Mild, Morbid, or what? (aspergers topic discussion)

Post Reply New Topic

This is my first post on wrongplanet so expect to get bashed, I'll make it simple.
( I was told that this site was a bit hostile)


The current definitions of high and low funtioning autism should be reversed.

The why:
-Autism advocates show the morbid side of autism or the "ret*d behavior"
(not trying to upset anyone just stating from observation)
-Aspergers and autism are viewed as two seperate groups, with aspergers being less severe than the diagnoses of autism.
-Because of the advocation, it makes autism seem like a disease

*Will add more reasons as to why as they are brought up in the discussion*

Anyways, real topic for discussion is:

If it came to when they found a "cure" that would cure all the autism traits you may have but at a price say your "personality" would you cure yourself or others?

conditions are:
-curing means it will alter your personality, interests...
-curing means DNA Alteration.( gene therapy, not altering original family dna; thanks to auntblabby for the clarification)
-curing means a "one size fits all cure"
-curing might mean a more positive social and media view on autism.(sociological

Amendments:
-Curing doesn't mean altering family relations.(auntblabby)
-curing might mean a more positive social and media view on autism.(sociological viewpoint) (auntblabby)

------------------------
Personally, I wouldn't want my personality or my interests altered seeing i'm about 2 years in college. I would find some other way of altering my dna to stop or reduce my seizures more.

If I were to cure someone, I would do it on a case by case basis, depending on the functionallity of the individual.
If it came to either selective breeding or killing someone I'd choose selective breeditng depending on the functionallity again.
I would hate to see someone like (insert youtube video of dude in a diaper, I dont have the 5 posts needed to insert a video)

That isn't living, I could understand someone in a retirement home like that from old age.

Even now, they should have some sort of test to detect that low of functioning early on for either stem cell research or functionallity test for ethical injection(the kind they do on coma patients before they let them die)

Arguements here should be difinition based:
-no boarderline material

(anything left here will go to help me on a paper i'm writting for college)

Last edited by Poet_Morpheus on 13 Nov 2011, 6:21 pm, edited 6 times in total.

hiya, welcome to the club, Poet_Morpheus
PP&R certainly can seem hostile, at least to me. it is a bit like scorpions in a bottle there. but the rest of wrong planet is among the more civilized forums on the web, IMHO.
the "cure" is more of a complex thing than just waving the miracle wand and "fixing" a person. you must also amend that person's memories and their family/relations also, for being an aspie is not an isolated thing like a flaw in a photograph that you might airbrush out- it is a whole genetic/sociological package deal. just my 2-cents' worth.

All I was saying was keep the hype about the lesser side of autism down a bit so people with aspergers and with lesser but simular disabillities could have a chance to be seen more fairly. You have more people stimatized into a stereotype than what it actually is. I say if you want people to be accepting more why not "re-introduce" them into the disabillity; it takes alot of the small stuff like the people are seeing before they can start accepting others. Take into account the muslim stereotype americans have had since 9/11.

Last edited by Poet_Morpheus on 10 Nov 2011, 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i personaly always prefered it to be viewed as a disability.this doesnt mean there arent good things.most people with a disability see the upsides as well.calling autism and aspergers a disability doesnt mean your putting it down.people on this forum can be narrow minded in that way

I'm sorry but you misunderstood the entire post. I don't see autism or aspergers as a disability. The point is all the media and people who view it only see or example:
(hope it don't ofend anyone)

media sees a 20 yr old who can't take care of himself in a wheelchair, in a diaper, acting " the definition of mental retardation" and they wanna call it autism because the spectrum is so broad that they can't tell anything from the truth.
(btw I had a ret*d cousin and know the diffrences between autism and retardation)

If I am wrong about this show me the boandary because I see none.

The only simular things that can be applied to mental retardation and autism are the repeat movements, banging against objects, and echolalia. If there are some destinguishable characteristics besides the broad spectrum then maybe people will start accepting stuff like this more.

edit: if you want to you could insert black people and the stereotype of them as gansters in the hood...anyways the media and others start seeing it as a standard.

Per Government CDC statistics up to 40 percent of autistic children are non-verbal. It's an old statistic but the only one available that I have seen, available on the CDC website.

Autism came first in 1945 and was almost entirely associated with individuals that were non-verbal. Atypical autism (later termed as PDD NOS) was created in 1980, then in 1994 came Aspergers, of which only about 5 percent are currently statistically identified in total cases of ASD's, in the US, per information from Wiki.

Mental Retardation is considered a co-morbid condition of autism that statistics from the Government CDC website suggest exist in 41 percent of children with ASD's.

It's not to suprising that intelligence is compromised by verbal deficits, because most of the testing that psychologists use rely on tests that measure verbal intelligence. The same autistic children do much better on tests that measure non-verbal intelligence, per research on raven matrices testing, but unfortunately that is not the standard that psychologists use.

