Is surgically altering an autistic boy’s voice cruel or kind

Post Reply New Topic

Well I needed punishments when I was a kid because in my mind, if there were no consequences, it was an okay thing to do. A punishment told me it's wrong to do and it taught me to follow rules. it taught me there are consequences if you do not follow them so that is why I always got punished because I always thought, no consequence, okay to do. I am sure my mom got flack for it but they didn't know how my mind operated. I even had to be punished after a first offense because of the way my mind worked or else I would have thought it was okay to do and would have been confused if I got punished for it the second or third time of doing it. So to say you don't need to do punishments to discipline a child is like a slap in the face because how else would a kid learn if they operated like me. Maybe not all kids need a punishment because they listen when they are told something is wrong or mean and to not do it again so the parent doesn't even need to punish their kids. I say it depends on the child. It's not all black and white and absolute. I was one of those kids who needed punishments to learn for me to have a rule sink in and to learn right from wrong. I don't know how I would have turned out if my mom didn't punish me, I may have grown up to think rules don't apply and keep getting into trouble, maybe with the law too because I would have had a hard time following them.

To me punishment and discipline mean the same thing like if your kid keeps choking other kids and you have kept telling them to stop and then finally you tell them if they do it one more time, they are leaving. They do it again, bam you make them leave. I call it a punishment because the consequence was they were made to leave. Some may just call it discipline, not a punishment but to me there is no difference. As a child, you don't want to leave the play area but you disobey so your mom makes you leave, that looks like a punishment to me. What was the consequence? Being made to leave sooner.

I've noticed that. Many modern therapists who call themselves ABA practitioners are not actually doing ABA at all; it's more like occupational therapy. I think they use the term ABA because of the reputation it has for working (which, technically it does, but inefficiently and superficially, and often traumatically).

Behaviorism is like this: "Because we can't see inner processes, they aren't scientifically relevant. Only behavior matters. We should change the behavior by using reward, punishment, and classical conditioning. Multi-step behaviors are taught via chaining and reinforcement. Cognition is irrelevant."

Behaviorism was still relatively popular when Lovaas first applied it to "effeminate" boys (gay boys or trans girls, probably) and then to autistic children, but it's fallen out of favor since--mostly because we've come to recognize that ideas, thoughts, and emotions are extremely important, no matter how difficult they are to observe. Only for ABA and for animal training is behaviorism still in heavy use (granted, animal behavior is a big field of psychology, and since animals can't tell us what they're thinking, behaviorism is probably one of the best ways to run experiments on animals...). The original experiments which proved the effectiveness of ABA also showed that aversives (painful or unpleasant stimuli) were one of the major factors in making it effective.

Modern autism therapy of the sort that aims to teach children to communicate is often far removed from Lovaas-style ABA, and there is very little that's behaviorist about it. But it is still called ABA--mostly for insurance reasons, since programs like TEACCH and Floortime, or speech and occupational therapy, are less likely to be covered by insurance than something that is called ABA.

The trouble with this is that many programs still do use Lovaas-style ABA, with or without aversives, always with coercion and with an aim to modifying behavior. These programs have given many of us PTSD--literally, diagnosably. We're jumpy, jittery, scared of every move, unable to initiate actions on our own. What I want is to force the professional community to look at what they are doing to the youngest, most vulnerable of us--to realize how harmful it is, how painful it is. We have no time to be children. We are not allowed to be ourselves. And parents often can't tell which type of "ABA" is being used on their child--whether it's the coercive sort that treats their child like a rat in a cage, or the sort that might as well be called "occupational therapy" and actually takes into account the child's interests, feelings, and natural ways of moving and seeing the world. There are parents who have been shocked to realize what is being done to their child at school or in a residential placement--sometimes after their child has suffered months of such abuse. They see their child's personality withdrawing, the child becoming anxious and guarded, losing interest in the things they used to love--or becoming so compliant that they seem robotic. And only then do they realize how their child has been treated, what the people who were supposed to help have been doing. And because most parents of young autistics don't realize the problems with ABA and don't know that good, valuable therapies are being labeled ABA even though they aren't, these vulnerable kids are still subjected to what amounts to abuse. Their parents, perhaps having heard about useful therapies disguised as ABA, often have no way of knowing how their child will be treated.

We need to make it clear to parents of young autistics that their children have rights, that learning should not be painful. Therapy sessions and institutional placements should be open to parents, anytime, unannounced. We need to make it clear to professionals that autistic behavior is there for a reason and has a purpose. We need to label therapy properly--"ABA" should not be used as a catch-all for autism therapy. We need to teach children that it is okay to say "No, that hurts. Stop." And be listened to. Coercion does not make for good education.

