hypothetical question

Post Reply New Topic

The NTs call it conformity

And aliens call it humanity and anyone part of it is part of the collective process of thought, idea and evolution.

Did you even read my post? Read it again (and properly this time) before you make assumptions about my views.

1. You assume i think people with low functioning autism are inferior. no, i don't.
2. It wasn't a statement it was a question. I do in fact have problems with both sides. (pro cure for HFA and anti cure for HFA)
3. You assume i think people with low functioning autism don't have souls. wow. what the hell.

remember I don't Know everything which means i don't know whether or not it would be right or wrong. And one of my reasons why it would be wrong would be that it change the person they where.

Last edited by Dragonfly92 on 02 Mar 2011, 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This is a very complicated, hard to understand issue, and no one should be condemning other's for their opinion. -.-

That being said...I don't think this is something we can make broad statements about. Everyones AS is different. No one should be forced to take a cure, but let's face it, children in general have to defer to their parents decisions. Ultimately, it'd have to be the parents choice, but have to make sure people on the spectrum have enough acceptance and opportunities that parents don't feel the need to cure otherwise happy children.

What is severely low-functioning autism? What is a cure?



This is the essence of my response. If you feel that way, you can't assume that anyone feels differently.



What is it to change someone into an NT?



Seriously, if you don't want me to make assumptions, clarify those things. What do you mean when you say "severely low-functioning autism?" Do you mean autistics who can't speak? Autistics who can't use language? Autistics who can't drive? Autistics who can't feed themselves? Autistics who are incontinent? Autistics who have autistic catatonia? Autistics who don't understand object permanence? What are the specific traits that you're actually thinking of?

And what do you mean by cure? I assumed what you meant by "cure" was "rewire the brain so that it's not an autistic brain and is an NT brain." If you did mean that, well, that means "completely destroy the autistic person and replace him or her with a neurotypical who will take over control of the body."

And why is the question whether it's something a parent should do? Is that because you're speaking of people who cannot understand the choice? (Are you sure they don't understand?) Or people who can't communicate their choice? (How about working on communication first?)

Anyway, you'd think that there'd be a 50-50 chance of getting it right if you had to guess, but I ran a poll and across ALL groups of respondents of ALL "functioning levels" there was a bias toward NOT wanting a cure. (Except NTs. NTs had a definite pro-cure bias. Funny how that works.) Yes, including people who have been considered low-functioning. (Admittedly not very many of those responded, though. Large sample sizes are important, as is a lack of selection bias, and I had neither.)

Also, many pro-cure people do not define "cure" the same way. I would not call the amelioration of difficulties without altering the substance of who you are a "cure."

Anyway, it very much seemed if what you were saying was "I'm okay. It would be wrong to kill me and replace me with someone else to animate my body and live my life. But would it be okay to do it to these other people who aren't me?"

I DO believe in making people as high-functioning as possible, where "high-functioning" is defined as "able to do a many of the things they want as possible, and able to have as much true freedom-- the freedom to commit to meaningful choices (choices where the consequences either way are not the same-- chocolate vs. vanilla is only a meaningful choice if you're allergic to chocolate) and to change your mind-- as possible." THAT does not require being NT. That doesn't require being only "mildly" autistic or only having certain traits. That doesn't necessarily mean any specific trait except the ability to exert your will, and I'm pretty sure even people you consider severely low-functioning are able to exert their wills. Anyway, this doesn't necessarily require, but may be furthered by, the amelioration of specific traits-- always with the consent of the individual. ALWAYS. Regardless of age. Regardless of whether or not they're considered low-functioning. I believe in teaching people skills, but that does not belong to either of the above categories. I also believe in altering the environment so that people can function in it as well as possible-- removing fluorescent lights from places frequented by people sensitive to them, providing sign-language interpreters for people who cannot otherwise make use of language-based communication, etc.

But I do not believe in a cure.

In fact, I believe a "cure" is the worst thing ever. But you've seen my definition.

So, what are your definitions?

Dandelion fireworks,
As a parent of an ASD child I'd like to take umbrage at some of your comments.

In general most NT health professionals are the first port of call for a parent of child prior to diagnosis of ASD or AS. It is here you hear the words repetitive behavior , ABA, speech therapy and low..high function. What I have never heard of is the word cure.this appears to be myth perpetuated by snake oil salesman and some gullible parents.

