Are you offended by, "A Cure for Autism"?

Post Reply New Topic

Here's an interesting point...

Say a cure was created. If there was a choice of whether or not to have a cure then some people would take it. But, some people with severe autism appear to lack capcity. People who lack capacity still have rights but they might not be able to make a decision. What then? Will somone try to force into them and in doing so may change them into a completly different person?

Discuss.

I would imagine that it would be nearly impossible to cure someone with lifelong autism like that.
As it is, guardians are responsible for providing medications and medical care on them.
I would figure, though, that there would be a scale used before determining if the autistic person is profoundly disabled enough for any kind of treatment, since I would guess there would be side effects.

It's similar to cochlear implants only being used with profoundly deaf people, because only in those situations are the side effects pretty much null (if they lose any more hearing, it's not hearing that was usable with standard amplification).
That's why a hard of hearing person like myself has to use standard aids. I would lose the rest of my hearing otherwise.
Furthermore, the patient must be young enough. If too much time passes, the brain loses the natural ability to process sound and the implant produces noise, but hte brain doesn't really know what to do with that information. The older the patient, the worse the outcome. My ex couldn't notice his own name if I spoke it out loud and it was the only sound int he room. But he did hear it.
(and if you want to see a vicious debate, ask culturally Deaf people what they think of cochlear implants, and the concept of Deaf Culture genocide).

Whatever benefit they would look for, it would have to outweigh the risk. If a scale of some sort is used, like audiograms used to determine if the implant recipient was the right candidate - literally no usable hearing. And many of them, with work, come out being very much like a 'normal' hearing person, though they will always be somewhere between deaf and hearing.

I imagine successful treatment would be more likely to pull a severe autistic to a higher level of functioning, but not actually 'cure'.

I think the focus now is genetic testing. But, there are many people who will not, under any circumstance, choose to abort a fetus with a genetic abnormality. Just as there are those who might choose to abort a fetus with a genetic abnormality.
In other words, it would diminish the autism spectrum population, but not eradicate it. If there is more than one cause of autism, then even genetic screening may not always be reliable.
But. If a person doesn't want to have a child who is on the autistic spectrum, what use is forcing that person to carry and deliver it? Very, very few people would be interested in adopting such a child, and they likely would not receive any 'good' support in the social service system. edit: and what if the child were kept by parents who resented them? I'm sure if it were 'just' AS, they would end up working something out. But the severe cases require a lot of resources that many people do not have access to. Some of them end up 'burning out' - it's common with kids who have a lot of special needs. So some just send them off to institutions and leave them there. Or they pass away, the estate runs out (if there even is one) and the autistic person is lost in the shuffle.

I am not saying this is ideal. Ideally, different types of people would have equal opportunity to flourish. Unfortunately, the world seems pathologically unable to commit to that.

Would I abort a fetus with an autism spectrum disorder? No. It's not what I would choose. However, I would imagine that the only folks that would ask for that test, because tests are pricey, are people related to autistic people. So it's really up to them, based on their experiences, or what they've seen happen, as to whether or not they carry to term and have a baby.
Either way, I wouldn't LIKE those kinds of decisions. I probably wouldn't hang around people who made those decisions, but in the end, a fetus is a fetus. It takes a long time for them to be viable. It would make me feel pretty awful that someone considers me to be diseased or defective, but as long as they stay away from me and any babies with autism that they wouldn't fully care for, fine.

I'm not offended by the term "cure", and I'm actually in support of a cure so people can be freed of their social difficulties and sensory problems. Saying AS isn't a disease or doesn't need a cure is like saying AIDS or cancer isn't a problem, only with autism it's a neurological problem and not a physical problem.

It may change them into a "different" person, but it will also change them into a normal and functioning person, which is way better than sitting around with autism their whole lives. If their autism is that severe and gets cured, then they will finally be able to make something for themselves instead of just burdening their parents and doctors with all their problems.

I just support neurodiversity and self-determination. I will leave the business of "cures" to those persons who are medically qualified to examine these issues. Personally, I have no desire to be cured, but I would never want to impose my view on others.

I agree with you on the idea that we're not sick, that we're not diseased or something of the like.

But for people who want a cure, they feel this is an attack on a cure, a case of someone better off than they dictating that Autism is not a disability, while for some on the spectrum, it is. Aspergers and high functioning autism is nothing compared to the challenges facing people with severe autism.

Would you mind terribly if a cure was created, and it was optional on whether or not to be cured? If a cure was made, but was not forced on everyone, as some believe, but completely the choice of the individual?

