Masterchef: Was an autistic eliminated because of an attack?

Post Reply New Topic

(Name removed) There was a recent contestant eliminated from the cooking competition Masterchef this week.

My son, a teenager, (who is autistic) and I immediately took notice of (Name removed) in the show: his speech patterns, body language, unwavering use of a bowtie in a cooking environment, etc. My son wants to root for those displaying autistic traits succeeding. Things began to be confirmed (jn our minds), once the team challenges came about and than the responses from the other contestants about their opinions of (Name removed) and his 'behavior'. I kept thinking that there would be a part of the show where he reveals that he is autistic, especially after seeing a few cut-away shots that seemed like the start/end/repression of stimming and other coping strategies. He did open up repeatedly about his lifelong experience with bullies.

It never happened, the declaration. (In many reality shows, such as Masterchef, sometimes those who have a disability or other major life difficulty, will discuss it as they advance in the show, or upon elimination.)

I was really impressed how well he handled himself, though public opinion (on the net, and in the show) was harsh on him.

He was eliminated because of his 'panic attack'. What was showed was a near-syncope incident, as well as, what many of us know, when there is too much mental and physical stress and no relief - a body is going to shutdown. But despite what to me was horrifying (and too much similarity for my son to watch), (Name removed) did such a great job trying to rally and stay involved with the tag-team cooking challenge (which is full of yelling, multiple cooking tasks, fast communication, and pressure for time). If he had twisted his ankle and still wanted to finish, many people would root and admire him. In this case, people just yelled at him for not 'getting it together', repeatedly.

If you're not familiar with near-syncope, it is when you almost faint but don't lose full consciousness. In his case, he sudden dropped but caught himself on the descent, so that was probably enough to adjust the blood pressure and/or inter-cranial pressure from the stress hormones/or other factors. I suspect when the judge requested he sit down and than he stood up, it influenced the near faint. Which is unfortunate, because there is a chance he may not have dropped. If he looked so unwell that they brought him a chair to sit down, why did they not pause the competition? Had he fully fainted, he could have been significantly hurt.


There are a varieties of syncope (faint) and near-syncope (almost faint) but most people are familiar with a single type, which probably did not apply to (Name removed). His lack of a full faint has resulted in people thinking that he overreacted, or faked it. What I saw was a true medical event resulting from not accommodating the visually apparent distress. It was amazing to see him rally...to get focused, to not continue to withdraw, there is one particular scene where he gets up, drinks his water quickly, and resumes to try and reengage. Its a hard scene to describe verbally. I saw no medic, only a brief pause as people stare when he fell, and than things continued.

I wonder what would have happened if a deaf contestant lost their hearing aid during the challenge - would they have paused? If someones epilepsy resulted in a seizure, would they have been eliminated for not handling the stress of the challenge? ... I am sure medics are on stand-by during the show, how could they NOT see the obvious signals of excess catecholamines (stress hormones) having a physical effect. Why is it ok to treat a severe anxiety attack (they called in a 'panic attack') as if it is not deserving of medical relief or inquiry...especially near stoves, ovens, etc. Its treated as if it is a personality flaw.

Note: I have a form of dysautonomia (those with this condition deal with chronic syncope/faint issues and overproduction of catecholamines (stress hormones), those of us that get a diagnosis are educated on the signs/symptoms/influencing factors. Whereas we get a different mental stress presentation than those with autism, the physical effects of anxiety/panic attacks are identified similarly, as well as the social misunderstanding and disdain. Anyone can have a singular (near) syncope event. Its quite different to have it as a daily risk factor.

(Name removed) does not deserve the negative public opinion .... or the fear response from the judges when they witness his anxiety attack. It was also discussed in the show that they knew he has anxiety problems (from past challenges) and communication issues (from past challenges), and it was expected he would fail (or be significantly impaired) by the tag-team challenge. ... I do wonder if he was confirmed (is) autistic, would they have accommodated this risk factor? (What if they did not know, but suspected, would they have taken it into consideration?)

Other questions raised are, how responsible is someone over their anxiety attacks in combination with a condition that makes them more susceptible? Should people be denied the opportunity to mitigate, even if it is in a competition. Should they be eliminated based on this?

Is it okay for the media to promote the idea that "anxiety attacks" are something in everyone's control and not deserving of understanding, accommodation, or that there is no physiological processes involved or safety concerns?

