with me.

AS is not a disease,

It is genetic, it would be like trying to "cure" blue eyes

You cannot "cure" what is

I get what you are saying, but there are "cures" for certain genetic conditions.  Using your eye color example, there is a laser treatment that can permanently change any eye color to blue.

Admittedly that is a digression from the topic.

I agree with your sentiment.

I think you missed my point. I was not disputing the criteria, just pointing out that HFA is not all beer and skittles either.

If someone had offered me a pill when I was a young adult that would have made me more normal, I would have taken it. Now... I wouldn't be normal for quids.

There is no criteria.
The conclusion in your link says "I do, however, believe that there is no strict, black-or-white cut-off point that distinguishes LFA from HFA."

They do not distinguish because there is no such diagnosis as LFA.
The concept of LFA in your head is just your own concept. It was probably formulated by watching distressing videos of chronically ill autistic individuals like the ones Autsqueaks like to scare people with.
Instead of giving them the specialized help they clearly need they make videos of them to generate publicity and money.

From my own experiences people are either autistic or they are not.

The severity, that is the impact on the individual, will vary greatly depending on a whole spectrum of factors.

So called 'severely autistic' people often lead very happy lives: so called 'mildly autistic' people are often depressed and can even be suicidal.
Explain that.

I think it's incredibly arrogant to see your own level of functioning as a goal to which the rest of the population should aspire.  It doesn't just put unreasonable demands on people who can't perform to your standards, but it also stunts people who can outperform you; I experienced a lot of both in school (I show the uneven development of skills that is common with us).  People should be free to reach their zenith, and they should be free to live as is normal for them.  

I don't think catatonic autism is even a form of autism, but a symptom of schizophrenia which now goes under a different name (I believe it's "disorganization").  I could be remembering this wrong, though.  I'd like to suggest this, though: don't go too much by what's written in the really old psych books.  People still cite Freud despite his theories having been updated and revised many times by later thinkers.

Spell to Change Your Eye Color


You'll need at least one candle in the color you want to change your eyes to. You also need a pentacle. You can draw a pentacle if you don't have one. A pentacle is a star inside of a circle (see example below. All the fuzzy/glowy stuff is not necessary.)



Light the candle(s) and sit in front of it/them and chant the following three or more times:

"One, two, three, eyes change for me,
One, two, three (color you have now) to (new color) I see."

Take a deep cleansing breath while you envision yourself with the new eye color, then chant this three or more times:

"By the power of three, so mote it be."

Again visualize your eyes changing from their original color to the new color, then check the mirror.

Note: This spell may only last a day or so if only using one candle. And the color of the candle will be the new eye color!

http://www.everythingunderthemoon.net/sp...-color.htm

Somethings fishy....