The focus on autism has been one that has focused on juvenile autism since 1945.

Now Aspergers is being combined with all autism diagnoses as Autism spectrum disorder, proposed in the next revision of the DSM, used in the US to diagnose ASD.

Autism is definitely an inherent disability for children that are non-verbal, and there are many co-morbid conditions that go along with autism that are disabling as well.

It was termed as a disorder/disability from the orgin of the understanding of autism.

It is only recently, since 1994, that any potentially non-disabling form of it has been clearly identified and understood, with Aspergers, in the US.

The 5 percent of ASD cases in children identified as Aspergers are important and should be portrayed accurately for awareness. However the other problems, identified, that have existed with Autism since 1945, that have made the condition one understood to be disabling, haven't gone away, so the major focus still is on the disabling aspects of autism and co-morbid conditions of autism.

There is likely close to 30 percent of the population somewhere on a broader autism phenotype, however 25 percent are not identified as having a disorder related to autism.

Hopefully these are the boundries you seek to understand. The organized public and private effort to portray ASD's has been focused on the 95% of statistically recognized cases in children that aren't Aspergers, and has only known about Aspergers since 1994.

The 5 percent are important and hopefully the proper awareness of that 5 percent will catch up, but considering that the diagnosis of Aspergers is going away in the future, a boundry may be even harder to define at that point in time.

There are too many statistically identified in children that actually have developmental disabilities to ever eliminate the portrayal of autism in general as a disorder that is potentially disabling. That reality will never change unless the developmental disabilities that are real and part of many recognized diagnosed cases suddenly disappear.

Another problem in the US, is little is known about the prevalance of autism/Aspergers in the adult population. If the recent statistics gathered by screening adults in England hold true in the US, we can probably expect close to the 1 percent statistic that was found there, if a similiar screening test is done in the US. Hopefully an effort to screen adults here in the US, may lead to better portrayal and understanding of the entire autism spectrum.

aghogday, I don’t deny your statistics one bit. Um what I was trying to describe in the previous posts was Fragile X syndrome. Fragile X is a genetic disorder that is defined and autism is more neurological based; how would anyone take these two and get them confused is easy. Autism speaks has confused them quite well I suppose.

sites I've been looking at:


http://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism ... s#physical

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/autism/autism.htm

Another debate is getting Autism speaks to make Fragile X its own syndrome and stop leeching off autism.

Its the most civil, straightforward forum I have ever come across. The overall forum is not hostile at all to any of it diverse members (age, neurotype). Theres a bit of NT bashing which is generally healthy frustration.

I have read loads of threads where people are polite and change their positions, on all sorts of issues, after discussion. Its mature and intelligent and I think quite remarkable.

There is a few heated discussions going on at the moment about sensitive issues but nearly all people seem able to conduct themselves civily. The exceptions aren't banned, its pretty impressive if you compare to nearly every other forum I have ever visited.

Eh, but Fragile X Speaks isn't quite as catchy sounding as Autism Speaks... but I can see it's marketing potential, makes people wonder just WTH is Fragile X Syndrome and they'll read up on it.

i didnt say you said autism is a disability.i said autism is a disability

Per information below from the Fragile X Syndrome Foundation, Fragile X is indeed it's own syndrome already. Autism Speaks has nothing to do with the criteria needed for a diagnosis of Autism. In the US the DSMIV a manual from the American Psychiatric Association is used to diagnose autism. I've seen statistics of up to 10% relationship between fragile X syndrome and autism, but the Fragile X Syndrome foundation currently lists it as up to a 6 percent association with Autism.

And please note in the statistics below that only 33 percent of individuals with Fragile X Syndrome are also diagnosed with autism.

Scientists aren't confusing fragile X syndrome with autism, it has been scientifically determined as the most commonly known single genetic cause of autism.

http://www.nfxf.org/html/autism_and_fragile_x_syndrome.htm



There are other genetic and mental illness disorders where autism is a co-morbid condition. Autism is evident in some cases of down's syndrome, 22Q 11 gene deletion syndrome, and is often co-morbid with mental illnesses, such as anxiety alexithymia, bi-polar disorder, and depression. There are also genetic markers that autism shares with schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder.

The way the psychiatric association is looking to autism in the future, in the next revision of it's diagnosistic manual is a disorder that shares a triad of core elements: communication/social interaction deficits, and repetitive stereotypical/restrictive behaviors.
They are looking at it from a behavioral perspective that can be potentially caused by many different factors genetic and environmental. However, they don't base their diagnosis on the potential genetic cause and environmental causes, they base it on behavioral criteria, that a group of psychiatrists/psychologists have sat around a round table, and come up with, based on research and clinical opinion.