And, in the context of the show's entirety, is it okay to repeatedly have other contestants and judges trivialize someones interpersonal difficulties - in absence of the affected personal demonstrating malice towards others. Especially in light of the affected contestant being very open about the bullying and social abuse he faced as a child, and continues to cope with?

Whether or not (Name Removed) is on the autistic spectrum, if you watch the show, you will see traits between him and those with autism. The way that Masterchef presents these traits to the public is that it is okay to "give up" on those who are affected: to dismiss, to criticize, to not have empathy for them, to blame, and when they are down and needing help, yell at them, fear them, eliminate them.

Do you often engage in making medical diagnoses of people whom you've seen only on TV?

Do you even have a medical degree?

It is not unusual for people to notice something that they are personally familiar with, even when that 'something' does not really exist. This is evidenced by the tendency for people who have just purchased a new car to notice more of the same kind of car wherever they go. You are familiar with the symptoms of yours and your son's particular disorders, so it is only natural that your mind would trick you into 'seeing' the same disorders in other people.

This is similar to the common human behavior called 'pareidolia', which is the imagined perception of a pattern or meaning where it does not actually exist, such as when people consider the moon to have human features, or when people consider that a clumsy, arrogant person has Aspergers' Syndrome.

While Nathan may (or may not) have any sort of Autism Spectrum Disorder, it is only fitting that he should be allowed some respect for his privacy, and not have to endure the spurious opinions of armchair diagnosticians ... which only serve to generate and propagate negative public opinion ...

________________

T minus 22 and counting.

If I inferred a direct diagnosis, that was not intended. I made an opinion based on observation and mentioned that I had an expectation that the conclusion would be validated, but it did not. And I note that I wonder if anyone realized that this person was potentially affected, and if he was, was he unfairly eliminated? I also mention that he deserved respect, because whether he is or is not autistic, he is clearly in conflict with interpersonal relations and sudden stress, and he managed to persevere.

The elimination was on the basis on the anxiety attack, which scared the judges. What is being perceived as a personally failing, or immaturity, - that being the status quo public opinion - (I've seen discussion where people intentionally accuse him of purposely faking a faint episode).

Now, there are plenty of public opinions circulating about Nathan, the show was very open to people suggesting what was wrong with him - and I haven't seen anyone take in account the probability of autism ... I am really concerned that a 21 year old having near-syncope during a competition after very visual physical affects of being overly stimulated/stressed was not provided any medical treatment, or recovery time. And than was booted for it. That forms the public opinion that its OK to dismiss people who experience this events. *

Nathan, and those who knew him, speak publicly, about aspects of his life, most notably, about him having to live with and overcome exceptional bullying. He talks about self-acceptance. I think that's grand. Nathan has accepted, by being a public figure and for accepting (encouraging) discussion of him being a representative of missionaries, there is legal latitude for criticism/discussion, especially, in part because of the existing negative public opinion.

I will alter the original post, if it is still possible. My intention was not to offend, or confuse, and perhaps I did.

(I do find it interesting Fnord, that your comment is hypocritical and, perhaps it is intended to be. Or maybe the inclination is that you're a hypocrite. Or perhaps you're completely unaware. I have no idea, and it doesn't matter. Nor does it matter if I do or do not possess a medical degree (or some other equal to this topic qualification), because declaring so and using it for the basis of this conversation would be unethical.)

I haven't seen the episode----and, I can't watch videos----but, I'm familiar with the franchise (I'm a HUGE fan of "Master Chef, Jr."), and from what you have described, this is what I came-up with:

1. It has been MY experience that an incident, such as this, is much more distressful to the OBSERVER, than it is to the participant----meaning, it seems this wasn't the first time Nathan experienced this panic attack / near-fainting thing, so he knew he could just keep-on going (I have re-active hypo-glycemia, and seizures----which are similar). You said you didn't understand why he wasn't given medical attention----we, as viewers, have no idea how things are edited; maybe Nathan didn't WANT medical help; it sounds like he was determined to keep going.

2. This show had a BLIND girl on another season----and, not only did she not REQUIRE much "special assistance", she WON; so, I don't feel the people at this show would deny anyone assistance if they asked for it.

