My stance on a cure for autism

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, I meant to add that in The Speed of Dark, we do see Niall's scenario play out completely, where once there is a in-utero cure, the neurodiverse are clearly within a generation of being completely gone from society.

The other thing that has been touched on by Jaloria, is that for other different groups, like gays or ethnic minorities to garner political clout in mass society, they have had to water down their culture significantly to look like everyone else. Today's gay marriage movement is effective, but they have lost a lot of the unique flavor and culture that was there back in the days of the gay liberation front or the radical faeries. The modern activists shun these people on the extremes because it harms mass acceptance.

So, for us it could be the same; already there is a wedge between more acceptable "HFA" and non-verbals, and... will the price of acceptance be just to look more like an NT? In what world would they accept me if I was happily walking down the street verbalizing a stream of numbers?

Thank you for that more reasoned response. In truth, my thinking is not too far on this from yours. There should be no doubt that greater understanding and acceptance would be extremely helpful to us on the spectrum, and devoting more research into techniques and technologies that aid impairments is absolutely a more realistic and practical goal.

However, I'm seeing very little rational explanation from anyone, really. But I am far more inclined to agree with the "choice is good" crowd than the "Ahhh, I'm scared!" crowd. In this thread and the things its referenced, that's what it really is. There's this naivete from the former group that it'd all go swimmingly and with no strings attached. Then the latter group seems to go into worst case scenario mode fast and freakin' panic at the idea. Both behaviors are irrational to the point of uselessness.

My attitude is and has long been "problem/solution" with autism. If both the "cure" and "no cure" sides seem unwilling to provide any evidence to support their positions; if they cannot be bothered to provide data, historical precedent or arguments that are persuasive instead of a steady stream of BS? I'm going to be inclined towards the one that is at least interested in a "solution" to the "problem".

I'm very doubtful a cure is actually possible within our lifetimes. Treating symptoms and increasing understanding is far more useful. But I have a lot more sympathy for those who would consider the merits of such a cure and think about how to ethically use than those who freak out and panic at the very idea of one, and worse still would deny others based on that fear without providing concrete, evidence-based reasons for that fear.



It's likely my mind could be changed on this... but I have a hard time conceptualizing a meaningful "us", here. Or a distinct culture. If I did, I might be more moved by this argument.

In truth, a fair amount of this is on me. As scary as it seems to be for many here to think of a world without autism, it's perhaps just as scary to me to imagine one in which it is fully accepted and embraced. What would I be in such a place, hm? Stuck in my own head? Screaming to get out, but unable to get what I need to feel like my life is worth living because "hey, it's just a difference in neurotype?" and those differences that so disturb me, that would disturb me in all possible worlds, are to be celebrated? That's my little bit of unreasoned fear. I loathe being autistic, and I resent people telling me I should not. I especially resent people saying it would be a bad thing if someone found a way to relieve that burden, and for me it is a heavy cross to bear. It interferes with the things I desire, the things I care about, the things that make life worthwhile... so it could not be otherwise.

I do not ask others to feel the same as I do about this. I only ask that the people talking about "greater understanding" show some of that same understanding to how my attitude about this condition differs from the way they think about theirs.

As much as pro cure autistics might understandably disagree I do believe the "Neurotribes" book has been helpful for this debate. Prior to the book the debate was not really a debate at all but a bunch of stereotyping. For example people for a cure were described as parents who hate thier kids and autistics who internalized this. Pro Neurodiversity people were elitists who did not have real autism etc. After the book much of a the debate is about the core issues of what is autism, what is the autistic experience a burden or a net positive?. While there remains profound differences there are areas of agreement. Both sides agree there are negatives involved in autism, and that accomodations, greater understanding are good things.

You're the second person to suggest that as reading material. Or maybe it was also you the last time, I can't remember. What is the premise of the book? The thesis it's based on?

It is first and foremost a history book that explains the genisis of where various theories of autism originated. It also rewrites some of the conventional wisdom about history of autism. The basic premises are autism has always been around, parents are not evil but victims of wrong beliefs and quacks, less money should spent trying to figure out a causes and cures and more on helping autistics who are here now.

The book has won awards and gotten loads of positive media attention. There are many many interviews with the author Steve Sielberman online

I'll check it out. Doesn't sound like I'd agree with all of it, but one does not grow wiser without examining and understanding dissenting views.

True

its been a good book so far.ive been soooo sick the the last month its been hard to focus on complex reading,so im a bit behind.
the first 2 chapters have been good,especially the one on henry cavindish

I wouldn't necessarily oppose such a cure as I'm sure there are people out there who would want it, although I personally don't think HFA or Asperger's is something that really needs curing. Low-functioning, on the other hand, that is a handicap that disables people from living up to their full intelligence, such as they don't have the command of language, so I think a perspective cure could be very beneficial in that regard. As far as I'm concerned, I'd cure my OCD in a heartbeat, but I'm not sure about the Aspergers.

Personally the more I learn about autism (mostly by doing my own research and observations), the more I start doubting whether autism is actually a disease, since it's mostly the continuous contact with people without autism which is making us sick in the first place.
People need to know that one cannot raise an autistic kid into becoming a NT person, just like one cannot train a cat into being a dog, it simply won't work.

A cat isn't a malfunctioning dog, but it seems extremely hard to make people see this which is giving me increasing doubts about the potential of NT people to accept things which seem like facts that would indicate the faults NT people tend to blame autism for, is actually partially their own doing, like the way autism is blamed for the problems with communication between autistic people and NT people.

It doesn't make any sense to me that autism should mean I am to blame my autism for NT people not understanding me, no matter how clear and simple the information I provide is brought to them.
And it certainly could never explain why it is easier for me to communicate with other people with autism than it is for me to communicate with NT people. How can this be if autism makes one bad at communication? That's so illogical, and theres more to it than just communication.

In all people there are negative and positive traits. What percent is negative and what percent is positive varies by person. Maybe the so called low funtioning autistics are happier because they don't overthink like Aspies tend to do. The thing is I don't know. I have no standing to say they might need a cure. There are enough people that want cure me that do not know me, why should I pay forward ignorance?

This cure debate seems to be an autism community thing. You do not see widespread bitter debate about curing mental retardation for example.

This doesn't seem to maken any sense.
Why would autism be more needing for a cure than mental retardation?

That is absurd.

I don't get it either. In articles about autism not matter what they are discussing an raging cure debate will erupt in the comments section. This does not happen for articles about mental retardation or deafness etc. Unlike most other mental and nuerological conditions comments sections of autism articles arguments will envariably erupt of person first/identity first language, cause of autism etc.

I think there is considerable confusion by many in the AS community about what symptoms are a result of autism and what are a result of associated comorbid conditions. This confusion makes rational debate somewhat difficult particularly when the people speaking against a cure are themselves operating quite functionally in society. Surprise Surprise...

I would not describe myself as "operating quite functionally in society", but I flat out oppose a cure. The reasons I'm not functioning have more to do with society's response to me as "odd" and my growing fear of its members than anything inherent to AS. Society is the problem, not me.

The problem is not with society as you have the right to not want to cure yourself (that is certainly your business). What is a problem is the perception by members of the AS community that "all" people with autism should not seek a cure. Isn't that infringing the individual rights of other people to be able to choose what they want? In particular NT parents who are faced with having to choose treatment/therapy options for their children being told by members of the self declared AS community that they have no rights in treating their own autistic children. Most parents don't have the luxury of letting their kids survive on their own, we do what we must in the best interests of our kids....