Um... are you disagreeing with me? Seriously, are you? I can't tell. You say you're taking umbrage at some of my comments, but what you say next doesn't appear to directly contradict anything I said. Nor anything I believe, for certain definitions of "NT health professionals," though of course my experience with that is limited.

While cure ideology is not all the time reasonable in context to an individual a cure simply means to create improvements in general terms. A snake oil sales man in context is someone who claims for instance an herb will remove ASD or a special herbal liquid blind. A cure approach is a societal modality in context that seeks to create by means of research treatment developments. Like two differing computers such as an Apple and an IBM clone each use differing operating systems (life experiences and coping mechanisms in context to neurological makeup) and hardware (the hardwired neurology) when applicable. A person with ASD has different hardware yet a different operating as a result of that hardware manifesting an influence upon life experience. In what manifest in spite of specific organizations marketing of a cure and in context to autism means to develop improvements and when honoring human rights when those improvements are chosen.

Sorry I thought you were being accused of subscribing to a cure for LFA

To Ci,
Rather than use the word cure or treatment, what about training?

No one around here including me uses the word cure or treatment. In fact I stated to agencies and will continue to state to agencies the word cure is a dignity issue in context to inclusion awareness. However in context to treatment developments for research cure is acceptable and common place. In the minds of certain kinds of professionals however the cure idea could easily be percieved and fund advancements for these programs and the research to enhance them if not in the direct association with the presented awareness for individuals with autism such as myself and others with developmental disabilities when creating opportunity in partnership with the public. I believe compromise can be made to advance research into treatments for other unrelated undertakings but also at the same time for inclusion related barriers.

I am not ashamed I would say on T.V that I want a cure for sensory overload which is a great barrier for me as I would be attending college now as a career.

Nathan Young

Tricky.
Through their inability to take care of themselves and communicate it is assumed they want caring for..that may not actually be the case. I'd say in most cases if people didn't look after them they would simply die.
If you're incapable of looking after yourself you automatically and without consultation abdicate some autonomy and some authority over yourself through practical requirements. Other people take on the responsibilty for you. Theres a precedent for this called having children.

Continuing on a practical level, would it be fair to say to a carer that they should continue with a (assumed) burden of care for an Autistic person and not apply a theoretical cure just in case the Autistic person (who can't indicate either way) might not want it?

The only comparison I can think of right now is taking kids to the dentist or doctor, you do it because you know its the right thing to do to make them better even though the child doesn't want to be there or to take their medicine.

Like, the most severe autism can get basically. I would have a problem with a cure for any form of autism. It's just that i don't know enough about LFA to say that it would be absolutly 100% wrong to remove it. The actual reason I made the post in the first place was because i actually saw someone make a rant where they challenged aspies who were 100% against a cure. The gist of it was that they were saying HFA people could not speak for LFA people. and that's why i posted the hypothetical question. to get oppinions.



my definition of a cure is the impossible scenario where someone is changed so they are not autistic anymore.

Something that is an intervention 'marketed as a cure' is not a cure, a cure is impossible and trying to find one is an illogical waste of time and money. Interventions are fine as long as they are ethical, obviously, though I don't particularly use any myself for my Asperger's.

Incorrect.

An intervention leading to an improved outcome can be perceived as a treatment thus to cure an aspect thereof. What has confused people I think is other organization and other individuals perceiving autism as the entire individual for political reasons when a person is a person regardless of a label as the label is applied clinically for reasons of needed services and supports. Autism has differing aspects and is subjective to an individual. So to train someone to become independent with success is curing especially if a psychological related professional is involved even as a supervisor or a person with applicable credentials develops the initial model.

These programs and their supports are funded by government medical related insurance on the federal and state levels where I live. No program claims to be curing but at times treating especially with behaviorism but still built into the law is human right choices. I do not have a problem with the cure mentality but I don't want to be to known as needing a cure myself as I think this is adverse to self-esteem if used to directly in concept but at the same time treatments are associated with the cure concept.

'Curing' or improving/seeming to improve aspects of a person's personality or behavior is not the same as a cure for Autism or Asperger's. A FULL 'cure' in the sense of taking away the entirety of an individual's natural neurological differences is impossible. Personally, I wouldn't want to be 'cured' but that's beside the point because an actual cure is impossible.