Is it just me or is this profoundly disturbing?

Post Reply New Topic

World's edge - yes I would agree with you if it were the blog author, but as DW said this was a commenter/reader, and I often feel like those people don't really have any expectation that their comments will be swept up and linked to on other (major, in this case) websites. Yes, they are making a public comment, which is why I still shared the link, but I still feel some hesitation about it.

DW, I agree with you that they are not making a simple statement about a cure, and I do understand how they must feel as a parent, but nevertheless to make a blanket statement about forcing a cure - even if it's just someone else's concept of "making you independent" onto people he himself acknowledges may be perfectly content - to justify that with the cost savings to society just makes me nauseaus. Especially given as you say he's commenting on a seriously physically disabled person's blog who is clearly making an important contribution to society, and on a blog post that revolved around the need for autistics to be allowed self-determination.

I would also argue that a so-called disabled person's mere existence is a contribution to society - as is yours or mine - because THAT is what makes us diverse.

My response to that commenter - though it hasn't shown up yet - was this:

"Firstly, my autistic son will NOT be forced into a "cure" that fundamentally alters who he is and eliminates his ability to be a happy, self-determining person, just because someone feels they can't afford the alternative. Do you honestly want to live in that kind of society? Because if you do, at some point it will be YOU they decide they can no longer afford to support.

Secondly, the inherent flaw in your logic is this: if you contend that society cannot continue to afford to accommodate autistics because they are multiplying at an 'alarming' rate - then consider this. At some point the scales tip, and it is no longer the NTs who are deciding whether to tolerate the autistics, but the autistics who will decide whether to tolerate the rest of us."

DW, I doubt the commenter knows he's talking eugenics, but he is by virtue of his own words. Any time someone starts talking about the need to reduce the burden of so-called defective individuals on society, it's leads us down the slippery slope of eugenics. We've learned that historically. These comments and positions look harmless at first, but then they start taking on a life of their own that makes us believe we are doing what is right for society, when all we're really doing is trying to eliminate diversity based on the definitions of a select few in positions of power.

Fortunately, I don't think he means to force it:

He wrote: the need for services and a cure.

I'm not suddenly flipping over to his view, but when I read the whole context, I realized that this is probably one of those times it is hard to judge someone whose shoes you aren't walking in. I think we're sometimes too quick to jump to conclusions about what some of what these other parents mean. When we break these things down with them, we often find out we're not on all that different a plain at all, although I do think that by and large those parents aren't exactly soothed by the idea their children have some unknowable balancing role in the nature of things, simply because the immediate burden on them is too great. And, yes, raising a child that a parent knows, KNOWS will never be independent places a huge burden on a parent - one that has it's offsets, but is still a burden.

True. I guess I tend to think that anyone looking for others to sometimes give them an inch, needs to be willing to give an inch back, and I've needed people to give me lots of inches in life. So, I always start from the point of assuming there is no mal-intent, and then try to show the person why it is a slippery slope.

Ah yeah, I didn't see the link to actual comment and the blog when I wrote that.

I guess what bothers me so much about that argument is that it always seems assumed to be true, without any number crunching shown. And that leaves only people's sense of morality as a check against it (and against it being used 'further down the line'). It's just one of those arguments that strikes me as rhetorically very powerful, but not necessarily because it's true.

I wonder if anyone has anyone has, in an unbiased manner, actually crunched numbers to see if there if there truly is an autistic financial problem looming? Heck, increased needs by autistics will create more jobs, which would be a plus for economy, and offset the cost some w/tax revenue, right? The way that, for political reasons, we're always going to hear that the national/state expenditures are already too much, and one more dollar of expense is always inconceivable, it really puts a big 'lever' behind the "we must do X to contain the cost" argument (whether true or not).

I guess ultimately I'm arguing for more of that nasty, dirty socialism, to help autistics and families w/autistics who need help. I just don't know when that'll be politically tenable in the USA again.

(Or, maybe I've been listening to too much politics lately (very likely).)

Apple in my Eye, we don't have that problem up here in Canada. We (generally) embrace our inner socialist.

If anyone comes along and tries to force a "cure" upon me, I will pop a cap in their ass.

In context, and reading everything the commenter said, I don't find the comment offensive.

Wow, I am really shocked at that willaful. You really feel that financial cost to society should be the main consideration in whether autistics are given a "cure"?

Me neither. I'm not saying that I completely agree, but I didn't find it offensive. I didn't completely agree with the blogger's ideas either though. I think she missed the mark on Planned Parenthood and TFA.

I think the author's words are being taken out of context.
The author is writing about people who fall within a specific range within the autistic spectrum, and cannot live independently. I believe that if there is a safe, effective cure for autism, then people shouldn't be allowed to live off the government instead of using the cure. As to what would constitute "safe", that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Yeah, well you know, in 'Merica lately, it's only to be whispered about in dimly-lit places: a shameful, awful secret.

I do wish for a cure for classic autism and other PDD with severe symptoms. I also wish the cause of autism is found.

No, and I don't think the author did either.

There are those who have profound disabilities and require a great deal of money and resources for their care. That is a burden and I am not adverse to finding a way to enable those individuals to become self dependent in life.

But I am independent and I actually function best this way. Most of my problems stem from NT's and their narrow thinking and perspectives, and their desire to attempt to force me to operate in a way I was not designed to operate. Most of my problems stemmed from lack of respect from NT's, and continual harassment to be like them.

i tend to think that the MOST effective solution to help people would be a cure to remove the disorder thats causing the impaired functioning. cure the underlying condition, dont just treat the symptoms. while you may consider it a waste of time and resources, there are those who do not believe it would be so. for them, the cure should be made available. how can we tell people that their suffering isnt worth spending time and money on researching a cure?

i also dont think we can call things like cognitive impairment a co-morbid. since we do not know the cause of autism, we cant say whether what is causing the autism is different than what is causing the cognitive impairment. imagine if we could find a cure that would rid someone of the autistic impairments and preserve cognitive function. while we may not be able to reverse any cognitive damage to those already developed, it would be infinitely worth the cost to be able to apply a preventative/cure to infants or fetuses that would mean their cognitive functioning would be intact.

one very valuable aspect of the cure research is that it goes hand in hand with causation research. i believe that is valuable work that is being done by some of the maligned autism organizations. without knowing the cause, a cure is just a distant hope that may not even ever be possible.