20 Jul 2011, 2:24 pm
20 Jul 2011, 2:34 pm
20 Jul 2011, 2:44 pm
Janissy wrote:
memesplice wrote:
Yes I did! years ago , thanks for reminding me. Eric Berne That's what it is ! I'm Ok - you're not OK- we're OK -You not OK-
That ok-ness or not was quite a meme in the 70's. I remember those books well. As a life philosophy, I prefer this:
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?o ... 3&Itemid=0
I'm not ok, you're not ok, and that's ok.
Here's my "Autistic" version:
I'm Okay, So Knock it Off!
20 Jul 2011, 2:48 pm
20 Jul 2011, 2:53 pm
20 Jul 2011, 2:54 pm
20 Jul 2011, 3:25 pm
MrXxx wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, when you stated entire spectrum, I really did think you were including kanner's type autism, maybe my TOM is acting up again. 
Hmm. I do remember using the phrase "entire spectrum," but can't recall exactly what it was in reference to. This has been such a long conversation, with so many of you, it's getting harder to keep track of what I said about what, which parts were meant as flat statements, and which were intended as conjecture. Let me see if I can find it.
Here is the only place in the thread that I used the phrase "entire spectrum"
Quote:
Personally, and this is solely from my own mind and perspective, I DO believe all forms of Autism, throughout the entire spectrum IS a disability.
In that statement I WAS Including Kanner's and all forms of Autism. Yes, I do think they are all disabilities, however what differs is HOW I define the term, as opposed to how the medical field might, or the Government.
And that is part of the difficulty associated with the rest of this post. What constitutes a disability can be very subjective.
aghogday wrote:
To clarify my statement on the ADA, I didn't state that all ASD's were included in the ADA...
Actually, that's exactly what you said, in so many words.
Quote:
]I'm fairly certain you are already aware, but just for clarification, legally in the US, under the American's With Disabilities Act, ALL ASD's fit the legal definition of a disability that impairs an individual in a major area of functioning in life.
Bolding and capitalization added to point it out. My intention isn't to nit pick, just to help clarify the point. I think what you meant to do at this point, in your last post clarifying this, is to say that what you actually said wasn't what you meant. I'm sure I've probably done it myself somewhere in this thread.
The only reason I pointed that out is because there are a lot of people who think they are qualified for disability by simple virtue of the fact that they are diagnosed ASD. I just wanted to be sure those who do think so and read this, are properly informed.
Quote:
While the ADA itself does not list disabilities that meet the definition, US Code Title 29 PART 1630—REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT was ammended and put into effect March 25, this year; it does provide a list of impairments that should normally meet the definition of disabilities under the ADA, and Autism is included.
This is why what the laws actually say and mean can become so confusing. That site, while it does appear to contain the entire text of the regulation, also contains a great deal of commentary that is not part of the regulation. The actual official electronic version, with nothing but the regulation itself can be found here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... 29;cc=ecfr
On that page, you will find only one reference to Autism, and it is used only as an example along with some other disorders. It's not really a list meant to be taken as a complete and all inclusive "list of included disorders."
As the first section of the regulation itself states:
Quote:
The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether covered entities have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of disability.
In other words, neither the ADA nor Title 29 Part 1630 actually define or list what does or does not qualify for a disability.
Examples are given, and one of them is ASD, however nowhere in either document are any clear lists given of disorders that are "automatically" disabilities. Downs Syndrome isn't even mentioned. Think about that. I don't think anyone would argue that Downs Syndrome is a disability.
The purpose behind both the law and the regulation was never to "define" disability. That has always been left up to the medical field.
EDIT: Sorry, that's wrong. "Define" is not the right word. They have defined the term, but the definition is about ability vs. inability, not about what qualifies to be called a disability. It should read:
"The purpose behind both the law and the regulation was never to provide lists of specific conditions that automatically qualify as disabilities."
My mistake on the link, I had that more general webpage open on my desktop along with the official website and copied the link to the general information page, but the quotes I provided that stated that virtually all assessments of impairments including autism should meet the definition of disability under the ADA, were from the same exact link you provided from the official regulation. Thanks for bringing that to my attention; I will correct the link.
