Is Asperger's syndrome / autism a disability?

Post Reply New Topic

For now. I hereby announce the creation of a new federation! You don't want to accept us as part of your group? FINE. We'll just breed our own race of super aspies. We shall be known as the mole people!

^I don't want to be a mole-person! DX

In my personal view, Asperger's syndrome, Autism, PDD-NOS, etc., should not be defined as "disabilities". But rather, they are neurological differences that have the propensity to lead to disabilities in certain areas of functioning. Extreme sensitivity to the environment coupled with an inability to interact with others can hinder the growth and development of the individuals possessing those qualities. However, those autistics who have learnt to cope with their issues have been able to lead happy and fulfilling lives. My definition of the term 'disability' is something which prevents an individual from ever living a happy and fulfilling life. Now, of course, the extent to which one on the autism spectrum is disabled is obviously due to their level of functioning. So-called Low-functioning autistics are not inherently low-functioning; that is, they are not born without any potential of reaching a higher level of functioning. They merely have a higher degree of "oversensitivity" to the environment.

Like cultural diversity, neuro-diversity can lead to a certain egocentrism. "Neurocentrism", like ethnocentrism characterizes individuals who hold the preconceived belief that their own neurology is better than any other. Autistics are also guilty of this, and that actually goes to show you that we are all equally endowed with humanness.

By this logic I could prove I am not human by defining “human” as things over 6 foot tall.

Most people who live an average lifespan will experience disability at some point in their life. Disability is not being unhappy or unfufilled or, (as suggested earlier in the thread), having some kind of attitude. The way people are so desperate to define themselves out of any association with the word disability you’d think that being disabled were freakish or immoral, rather than perfectly ordinary and morally neutral.

But isn't this so for almost anyone not born dead?

By your logic, it seems we should do away with the term disability altogether, except to apply it to the state dead.

I don't see it as a disability, but then again I don't really think about my AS too much. I just get on in life the best I can.

There must be a better name than Mole People

This may have been said before, but it's not like curing a physical medical condition, such as cancer or pneumonia.

Let's assume for a moment that autism is defined as a certain type of brain dysfunction that causes impairment of reading non-verbal cues. (It's not that simple, of course... this is just to illustrate the point.) To cure autism, you would have to alter the brain in some way that the brain would no longer be impaired at reading non-verbal cues. Okay, sounds simple enough.

So suppose that you, as a person previously afflicted with autism, now had all of this capacity to read non-verbal cues. It's very likely that the information would now "register with you," but that it would still be "noise."

Growing up is all about tuning into things that are important in our environment and tuning out things that aren't. It's one of the reasons that humans are so remarkably adaptable. If an ability was simply never built in from the start (or it was impaired in some way), suddenly removing the impairment in adulthood won't have much of an effect, or at least it won't have the effect of a "cure" that you're expecting. People who have been blind all of their lives, for instance, and then get treated to be able to see as adults cannot process visual information in the same way as someone who has been doing it all of their lives. (Sorry, I don't have a citation.)

A true cure would have to involve "reversing" the wiring of one's brain, a wiring which was achieved mostly through growing up.

QFT.

More people should read this.

This is exactly what disability is about and answers the question whether or not ASDs are a disability.

Do you know that you hyphenate a lot?

ruveyn

MJE, that is not easily answered but, I,msyelf not only have AS but, I'm diabetic and also have some learning disorders to go along with myself therefore, life these days has not been easy but, I'm always trying to remain hopeful and not look at my AS as being the reason for all of my failures which, in itself is not.. Anyways, I'll simply that all people in the spectrum have a great many strongpoints and weaknesses so, it's a matter of those things and many other factors that come into to play if you wish to look at AS or Autism as being disability..Personally, I see it as being like Bruce Lee, in that I do things in a non-traditional sense that's all..

Actually, it's a fine comparison.

They're both reptiles.

By the same definition, people of different racial colours would be "disabled" in countries in which they're minorities.
I think I agree with that definition.

I'm also a believer in aspergers being an evolutionary change rather than a defect.

For me, it's definitely a disability. It's a roadblock to all avenues to happiness.

I agree. What I should have said was that disability implies something that is inactive and non-applicable in its current, disabled state. You can be still so-called "disabled" and live a happy and fulfilling life, I understand that. The reason why many of us don't consider autism virtually a disability, is because we have qualities that 'enable' us to live useful, happy, and fulfilling lives. When I say disabled, I'm referring to individuals such as severe schizophrenics who require hospitalization, or Alzheimer patients, or individuals with severe mental retardation. That's just the way I view the term 'disability', and autism doesn't particularly fit the same criterion.



That's not what my logic implies. My logic, if you read attentively enough, will imply that although low-functioning autistics are considered disabled, they do not possess the inability to ever reach a higher level of functioning, and are therefore not without developmental potential. So they can become 'enabled' to live a productive life. On the other hand, individuals born with down syndrome have an almost entirely predictable pattern of development, and are constrained as to the level of functioning they can reach.

In essence, Autism has a much better prognosis than, say, chronic schizophrenia or down syndrome, and it is capable of being a potentially enabling condition, whereas chronic schizophrenia, Alzheimers disease, or down syndrome don't possess such potential.

Everyone’s potential is at the end of the day finite and capped.

People with Down’s Syndrome have no more capped potential than anyone else to develop. I know of-a person with Down’s Syndrome who created works of art respected for professional quality and artistic merit, by persons unaware of her disability. I believe this person’s actual skills in this are beyond my entire potential in the same area.

This person claimed to live a happy and fulfilled life, and she made tangible achievements more exceptional than anything I’ve done; more exceptional than the average person disabled or otherwise achieves.

Both scientists/researchers and effected persons have made claims about artistic and creative benefits being linked to schizophrenia and effected persons can be very high achievers. Their potential is no more capped than anyone else’s.

To avoid misunderstandings, could you provide an explicit definition of disability as you see it (including what constitutes a happy and fulfilling life)? When making my points, I will be referring to something like the following definition of it (as in the DDA):

"The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities."

Your above distinction between autism and other conditions in terms of disability appears to be an arbitrary one, with little evidence that the wider context has been considered. It doesn't appear to acknowledge the complexity of reality. If I am misunderstanding this, please elaborate on why autism as opposed to the other conditions listed is fundamentally a special case in terms of impairment and disability (preferably stating which definition of disability you are using). Also, autism usually occurs with co-morbid conditions and covers a vast spectrum of functioning; is this being taken into account when making the above delineation?



Where did you obtain this specific information? It appears to be based on pure assumption, and a rather dangerous one. And a level of functioning constraint applies to everyone anyway. Concerning the conditions you listed, it is well known there exists much heterogeneity within these groups; like autism. It is dangerous to make assumptions that don't acknowledge this. In practice, disability is an extremely complex issue, as well as being an innate aspect of being human.

Your above statement, if I am reading correctly, seems to be saying that these other groups are an almost complete write-off in terms of developmental potential. This assumption was made in the past and has proven to be grossly inaccurate. It resulted in many people (and still does) being unnecessarily institutionalised, considered ineducable, treated as not "real" persons, etc. These can be some of the repercussions of such assumptions.