hypothetical question

Post Reply New Topic

Personally, I think not giving someone a cure that makes them independent (as in not having to depend on others for basic needs) is abuse. Want to mess up your brain after you're cured, go ahead and hit yourself in the head and hope there's no cure for the resulting condition.

With high-functioning autism it's different, of course. People who are able to communicate can make their own decisions. Many aspies are fully functioning members of society.

I don't see why a particular condition makes you who you are. Taking away some "traits" won't fundamentally change you. But on the other hand, I don't think it's as simple as that either. There is a constant debate over which things should be labeled as signs of an illness, (deviations from) cultural norms and personality traits. For example, not being in a relationship can be seen as a failure to the point where it's assumed there's something wrong with the person, especially if they don't appear to be distressed by the situation. On the other hand, someone has said that schizophrenia is a sane response to an insane world.

A more realistic scenario would be this: If/when the genes that contribute to autism are discovered and science moves forward enough to enable "fixing" of these genes (some genetic diseases can already be cured in an embryo), would you accept gene therapy that guarantees you won't have ASD children?

It's just getting to the point that you either define what makes behavior in wiring manifest a good or bad thing in spite of this mutual ambiguousness. Again this is person subjective. If sensory overload keeps a person from experiencing normalcy and is not purely psychological for instance but has behavioral manifestations as coping mechenisms or responses to it and a treatment can be developed which which might include behavioral intervention to adjust or in the future modification to the brain once it's understood either in the womb early on when it is developing or later on as an adult with an influence to the brain and not necessarly surgery it's not bad so as long as human rights law is followed. However autism is very diverse and autism is not the entire being nor is it the entire personality manifest but just as an instrument in an orchestra it has it's influence upon the grand sound collectively in play which might be refered to the subjective personality of an individual in part.

This cure idea when applied to autism is vague because of the diversity of autism. A cure for the inability to speak is wholesome but what relevancy does that have to someone who can speak? None at all. So when awareness says they want a cure for autism I cannot assume they want the same cures for all individuals. Autism is perceived as a disability with at least some good attributes. However what is good for one individual may not then be good for another such as the hyper focusing which may create the ability to do good at a career and for other individuals the reduced ability to care for oneself because of the inability to focus on other things. I'd suggest not seeing cure as an absolute transformation of the entire being but enhancing individual choices, accommodations and in evolutionary terms cure is part of human evolution as well.

it would be possible to remove a lot of the barriers and problems associated with ASD´s, but i think it would be impossible to completely cure the neural deviation in any retrospective manner.

but in the end most of the problems associated with (my life at least) can be greatly alleviated by something as simple tolerance for difference.
tolerance is within our grasp(or so i like to hope), so why waste so much energy trying to completely cure a condition f the symptons can be aleviated, something that is way more realistic than a complete cure for the neurodiversity.

any attempt to cure the the neurodiversity could very well end in disaster, the brain is almost impossibly complex, sure the basic workings are somewhat simple but the chaos required for it to function properly is staggering.
any attempt to modify something so complex would have far reaching implications for not only for the individuals being cured but the gene-pool of the species.

consider this, if you suddenly had a cure for all the mental illnesses on a genetic level, how could anyone predict the far reaching implications when breeding crosscarries some of these artificial mutations, a dozen generations(or insert plausible variable) down the line the very fabric of the human consciousness could shift.

i think the label NT is just the most common mix of genes expressing themselves, just as the label ASD represents another genetic mix, so what happens when you start tampering with the ratios?
when baking a cake it would be a waste of resources, if you are making rocket fuel you would win a darwin award.


***edit*** so rambly, need sleep, bedtime.

In terms of advocacy this seems to be an important question. The assumption is that LFA's "can't speak for themselves" and require advocates to make representation on their behalf to the NT society/government. While LFA's and HFA's and even AS's share sensory load sensitivity and repetitive behaviour and (in some cases) motor impairement, the question is do HFA's and AS people have the right to speak up for LFA's more than NT's?

