What would a 'cure' do, anyway?

Post Reply New Topic

If there was effective medication, would that be considered a cure? I think it would if it were a one-time thing (as antibiotics can be a cure for an infection) but merely treatment if the medication worked so well that there was zero dysfunction but that the dysfunction would return if the medication was ever stopped. This situation happens definately with things like Social Anxiety Disorder. For some lucky people, anti-anxiety meds work so well that they effectively no longer have social anxiety so long as they keep taking the anti-anxiety meds. But if they stop, it returns. So they are treated but not cured.

If the person could slowely be weaned off the meds, so tht they no longer had to take them, would that be a cure?

But that has absolutely nothing do do with the concept of a minimal cure.

Well, when you say "cure", it implies there's something wrong with us.

We may be different from NTs, but how does that make us wrong?

Is it that we can't function as well socially with the people around us? Cause, if that's the case, as I've said before, I regret nothing.

It's like paying full price to see an overrated movie; the experience just ain't worth the price of admission and the coming attractions didn't look very appealing, either.

Also "cures" usually have side effects, and if it would affect a part of me that's very important to who I am, just so that the majority would "like" me, I really wouldn't see this "cure" as worth it.

I said 'cure', not cure. Note the ''.

I started off asking what a 'cure' would do, but all people seem to be able to respond is with a 'cure? What cure? You're not curing me!' response.

OK, please do elaborate as I have no idea the difference here.

I think "cure" in this sense means "no disorder." That is to say, if you no longer meet any criteria for AS, be it DSM-IV, ICD-10, insert-arbitrary-definition-here criteria, then you are cured of the "disorder" part. We're not talking about brain alteration here; we're talking about being able to function effectively in society.

Don't bring up the "I choose not to function in society, therefore I'm not dysfunctional" argument I've seen here occasionally, either. That's not the point.

I'm not quite sure what it is, but there's something about the argument I see as incredibly flawed.

And to "function effectively in society"--whatever that means would indeed require brain alteration; i.e. the way it works.

I'm not quite sure what it is, but there's something about the argument I see as incredibly flawed.

And to "function effectively in society"--whatever that means would indeed require brain alteration; i.e. the way it works.

If you define AS solely in terms of its effects, to suggest that those effects are "for life" really has no basis in reality. Do you have a different way of thinking than most? Probably. Is that for life? You bet. Are you doomed to by dysfunctional? Only if you believe you cannot possibly be functional.

I don't really see simply the brain working differently as being "dysfunctional". For some reason, shadows of a very old "well, if everyone else does/believes this, it must be true" argument sound like they're presenting themselves here.

I never said that the brain working differently is "dysfunctional." You are defining autism as "the brain working differently." If you define autism solely in terms of its dysfunction and not "how the brain works," you can, in fact, be cured of that dysfunction if you find workarounds.

My brain very obviously works differently than most people's. However, at this point in my life, I'm not particularly dysfunctional because of the way my brain works. It's quite possible that I am autistic by your definition but not autistic by the criteria's definition. However, if we go with your definition, how do you put your finger on what exactly is different? No one can at this point other than simply going by "a feeling" and possibly previous symptoms of AS that manifested themselves more profoundly in the past.

I will directly admit complete and utter confusion at this point.

A cure could present a very interesting Farenheit 451 scenario. Namely it would be people's duty to report anyone who acts a little odd or eccentric. Then, when turned in, this person's front door would be broken down by the NT Police. Then the NT Police would find the incriminating evidence ! !! Flags for every nation in Africa, or Raggedy Anns (hundreds of them) or double decker bus models... As soon as the NT Police found this evidence of obsessive behavior, they would inject THE CURE .... Or put the person in a machine that re-arranged their brainwaves... Then the person would be normal and NT. But a small clan of ASpies hide out from the NT Police and rejoice in their ASpieness, but they have to be oh so careful to not get 'changed'.

Professor, I've never agreed with you as much in my life as I do this moment; well put.

Magneto pretty much has always said the same thing in X-Men.

I am sorry. I will try to say this as succinctly as possible.

I believe the crux of the matter is that some people define autism as "the brain working differently." Others define it as a "disorder" characterized by X number of symptoms. The way a "cure" would be defined in this case is simply getting to a point in your life where you no longer meet enough of the diagnostic criteria to qualify for a diagnosis. So if the symptoms essentially go away, the condition goes away.

No one is saying that you are suddenly NT when you no longer qualify for a diagnosis. I believe the point is that you are "cured" because you have learned to live with yourself. Even if there is a fundamental neurological difference there, it's a moot point because you can function.

Don't be ridiculous.