Doc, I agree with you, there needs to be more of a focus on real diseases than on some aspects of the spectrum, like ADHD and AS. But I still believe that there needs to be a cure available for people who are debilitated due to their autism, who are unable to take care of themselves, who may end up in institutions or care homes. They deserve more than that.

Rampion, right on. Too many people assume that when parents of children with severe Autism talk about Autism, they must mean Aspergers, and not the debilitating condition that they speak of. The Aspies then have to counter with the joys of autism, how they aren't sick, all about how well off they are, and all they need is acceptance. This, understandably, drives the parents half-mad with indignation, strong emotions, and righteous anger.

Jirachi, it would fall to the country's current laws and the procedures regarding capacity. It would possibly fall to the parents, and you'd have to trust that they would not intentionally harm their children.

Selo, you made some strong points.

I agree with what you have to say on a cure, and with what you said to Jirachi.

Nominalist, quite a valid and intelligent stance. You really make exactly what you think clear.

The term cure deffenitly annoys me when I hear people talking about it primarily because of what autism is. Now I'm speaking from what my phychologist explined to me how it is pretty much autistic people's brains are simply wired a little differently then others. Now having that in mind the idea of a cure is incredibly ridiculus and redundant in my eyes.

How about this one:

Say a cure was created, and people could choose whether to take the cure or not. Under the arguments of others in this thread, people with the "most debilatating" cases will probably be the first in line. Then, when they're "cured", those of us who opted to not take the cure are further reduced in number. Support for us will evaporate (the government will see a single shot as "cheaper" than constant disability support, which would actually be a correct statement, and therefore see fit to not offer disability support anymore). The remaining group will be even further shunned and removed from society (the "bandwagon" mentality common in NT's will think that "since they didn't take the cure, they shouldn't be allowed to participate in society"), until every last one of us is economically or socially coerced into taking the cure. Then, the NT's will have won.

Cure Autism? No.

Those on the lower end of the spectrum don't need a cure. They need help to find a way to function as part of this planet without having a new personality (remember, we are talking personality disorders). Basically, we need to upgrade them from Autism to Aspergers.

The word cure is a bit drastic. Help and care is what is needed.

HFA and Aspies don't need to worry.

That's what I think anyways, sorry if it seems a bit weird.

Thank you.

Then perhaps the remedy is consciousness raising. However, I don't believe in denying people their civil and medical rights.

Do the Jehovahs Witnesses, a clear religious minority, get forced to have blood transfusions administered?

After so many are cured, will they forget and turn against those who aren't cured? The people who willingly took a cure will not turn on those who haven't, and strip them of the rights they gained. We're no more reduced in numbers, unless you think that, being cured, we'll all just turn our backs and forget about the rights we exercised.

With all those who took a cure voluntarily, the numbers of people who need assistance will drop, and those who need assistance will recieve the aid they need. Mainly those who need the support of the goverment will want to be cured, and will no longer be requiring the money. Those who don't take a cure either don't need to take a cure in the first place(the main anti-cure argument), making those who aren't cured needing very little in the way of support. Those who don't get cured will still have friends they made in those who were cured, will they not?

They'll only be removed from soceity if they don't participate in it. Not everyone will just turn their backs to them because they don't want a cure. It's really pessimistic...

It's not an issue of winning or losing.

The NTs aren't trying to win. You seem to be the one who's making it a competition.

Kezzstar, you are sorely mistaken. A cure is not killing someone's personality. What you speak of is completely different then what will happen. They won't lose their personality, unless the only thing that makes them who they are is autism, in which case there was never a person there to start. Just autism.

You're mistaken about Autism and Aspergers. They're not personality disorders, but neurobiological disorders. What is a neurobiological disorder? Certainly not your personality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurobiolo ... n_disorder
Autism has been characterized by a delay in socialization and communication. Check here for more on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Per ... _Disorders
You might also want to check this one out too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodevel ... _disorders

Upgrading from Autism to Aspergers would be a good step, I think.

Nominalist, you're very welcome, and I agree with your next points.

Jehovah's witnesses are recognized as a valid minority. AS isn't recognized as a minority, despite efforts to make it happen.


But they will turn out like those NT's that ganged up on me because I was "different".


Yet from an economic perspective, a single shot or pill or whatever form this "cure" would take would still be cheaper than the minimal support required by those still left, and therefore a more desirable alternative in the eyes of the government.