3. I don't believe a high-functioning autistic person (like what I assume Nathan is) should be given much special treatment----I mean, turning out overhead lights, being able to wear headphones, or something like these, would be acceptable----but, being a CHEF is an EXTREMELY "non-ASDer-friendly" job, IMO. One has to either learn to function, or choose another career (Mommy and Daddy may love you / want to help you every time you say "Oh, Boo-hoo"----BUT, "Joe Boss" WON'T). That may sound harsh, but I don't feel we should expect people to stop and coddle us (or, even understand what we're going-through)----NOT that you were expecting people to coddle him (Nathan); but, SOME ASDers seem to expect this----AND, I don't think Nathan would've wanted that; otherwise, he wouldn't have gotten right back up, and kept going.

4. Another thing that we have discussed many times, on this site, before, is that it's VERY difficult to get help for things, that others can't SEE. When one is in a wheelchair, it's very obvious that there's something wrong with them----when someone is a HFA, it ISN'T. People don't understand these things, unless they've experienced them. Also, we have to consider the pressure on the OTHER people, who were there to win, ALSO----they may have snapped, when in any OTHER situation, they would've been more tolerant / understanding / giving. Every malady / disorder / disease / whatever has to EARN its way to public acceptance, so-to-speak----it's happened with AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, etc.----people will get there, regarding autism; it'll just take more time.

I don't know you----and, I mean no disrespect----but, I'm thinking you're just a little bit too quick to jump on the producers, et. al., involved with this show; we couldn't possibly KNOW what-all happened behind-the-scenes, unless we were THERE, no.1; and, no.2, I'm thinking you're just a little bit too quick with the "Awww, poor baby"----like I said, it's almost ALWAYS way more distressful to the observer, than the person it happens to. It's partially understandable, because you're a mother----and, mother's often worry way more than they have to, blow things outta proportion, sometimes----but, until we hear from NATHAN that he was mistreated, or whatever, I'm thinking we should just exhale.

BTW, Welcome to Wrong Planet!! You didn't offend anyone----the second poster just LOVES to cram "Did a DOCTOR say that" down people's throats----you'll get used to it / will learn to ignore it, if you stick-around; we've all had to.

Take care,

Cat

I saw "Master Chef" listed in tonight's TV schedule, and watched hoping they would re-air the episode referenced in the OP, as they often re-run those episodes in the same week, in my viewing area----and, they DID!!

I NOW believe that Nathan brought some of his fainting spell on HIMSELF, by over-reacting (being SOOOOO overly dramatic, etc.), and that ANOTHER contributing factor was him getting super hot, after standing over the fryer (his face and neck looked very shiny, from sweating); and that (standing over the fryer), DEFINITELY, could play a part in someone fainting.

I DON'T believe they threw him off the show, because of his "attack"----but, because he was so overly dramatic, lost control of his emotions, under pressure, was a hindrance to his team's success, and they had the worst-tasting / presented picnic----AND, that would make him unworthy of the title "Master Chef", IMO.

I didn't see anything that indicated to ME, that he was autistic----and, that the other people on the show were being insensitive, to him (in FACT, they seemed very supportive of him, and told them they loved him, etc., when he left)----but, I haven't seen the whole season.

IMO, you both (you and Nathan) over-reacted to to the events, in this episode. Yes, I heard him say he was bullied, in school (or, wherever)----but, so were MOST of us ASDers. How long, after he's (Nathan) left school and been out in the "real" world, do you think he can continue to use that, seemingly, as an excuse, and achieve any degree of success, having a job, or a relationship----like I said, Mommy and Daddy might be willing to rush to you, and give you an "Awww, poor baby", all-the-time, but a BOSS, WON'T.

That's good.

We had a female contestant here in Australian baking reality TV show have a meltdown and she shook her arms exactly like she was stimming
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv ... 25efaf136c

Of course there's no evidence she has autism...or does she?

i found/watched a youtube clip of it....and all the comments for him were VERY harsh. calling him a faker. wow. i don't think fakers hit the floor like he did.

i guess we'll never really know though...if he is one of us or not.

I understand that social (not technically "indie") media pays people for hits.

Rather than mega extreme competition spike the ball cooking, autism could be the gimmick.

He could explain the stimming, politely, go about his business, tastefully.

If you are sweating, so profusely, that it's a problem, just pardon yourself, to take care of that, momentarily.

Pepper that with a few, light advocacy comments.

You keep getting concerned about how you are treated, which is valid, but so rarely create your own scenes and venues.