I'm pretty sure we do generally agree on this, but you may still be misunderstanding my wording on this. I'm not stating that the ADA act automatically covers individuals with Autism as a disability. Here is my original quote again:
Quote:
I'm fairly certain you are already aware, but just for clarification, legally in the US, under the American's With Disabilities Act, all ASD's fit the legal definition of a disability that impairs an individual in a major area of functioning in life. But I understand from societies point of view they don't see you as disabled, just different.
I'm just stating here that under the American's with Disabilities act all ASD's fit the legal definition of a disability that impair an individual in a major area of functioning in life; the required criteria for Autism is essentially the same as the required criteria to meet the definition of disability under the ADA.
My intent wasn't to indicate that all individuals with Autism are automatically covered under the ADA, they do have to be assessed individually when they invoke their rights under the ADA, but the new legal regulations that enforce the ADA clearly state that Autism is an impairment among others that in virtually all cases should meet the legal definition of a disability under the ADA.
The reason down's syndrome is not included in the examples, is because everyone understands that down's syndrome is an impairment that substantially impacts major life activities. It's only a matter of assessing whether or not someone has the impairments of Down syndrome to meet coverage.
And, just to clarify again, the ADA has nothing to do with financial assistance, Social Security Disability, or Social Security Supplemental income. Those covered under the ADA can invoke the protection from the act in school or the workplace for reasonable accommodations and to be protected from discrimination based on disability.
You mentioned in the last post that some people think they automatically qualify for disability with that have an ASD, I may be wrong but I think you may be referring to the assumption that some people think they may be automatically qualified for financial assistance from the government through SSDI or SSI. I wouldn't want anyone to infer that from my post.
If anyone is interested in what rights the ADA act provides for those that are covered by it, te ADA website ADA.gov provides more information. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision that provides the regulations to enforce the ADA provides more details on what we have been discussing here; here is a link to the EEOC site that provides frequently asked questions and answers for the new ammendment. The question regarding what we have been discussing here is #19 in the link:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/regulations/ada_qa_final_rule.cfm
Quote:
19. Do the regulations give any examples of specific impairments that will be easily concluded to substantially limit a major life activity?
Yes. The regulations identify examples of specific impairments that should easily be concluded to be disabilities and examples of major life activities (including major bodily functions) that the impairments substantially limit. The impairments include: deafness, blindness, intellectual disability (formerly known as mental retardation), partially or completely missing limbs, mobility impairments requiring use of a wheelchair, autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV infection, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia. [Section 1630.2(j)(3)]
Yes. The regulations identify examples of specific impairments that should easily be concluded to be disabilities and examples of major life activities (including major bodily functions) that the impairments substantially limit. The impairments include: deafness, blindness, intellectual disability (formerly known as mental retardation), partially or completely missing limbs, mobility impairments requiring use of a wheelchair, autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV infection, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia. [Section 1630.2(j)(3)]
This may be the clearest answer to the question, since it's coming directly from the organization that enforces the rules pertaining to the ADA, and isn't as confusing as the law itself can be when one tries to interpret it.
Thank you for engaging in this tangent with me, I hope I have provided better clarification this time, as to what my intended meaning was in my statement.
I think it is good news for people with autism that want a better opportunity for success in the workplace.
20 Jul 2011, 8:31 pm
21 Jul 2011, 12:30 pm
aghogday wrote:
MrXxx wrote:
{Long post a page or two back. But I did read it all. }
} Yeah, I think when all is said and done, we were pretty much in agreement on the whole thing to begin with. Can't remember how it evolved exactly, but if I recollect correctly I believe it began with talking about disability, as in whether or not ASD's are or are not disabilities.
I think i an safely say we agree on these points:
In REALITY they are.
Legally, they must be considered disabilities in the workplace.
Legally, they may be considered disabilities for purposes of financial help from the Government, but determining whether they are is dependent on a medical determination of quality of life and physical and mental function. Basically, "If the Government believes you can get a job, you don't get disability."
That last point I do think most of us here understand, but there are some who've never looked into it that do think it's simpler than that, as in, "ASD = Disability" in all situations, which of course, isn't true.
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
21 Jul 2011, 12:40 pm
21 Jul 2011, 2:32 pm
21 Jul 2011, 4:02 pm
