What would a 'cure' do, anyway?

Post Reply New Topic

Aaarrghh! None of you have actually answered the question: what would this 'cure' do, anyway?

I'm just taking the DSM at face value. I know I probably shouldn't, because it's written by psychiatrists who don't like being clear about things, but... taking it at face value, if you can function fine, you don't have it. Simple.

The DSM would suggest that there can be more than one type of 'cure'. There seems to be this deep rooted idea of 'once an Aspie, always an Aspie', despite the fact that it is a self-evident falsehood.

"Cure" seems to imply that no workarounds are in place. But can that ever actually be true? If a person with Social Anxiety Disorder goes into Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and learns some very effective techniques to handle social situations and no longer gets destroyed by them, does that person still have Social Anxiety Disorder? I think so, even though they are now able to go to parties without having a panic attack. (I'm going on the theory that therapy must work at least some of the time on some people or therapists would be out of business.) I don't think a person can be made into a different person, but workarounds can be learned (or self-taught, in the case of many here, it seems). When workarounds are very effective, the person won't fit the DSM criteria anymore because the DSM criteria focuses entirely on dysfunction. That's its purpose. It's there to get a diagnosis for people who need help with a particular problem. A person with very effective workarounds no longer has a problem. They wouldn't fit the DSM criteria of dysfunction anymore. But yet, the workarounds are very real and not something they were born with. So, still Aspergers (Or Social Anxiety Disorder, or whatever can have a good workaround for some people).

Ok, as you wish.

1. Disable the "aspie area" of the brain forcing it to use other areas. (Horrible side effects.)
2. Chemical overflow. You insert some kind of feel good chem. (All these things are classed as drugs.)
3. Forced rewired brain. Different from nr 1 in the sense that it will take longer and be more natural. (Lesser side effects.)

Happy?


The Homer Simpsons solution: tape over the "check engine"-light. "There, problem solved."


Please explain.

Seconded; I'm not sure how an adaption 'cures' a neurological difference.


M.

Ah, we've made the jump from "developmental disorder" to "neurological difference" again without even realizing it. While there is evidence to suggest that Asperger's is perhaps caused by a neurological difference, it is not the neurological difference that is itself Asperger's. That is to say, Asperger's is defined in terms of its dysfunction, not in terms of its neurological variance.

Except maybe not. These days, experts are describing it as a difference in neurological processing which as of today is undefined but simply observably different. This difference in processing can (but does not necessarily) lead to symptoms which are diagnosable by the criteria. Except that you can still have autism without having this observably different processing.

Confused yet?

The assumption here appears to be if one is ever autistic, one is always autistic. I suppose it depends on how you define autism. Do you define it in terms of the criteria, or do you define it as a fundamental neurological difference that we really can't define at this point in time?

There has also been few to no studies done that show that this neurological difference is permanent throughout the course of one's life. There are many who have been diagnosed with Asperger's as children (or would have been if the diagnosis had been available) who have gone on to lead successful, well-adapted lives as adults. Show me the studies that track these people yet show no change in this "neurological difference" (however that is defined).

I'm not saying it's necessarily untrue; I'm simply saying that it's unproven. It's convenient to believe that autism is for life, and I'm certain that many feel that they will always be autistic for life. Where, however, is the scientific basis to back up this assertion?

The concept of autism differs greatly between the DSM and autism specialists. The DSM takes an operationalist approach which specifically aims not to state causes, only symptoms. Hence, if it be neurological or not does not matter, only the symptoms you exhibit matter for classification. By contrast, autism specialists are free to speculate about neurological, genetic, chemical or whatever differences as specialists are interested in what causes it.

These two standpoints are mutually incompatible, you either go with one or the other, either only symptoms matter or only causes matter (with symptoms merely helping suggesting the cause).

When i think of "cure," I think of "here, take this pill/shot/whatever and it will make you normal." A "cure" is when you have a "disease" and you take something for it to go away. I think of treatment as something different... Because it doesn't get rid of whatever is causing the difficulties, it just helps you to live with it better. The idea of a "cure," at least to me, just sounds completely illogical in the case of autism... Unless you're talking about some hardcore brain surgeries, screwing with peoples' genetics, or something scary like that.

