PR Ethics & Autism Speaks Vs. ASA or ASAN

Post Reply New Topic

When I say Vs. I don't mean a battle but to compare. Autism Speaks compared to the ASA has different models and focuses. ASA seems to be the diversity minded organization with regards to perceptions of autism and living with autism day to day. Organizations like Autism Speaks are centered around autism being a disability to be cured and removed. Not everyone views autism as horrible but those that do don't see it as an entire person but in objection to cure mindedness individuals seem to have been conditioned to viewing the autism label as an identity construct. Any mention of autism means them more like their name and personality then a condition that one has. Traditionally disabilities in society are viewed as hardships that when sought to be removed are wholesome pursuits of charity and good works. So in the circumstance of autism in public relations and general awareness we have this unique consideration and even at times political tact to preserve what is believed to be self.

I think the ASA has figured much of this out. It's presentation style is nearly all encompassing. Whereas Autism Speaks seems to hold fast to the idea that autism is what impairs an individual and also seems to be including more people with autism in positive ways. If a condition or said difference others choose to find a cure for in ultimate outcome is unlikely anytime soon to be corrected then I'd think it's ethical for individuals with autism to be viewed in positive and constructive ways. However it is not traditionally unethical to have a philosophy of autism being a condition and seeing the condition rather then the person as horrible to be corrected. What has conflicted between organizations like ASAN's supporters and Autism Speaks is the need to self-identify as being the condition more and more socially and psychologically as the whole through self-identification with the label rather then it being a condition in the traditional sense. For instance cancer is viewed horrible and no one would ever agree cancer is a positive thing but with autism someone is born with it and it is hard to separate what is considered a condition from the self as it seems in peoples thoughts innate.

It comes down to ethics and bias. An organization that focuses on the ultimate remedy will depict the condition as a condition that effects peoples lives in negative ways. In this sense autism as a condition will be marketed toward the public in ways to derive support for it's remedy. However should organizations like Autism Speaks given this focus be able to represent individuals with autism with concern to criminal suspicion and relating societal integration given the bias? Me personally I don't think this can be appropriate entirely for them because it is the job of Autism Speaks to portray autism in context to curing it but not so much in unrelated social matters where it can effect peoples lives with it in their entire being when representing to the public the horrible condition view. Therefore Autism Speaks ethically cannot be taken seriously for much other then purposes for research studies on how to improve and eventually cure autism but not social matters without the same kind of scientific standard and critical thought as they are seeking to garnish political support for it's cure thus will potray it without balance as dangerous to get that support.

What do you think?

Nathan Young

i think both organizations represent a extreme veiwpoint and forget the people in the middle,i think both need to be more pragmatic and less philosophical.i also think they perpetuate stereotypes.many people with aspergers,hfa or nvld can benifit from cure and treatment.i also think many non verbal autistics may be more content with there lives than many asume.also what did you mean by autism speaks putting criminal suspicion on people,i didnt get that

With regards to non-verbal folks anyone can be content with how they are especially if they do not think of being any different or have accepted how they are because no other option exists for them. Still choice should be enabled ethically by means of research to enable treatment and cure for being non-verbal.

Criminality & Autism
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt154929.html

im not talking about people choices and chances to live better.i was talking about advcacy groups over stereotyping and that inhibits people choices for self improvment

Can you make up or provide examples so I can figure out the zig zag of context please.

ok.what i realy mean is for all people with autism to be able to choose if they want cure,treatment or more understanding by society,instead of autism speaks pushing a millitant cure agenda down the throat of people or asan millitat anti cure agenda towards other types of people.we shouldnt asume what type of advocacy is needed based on technical diagnosis

It is very difficult for a society to embrace a disability which costs itself money as simply a difference. Therefore to counter the Autism Speaks objective and projected mentality wold seem adverse. That's why context of activism is important. The ethics of viewing autism as a condition and then a person with a condition apply. To counter this politically others seem to have made the condition the entire person and whenever possible taken insult or things personally. In probability Autism Speaks can be limited ethically in scope less it becomes more diverse in approach in representation in context. Autism is the horrid thing limiting vs. the person with autism is a precious human being. It's really hard I'd think for an organization to represent both.

ASAN on the other hand has a precious bias. A bias that cannot yet be fully understood because it seems they cannot make up there mind on things. It's easy to become a militant for a cause. It's easy to want to destroy what is easily perceived as the reason for hardship and it's easy to become emotional over what is perceived as who\what someone is. To me it is better to find a way to get along and be mutually constructive then to destroy organizations and to start over again. Peoples emotions, the hatreds and so on do not want to get along and when applicable it seems hatred of any kind in context to autism politics seems to also be self-destructive.

This is not something that can be easily simplified. Accepting what is because no change can be made easily now because cure is remote at this point I believe is wise in a myriad of context. However acceptance of the pursuit for cure in spite of self-esteem is also of importance and acceptance works both ways because alienation of any side removes a more positive outcome for everyone.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J16lInLZRms&feature=player_embedded#at=77[/youtube]

what exactly did you mean when you said autism speaks puts criminal suspicion on people.

what did you mean when you said autism speaks puts criminal suspicion on people

Think of it this way. If an organizations job is to promote autism in a way for others to seek a cure kind of like a prosecutor would frame a suspect mind frame would you want to prosecutor as the only lawyer in the court room? The post I linked to did not link to the actual news article but I did read what was supposed to be a news article on an email that came in from a yahoo group which could have ended up being like a fake post on this forum from a troll. Autism Speaks was quoted. I get hundreds of autism related emails a day and pay attention to the titles mostly but this one grabbed my attention. I just don't believe Autism Speaks is in any position to advocate what so ever about criminality and autism due to bias in public awarenesses.

Edit: I see now in that other W.P post a word links to another article... I am checking my email to see if I can find what I read which is different but similar title.

Yes I found it.. It was the original Washington post article in email

I am not sure if I am allowed to do this but here is a quote:

"“Everyone is like, ‘Oh my God, that is my son,’ ” said Ann Gibbons of the advocacy group Autism Speaks. She said the case calls attention to two crucial issues: “How do we protect the community, and how do we protect the impaired individual?”"

How does a developmental disorder risk the public? Are people with autism more at risk of the public then anything else? Not all of the public but gees there is allot of crazy people out there. What does being born with a developmental disability have to do with criminality in of itself and why does there need to be a balance in assumption.

Now I don't want to sound like a nit picky here but is there any reasons to blame autism for the crime at all or even suggest it? As if it's the darker side of being born with a disability? I do not believe autism is a risk to law enforcement professionals.

What do you think?

Does this fancy the anti-autism speak stuff?