I'm having a hard time replying to this conversation... I keep deleting my comments. I feel like I'm over-sharing... too much information. But that said, I think kids copy their parents. If you have discipline, and are gentle, honest, and hardworking, then so will your children. If you keep your agreements, then so will your children. And... well... do dog trainers ever punish their puppies? EVER? What kids need to thrive is loving attention in my opinion.

I raised two kids pretty much as the custodial parent. I set no limits, and I never disciplined them ever. I never got angry or upset with them. I was never disappointed or lied to. I never made them do anything. They are both ridiculously successful... with advanced degrees, and good jobs. And they are happily married, with friends out the yin yang. Nothing like me. But... they both love me, and tell me so... and talk to me often.

Here's an example of my parenting... when they were like 8 and 10 we moved to our own house, and they had their own bedrooms. I let them write on and graffiti their walls, and over the years every inch was covered with crazy stuff... and all their friends wrote on them too. Then we scraped the walls (and ceiling), and puttied, and primed, and painted (several coats!) over them... then they did it all over again.

In my idealistic days, I would have said exactly what you said.

Then I actually had kids. And they actually required more parenting than that. Most of my idealistic "parenting plans" have been thrown out the window a long time ago because what I thought my kids would be like is nothing at all what my kids are actually like. Mind you, I have two well-mannered (usually), thoughtful (usually), and obedient (usually) kids, but they sure as heck did not get that way by me standing back and letting them find their own way in the world.

It is great that you had two who were successful under those circumstances. Mine never would be. And although I do agree that kids sometimes copy their parents, this is not always true. Kids have their own temperaments and sometimes they do not match the parent's temperament, nor do they always match the temperament their parents want them to have. My firstborn gave me a run for my money when he was a toddler. Whew! That kid was nearly the death of me. My brother's firstborn was one of those easy peasy toddlers. Very compliant and quiet. Of course, he chalked it up to his superior parenting skills. Until his second was born. She was his hellraiser and he quickly learned that the ease of parenting his firstborn was over the minute his second was born. Nothing that worked with his first worked with his second. I never even needed to say "I told you so" because it was that obvious.

I think it is hardest when your natural parenting style does not match with what the kid needs. While it is true that all kids need to be loved unconditionally, some need a lot firmer direction and some need way more boundaries. When a parent who tends to be more lax by nature does not step it up, the kid runs haywire. Likewise, some kids are much gentler and do not need much more than "suggestions." When you have a parent who is naturally more heavy-handed (figuratively) not dialing it back a bit, it crushes that gentler kid.

My dad was "heavy-handed." I was "gentler." He crushed me. My son probably needs me to be more heavy-handed (figuratively) than I am. My daughter, too. I often have to remind myself to step it up a bit.

It probably depends on the kids and the parents. Some kids are very sensitive to their parents' approval and for them, a stern word is a severe punishment. Other kids have trouble reining themselves in and need to be pretty constantly reminded. Yet others feel safest when they have a set of known rules with known penalties for breaking them. And some parents are better at reasoning with children, others better at creating a good environment... etc.

As a child, I needed rules because they helped me understand what I needed to do. I have quite a lot of trouble with choice overload and self-regulation. Rules help because they give me a sort of flowchart. But if they're unpredictable or unknown beforehand, they are worse than useless. In a situation where I break a rule I didn't know existed, I feel helpless, frustrated, angry. Unfortunately, my parents were unpredictable and capricious, and their parenting depended heavily on their moods; I longed for dependable rules that would tell me both what my responsibilities were and what they were going to do. But I never got that. I spent my childhood alternately walking on eggshells and deliberately stomping on them just because I needed to prove to myself that I was not completely at their mercy.

It's okay if parents are strict; they just have to see that their child is a person in their own right. They have to explain why the rules are there and what they're good for. They have to teach their child how to do things instead of just punishing when the child doesn't do them. I think that it's not really the permissiveness or strictness of parents that is the important thing; it's whether they see their children as people with their own personalities and desires, keep open communication with their children, teaching instead of commanding and allowing freedom without ignoring the child's need to learn how to go about living one's life.

It really does depend on the kid. Maybe parents too.

I needed rules as a kid because I liked to know what to expect and I needed structure, without any rules, things would be chaotic for me and I did much better if I knew the rules. Then there were the consequences I needed to be able to continue following them.

Here is an example of how it's different for each child:

When I was little, mom and I were grocery shopping and I wanted a pack of gum. Mom told me no. I took it off the shelf anyway and stuck it in my pocket. When we got home I took th gum out and had it opened and my mother asked me "Where did you get that gum?" Me: From the store. Mom: Why? Me: I wanted it. Mom: I told you no. Me: But I wanted it.