I was taking the definiton of a 'cure' as: somethiong that would stop someone from fitting enough of the DSM criteria to actually have Aspergers. It doesn't matter what that is; as long as it stops them fitting the criteria, they don't have it.

The impression I've got is that a lot of 'anti-cure' people are reactionaries against something they aren't even sure about. That's why I was asking them to specify what the 'cure' they were worried about would do. If all it is is therapy which stops them fitting criteria C, then that's still a cure.

Isn't that typically AS hihi
To get stuck with details?

Besides the DSM, there also exists the ICD-10.

I have an ICD AS dx. Meaning I do not need to fulfil criterion C of the DSM-IV-TR.

Oh great. Psychologists can't even agree on the diagnostic criteria.

But even if we get rid of criteria C, a minimal 'cure' would still be possible without altering the person that much. WTF (Why The Fear)?

To hell with the idea of a cure I say.

Don't tell me you're surprised. ^^


Have you ever study the human history? It's an endless cycle violence and mistreating towards "different" people, we are the latest in the row. Only we risk being exterminated because we're "sick". And as soon as someone manage to make a cure, a pre-birth test and -injection won't be far behind, and then we're toast

Having AS/Autism partly makes us who we are...much like being a Time Lord makes the Doctor "Who he is"

I like who I am, and I like being me.

I don't really see anything major that I'm missing out on from an NT world.

In fact, here's a good example:

I'm now playing this game called Mafia Wars on Facebook. Up to Level 35, they give you this "coming attractions" look at what the game will be like when you can finally access Cuba in the game, giving you more opportunities at weapons, businesses, jobs, etc.

It definitely made it look interesting, and overly appealing, and worth checking out.

I watch the NTs where I work; they don't make being NT and "social" look even remotely appealing.

I mean...I even see all my former classmates on Facebook; they're all smashed off their gourdes on alcohol in every picture they have up. All my co-workers talk about is drinking and sex...and their 3-year-olds.

All the adults I know about ever talk about is "the economy", and why "this political party is better/worse than the other"

The sad thing is these are the same people who completely BSed us with those PSAs back in the day telling ya to "be yourself", when they prefer you just follow the herd.

It's almost like the idea is this: "You should be normal, and conform....just because"

And that's utter crap to me.

The whole point is to sell to me what's so freakin' desirable about being NT; if that's the best they have to offer, they might as well file for Chapter 11, cause even if there were a clearance sale goin' on, I ain't bitin'.

My life is quite good; I have a beautiful girlfriend who loves me for me, a few decent friends--most of whom barely understand me, but whatever--a job, and a business that just hit its 1 Year Anniversary. I have come to a philosophical understanding of life that most people I know can't even fully comprehend as it's a really "outside of the box" philosophy, and I understand how the world works better than most NTs and others my own age--partially cause of you great folks!

I don' need no steenking cure!! !! !!

Why for all that's holy would I want to throw all that away to "be normal"?

So you're rejecting a cure... when you can't even be bothered to find out what it does?

From what people here say, you'd think that someone is either Aspie or NT, with no inbetween. It's a... false dichtomy, is that the phrase?

The problem is, different people have different definitions of "cure", but the only opinions that matter are the ones who are developing the "cure".

Unfortunately, the people who are in charge of developing a "cure" think that it's easier to just develop a pre-natal test to eliminate future autistics than it is to help living autistics. THAT is their definition of "cure".

Some parents of autistic children would be thrilled if their kid could function on an AS level. Some parents want complete eradication of autistic traits.

What you seem to be describing for the most part (minimal cure) actually has another phrase to describe it.

"Growing up"

And growing up is not being cured.

The definition of a 'cure' for AS is quite simple: anything which means that the person no longer fits the criteria required for diagnosis. It doesn't matter what it is; as long as it does that, it's a 'cure'.

As fiddlerpianist said, Aspergers is defined in terms of it's dysfunction. That is, if it doesn't cause a dysfunction it's not Aspergers. Anything which means it doesn't cause dysfunction is, technically, a cure.