No one one cause owns autism, the genetic mutation that causes fragile X syndrome causes autism in some cases but a small minority of cases. And, since only a third of people with fragile X syndrome are diagnosed with autism, this points to the likelyhood that environment plays some type of role.

That seems contradictory. It also seems like the hypothesis that autism is a junk taxon is true.

Autism is a set of behaviors that people, bonobos, and mice exhibit.

Problems with social interaction, communication, and repetitive behaviors are three types of deficits that can be caused by a multitude of environmental factors on their own.

The behavior of a child or an adult that has been chronically abused and isolated from the world, is almost indistinguishable from from the deficits that occur with autism. The only difference, is when it is known that the individual was okay before the abuse was caused, autism isn't considered the diagnosis.

Chronic stress and depression in itself can cause repetitive stereotypical behaviors, lack of eye contact, deficits of social interaction, deficits of communication, however when not identified in childhood, it is not called autism.

Autism is what it is, a criteria for a group of commonly observed behaviors in humans, that psychologists and psychiatrists have determined deserves a name for a disorder, like other behavioral or neurological disorders.

What it is that you are is what it is that you are. If a psychiatrist were to check off all the little boxes that make up an autism spectrum diagnosis, you would receive a diagnostic label that comes from a manual.

Junk is a word that has no place in association with human beings. These folks that are diagnosed with autism that have fragile X Syndrome, Down Syndrome, or 22Q 11 gene deletion syndrome are not part of a junk taxon they are human beings that have genetic mutations. Some of them have behavioral issues that match the criteria for the autism diagnosis.

Our very existence today as human beings is because of random mutations, some of which are seen as beneficial and some of which are not seen as beneficial. However the way human beings see them doesn't necessarily match the reality of their benefits that enhance the ability of life to move in a positive direction.

If one reproduces or adds to the success of any life form's ability to survive they are part of the process of life, the grand goal, the only goal.

If a child with fragile X syndrome, down syndrome, or 22qQ 11 gene deletion syndrome, adds to life in anyway: plants a tree, waters a flower, feeds a cat, loves a parent, they have changed the world in their own way and made a positive impact on life, and definitely have done a better job than those that have the perfect genetics that destroy the lives of many others.

It's all relative, what in human beings that is seen as good, bad, junk, or perfect, in the eyes of a human being, doesn't necessarily match the reality of their impact on the grand goal, life.

Some of the people that have inspired me most in life, are those that are far from genetically perfect. Adversity often makes people stronger, most every human being has a mutation of somekind or a challenge of somekind, it's nothing to be ashamed of, and junk has no place in the description of it.

ok so how do you know the gene mutation isn't seperate from the autism in individuals that have both? How would you define criteria that would seperate one from the other, if the cause came to it and showed more of fragile x?

autism and fragile x can co-exist yes, but one had to be a dominent and the other a recessive.

as for the case of the 20yr old on youtube in a diaper I would say ragile x is dominent.

From the point of view i'm at the lack off criteria to distinguish the two are making the whole suffer because of mis-information.

aghogday's explaination of the fragile x chromosone is correct.i think fragile x syndrome may be different than the scientific theory of the fragile x chromosone.which may not only cause autism but maybe the trisomy syndromes as well.fragile x syndrome is not considered an autism spectrum disorder.i think both of you are right but speaking of differet things

The same genetic mutation that causes fragile X is associated with autism. So it's not a matter of the dominance of the mutation in fragile X syndrome. Behavior that meets the criteria of autism isn't expressed in two thirds of individuals with that genetic mutation.

Research finds it to be the most common genetic link to autism, but not the only genetic link. At latest count their are 772 separate genetic associations with autism that have been discovered by geneticists. Most all of them, though, have an association of not more that 1 out of 100 cases of autism. Up to 6 out of 100, per the foundation for fragile X syndrome, from that genetic mutation.

The diagnostic criteria for fragile X syndrome is different from the diagnostic criteria for autism. This is the way the two are already distinguished as separate disorders. No one understands the complex genetic interactions or environmental association that may lead to one individual developing autism with fragile X syndrome, and for another individual to have no signs of autism with fragile X syndrome. A person with fragile X syndrome can be in a diaper regardless if they have autism or not.

These folks have autism because they meet the diagnostic criteria for autism. There is no other reason that they are diagnosed with autism.

People with Autism have co morbids with epilepsy, bi-polar, ADHD, alexithymia, depression, OCD, gastrointestinal illnesses, and many others including fragile X syndrome, but which one makes life harder is dependent on the individual. There is diagnositic criteria for all these conditions that are different, it doesn't matter what the genetics are, the diagnostic criteria must be met for a diagnosis.