If someone is cured, their entire personality will change, and I don't think they would still be friends. Instead of spending a night playing halo with me, a cured person is going to want to go to some random party and get wasted.


Were you bullied in school? Are you still bullied in the workplace? It's not as blatant as it was during childhood, but it's still there...


That's an unfortunate choice of words. NT's want everyone to be like them. That's the bandwagon effect, or "mob mentality". If NT's are allowed to make all autistics like them, then their "mob mentality" has won.


This I could go for. It would alleviate the more debilatating effects, and preserve the number of aspies (in fact increasing their number, making it easier for us to create our own culture)

A minority has a right to choose to not be given potentially life-saving transfusions, and it it their right. Everyone has that right, to decline treatment. Not being a minority might even help. It's up to you to choose. And after all, you don't need a cure, you don't want a cure, and if you're so well off, then curing you would be a complete waste of time and energy.

They will? Are you a prophet now?
They will become different, and they will become mean, is that it? They'll have walked their entire life, up to that point, in your shoes. Just because they'll be NT doesn't mean they'll be monsters.
We've all got our own stories of pain, sorrow, agony, despair... But you can't believe that we, after beign cured, will turn upon those who were the most like us.

From an economic perspective, slavery and sweatshops are more profitable, cheaper to run, and don't have to worry about unions. But this doesn't mean that it's right, or that people will accept it. Same with slavery, and other failed economic concepts. When the peopel who were taking money from the goverment start paying it back in the taxes, then they can slash the budget and still have enough to provide adequate care. I live in Canada, by the way, and we put human rights ahead of the almighty dollar.

Will they really? Should we stop puberty? All those chemicals, the changes, they become someone else entirely! You see my sarcasm, no? Will they really? I don't think so. It's like you're turning an autistic person into an NT by simply sticking an NT over top of them. It's not like that at all. That's a really stereotypical view of an NT, and someone who gets cured isn't going to become a dick. They're still themselves, but they're just not autistic anymore.

Autism is not your personality. You're your own person, not some neurobiological disorder. It's you that's in control, not autism, it's you that makes the choices, has the wants, the needs, the choices, not autism. If you think that Autism is what makes you who you are, then you're sadly mistaken.

Yes, yes I was. I called it my hell on earth, my ruined childhood. I repressed most of those memories, and I'm glad that they are. But the bullying stopped, and because I made it stop. I started High School, and I haven't been bullied IRL since. Why? I got better. I stopped letting myself just stim and rock and blather on about whatever I had read somewhere about some esoteric topic. I changed, I matured, I became as able as I could make myself. I'm glad for it, as life has been so much better since.

That's an even more unfortunate choice of words. That's a blatant and inaccurate stereotype. You're making a race struggle out of allowing people who want a cure to have one. They deserve to have a cure, and you only don't want a cure created because you're too scared of people, normal, average, people, to allow people to be cured of Autism. You are part of a mob right now, Toad. You're part of a mob who wants to prevent a cure, forcing autistics to remain as they are. They don't care about anyone but themselves, and their rights, to the point where they deny it to you. You're trying to "win" right now, too, trying to make is clear that there will be no cure, and that those who want to be cured will not be cured. Like you'd be faced by the NTs trying to cure you, you're supporting the ideal of forcing people to be denied their rights, their own will. You're doing to those who want to be cured what you fear will be done to you if you were trying to be cured by pressure.

All you see when you look at NTs is the mirror of the mob you know. It's a reversed image, keeping people autistic rather than curing them, but you're in the same kind of mob, doing the same kind of oppression as the oppression you fear so much from NTs. A bitter irony.

Joeker - that was very well stated. Thanks.

...A number of personality and mood disorders can require medications to create and maintain as close to a 'cured' state as is currently medically possible. Their natural brain chemistry will not allow them to just reason their way out.
As for a severe autistic 'finding' their way out - - - if they could, could you really classify them as severely autistic?
One of my best friends wouldn't try to cure someone with AS. But if she could somehow reach her son - and you'd better believe that she works so hard at learning all the possible therapies and methods, and takes the time and energy to work at them - I think she'd take it.
ETA: Hell, if the best a cure did was make him slightly less autistic (because these things are created in stages), she'd be thrilled. AS? I think she'd even be proud.

I was just thinking about the onset-of-autism issue -- it being acquired/developed "prior to 3 years old" (DSM). Is this the case for Aspergers as well? That is, is there a period of observable normal/typical functioning from birth onward, until a time period in which there is a rather dramatic change (as some may say) or loss of function (as others may say)?