So after she put the groceries away, she made me go to my piggy bank and take out some coins and she took me back to the store. She took me inside and brought me to the cashier and said "My daughter took a pack of gum from your store and I brought her back to pay for it." Cashier: Oh that is okay. Mom: No, she is going to pay for it, she took it, she pays for it.

So my mom has me take out my coins and count the change and then the cashier says to me "Here is your gum" and my mom tells her "No it goes in the trash" and the cashier says it was all alright and I paid for it and my mom says again 'No she took it, if I let her keep it, she will think it's okay to do it again" other customers behind us seemed to disagree and one old lady said "That is what I call being a good parent." Then everyone was talking about it as we left debating about rather an item should be thrown away when a child takes it intentionally and then pays for it.

My mom shared this story with me years later and she told me I was mad because I paid for it and I was upset I didn't get to keep the gum. I said it would be a bad parent if she let me keep it and she told me it actually depends on the child and it's not absolute and a parent knows their child better than others. So she explained it to me why it depends.

My middle brother, no way she would ever take him to the store and have him pay for it because he would never steal something from the store because he would feel too guilty and wouldn't be able to stand it.

My youngest brother, he would feel guilty after taking it and be so embarrassed going back to the store and having to pay for it and everyone knowing what he did and he would have been crying and worrying about going to jail.

But me, I had no remorse, I didn't care I took the gum. I was only angry I didn't get to keep the gum. I didn't care I had to go back and pay for it and I wasn't embarrassed about it so throwing it away was a good lesson for me and I never did it again. Why take something if it will just be taken from me?

I suppose my mother probably would have let my little brother keep the gum after taking it because he had already been punished enough and learned his lesson. But me, letting me keep it wouldn't have worked and I would have done it again. To me it was no big deal and they had a bunch of it so they wouldn't miss one pack of gum missing.

So each kid is different. I don't think you can ever truly treat your kids the same when it comes to parenting because each kid operates differently. All of us parents just sit here and judge each other about how we raise our kids and act like their kid is the same as ours and we may think one parent is being too strict or too harsh and we may think one other parent is being too soft on their child and other parents may think one parent is spoiling their kids and their kids are going to grow up to be rotten and become delinquents. I even consider reading about parenting to be a guideline because it's not absolute and it might not work on all kids but it's still advice for a parent to try and if you look up something about parenting, you will find different things about it such as potty training or handling tantrums or how to handle picky eating or getting your kid to stay in bed or sleep on their own or getting them to learn rules and follow them. It's all different advice and sometimes parents will have different advice than what experts wrote because it worked with their child.


What I have read that works with most kids is time outs and being consistent. Rules need to stay the same, parent needs to follow through what they say. If it keeps changing or the parent doesn't always do what they say they are going to do like for example "If you throw that on the floor one more time, I am taking them away" and the kid throws a raisin on the floor again and the parent doesn't take the bag away. The kid learns to not take the parent seriously and they learn they can not listen and they can disobey them a few more times before the parent does it and also if the parent is unpredictable, the child is left confused and they don't know what to expect or how to act. Then the parents wonder why their kids never listen to them and don't seem to care about their threats. Many parents make this mistake not being consistent with their children.

Perhaps it does vary. The punishments I received tended to be counterproductive; they made me contemptuous of authority. Which is not to say that I went out of my way to flout rules for the hell of it, but it certainly made me more inclined to disregard authority when I felt like doing something.

Even now I don't particularly like authority, though I understand why it's necessary on a grand scale. I tend to make a risk analysis of possible consequences (for myself and others) and the likelihood of said consequences vs. the benefit.

Being told doing something was wrong didn't tend to do much either, but being told the reasoning behind why something was wrong, THAT certainly worked.

I chuckled when I read this. Sometimes my son chooses the consequence so he can forgo having to do something he doesn't want to. For example, he will try "Mom, I am not going to play my computer tonight. I will just read. I don't want to do my homework." (He is not a big reader, and his consequence for not doing his homework is the only "entertainment" he is allowed until he goes to bed is to read, as opposed to playing Minecraft or watching his favorite TV shows). Or he will say "What will be the consequence if I don't do ABC?" I tell him, and he might say "OK. I'll pick the consequence." LOL! He actually is an interesting kid. Sometimes I will ask him what he thinks the consequence for any given violation should be and he will often choose something tougher than I would have doled out. As long as "the punishment fits the crime" and that he knew about it beforehand, he is pretty much OK with consequences.