In my sepcific case my daughter is a HFA who communicates very well at home, above average intellegence but clamps up outside or at school so effectively is handled like an LFA.

Autism advocacy in the state of Victoria, Australia meant to represent the interests of my daughter is largely dominated by parents of AS children and NT health professionals. As a result much of the resources, seminars and talks seem to focus on AS (in my view). I am feeling strongly that part of the ASD spectrum, encompassing HFA and LFA, should have their own organisation advocating their rights separatley to AS based organisations. I have finished reading a wide cross section posts on this forum and the issues and discussions are too AS focussed for parents with HFA or LFA kids. Just an observation....I wonder if it's worth splitting this site into two as I really am beginning to avoid threads, or online resources if I see the word Asperger or read somebody talking about "Aspies".

No offence is meant by this post but I think Aspies should stick together and deal with their issues separately and HFA's should be representing LFA's and themselves along with parents in another forum.

I realise DSM V is going to lump Aspies with HFA's but given Aspies have somewhat different issues they have to deal with in the NT world
- Aspies - social awkwardness
- HFA - speech and social awkwardness

Perhaps we should go our separate ways....I'm not trying to hijack the HFA's and LFA's on this forum (and I suspect nobody is going to take my post seriously here anyway given the lack of online resources this forum (Wrong Planet) will continue to remain relevant for all).

Just wondered what peoples thoughts were, I understand it's a senstivie topic but please don't be shy and ignore this as unimportant.

Why when people diagnosed with autism and people diagnosed with Asperger's find belonging and knowledge and understanding with each other, not just with people who share their precise diagnosis?

Do you want to deny us the benefits of certain members of our group?

What's one concrete way in which our needs differ in such a way as to make us more different from each other than we are from people who share our precise diagnosis?

Despite what you say I have come across really elitist views from aspies about LFAs and I have never come across aspies who are advocates for LFAs.....that's left to us NTs

I understand aspies have to deal with their own issues and don't want to diminish this. Just think the understanding and belonging business is a little over exaggerated.

Then there is no reason for us to communicate further. You don't want my help, I don't want yours.

I never depend on anyone else and only myself. It's not that others are lazy or unwilling it's just that other people make things complex and mentally burdensome. I create the advocacy and inclusion framework, make the rules, create opportunity and others choose to follow my understanding. With regard to the autism politics honestly that is a mental burden. My mind, my world, my rules and things get done.

Depends what the cure is.

Personality and diagnoses. A person in a wheelchair is effected in personality by being in a wheelchair. Autism differs from a wheelchair. For some a cure is changing something about a personality and I think the fear of changes (said of personality in politics) may be the fear of the inability to change it back if one does not like it. It also stems at times from the idea of being judged as defective in the first place. I don't believe establishment intends to say you are defective and they are better for instance but rather to help.

This is relevant to the cure issue in the conversation now.

Why do you make eugenic war against me, with your weapons of cure?

Your going to have to explain your unusual interpretation of cure to be fair. Do I propose to have the government or private parties to go find you and destroy you? Please folks some sensibility and reasonable argumentation techniques.

Fine

Positive interventions and changes can be made in people but these can not eradicate natural neurological differences that people are born with, so they simply shouldn't be marketed as a cure for the actual condition itself when such a thing is impossible. Anyway, despite all the pain and confusion I often face because of the fact I have Asperger's syndrome , I like my brain, I like my self. To try and eradicate People with Asperger's is simply abhorrent.

Last edited by alice333 on 13 Apr 2011, 4:38 pm, edited 4 times in total.

I would accept a social cure if it would help my social skills, or a cure for my athletic abilities. I like th high intellect, and intuitive skills. I

Yeah, people like to miss-use the word cure, especially the pro-cure folks. It's muddying all these discussions. People really need to understand that not all treatments are cures, although all cures involve one or more treatments. A cure completely removes a disease/condition, a treatment removes or simply suppress the disease/condition or it's symptoms.