We Shouldn't be Offended by Ppl. Saying Autism is a Illness

Post Reply New Topic

First of all, everyone has a right to an opinion, and we need to respect it.

It's a spectrum, is it not? We know that people on the severe end of the spectrum can't even care for themselves and are completely dysfunctional, requiring around-the-clock care. So isn't it fair to say that people who are high-functioning have some sort of disability? Proud as I am of myself in my life, I know there are real deficiencies and I'm not shy in recognizing them.

There's a difference between an illness and a disability. They can co-occur, but they are not the same thing.
I am disabled. I am not sick.

You are right, I didn't mean to interchange the two terms. They are completely different in meaning and certainly connotation.

Also, illness means a thing where you are ill but then get better. Disability means you'll always have difficulty with a certian thing.

That's more a connotation of the words than an actual meaning, because:

My partner has congenital lymphodema. It is definitely an illness but it will never get better, only stay the same or get worse, because he is in stage four with elephantiasis and it's considered irreversible after stage three.

Also, there is such a thing as a temporary disability. My SSI qualification says "totally and permanently disabled" but someone with, say, a broken back that will mend and leave them fully functioning again has a temporary disability because they often cannot work while they are healing but once they are healed, they are pretty much as good as new. I knew a guy like that -- broke his back skydiving and had a long recovery during which he couldn't work but then he was up and doing everything again. Yes, including skydiving.

Whoops, sorry. I wasn't fully awake when I previously posted and so didn't think fully.

That's okay. What you said is probably accurate more than 90% of the time, really. Which is why I said it's a connotation -- a thing we tend to think or feel about a word, independent of its technical definition.

You have the right to any opinion. But you don't have the right to say that you're opinion is fact. That's what people who call it any illness are doing. They are stating there opinion as fact when it's not.

Having just watched some clips from the show "Outnumbered," all I can think of when I read this is the conversation between parents and precocious daughter:

Father: people have a right to their opinion. You have to respect that
Daughter: even complete idiots? Even people who want to jab pencils into my eyes?

heh

Everyone has a right to their opinion, but that does not preclude other people from questioning their opinion, and hopefully helping them to refine it if it is based on inaccuracies or biases.

I am also uncomfortable with the language of "illness" with regards to spectrum conditions. Even if it does not necessarily imply that something is temporary or fixable, it does have the connotation, at least to me, as being something that is separate, and separable, from the person who has it, rather than a part of who they are. I do not see my condition that way, and while I respect other people who are actually on the spectrum's decisions not to identify as autistic people, I do not appreciate people who are not in our position telling us through the use of language how we should characterize our condition and ourselves.

Last year I went to a lecture by a sociology professor, talking about the book he had written about illness. He set up a sort of definition of different terms and by his system, I am "sick" -- which is to say I see nothing wrong with myself but I am "outside of society's norms" and thus others would seek to change me. But I would only use that term within his system because outside his system, the word has a very different meaning.

His talk was fascinating and I keep intending to buy a copy of his book. Here's a review of it:

http://www2.isu.edu/headlines/?p=1529

From the review:



In other words, if society has a problem with a person or if a person has a difficulty our culture medicalizes it. I though it had interesting implications for autism because, by Dr. Aho's terms, we are often "sick", in that others seek to change us and "ill" in that we suffer difficulties with sensory issues, etc. but all our culture is able to see is that we are "diseased," in that we have something medically wrong that science needs to cure.

If we continue to allow people to see us as an illness to be cured rather than people groups like autism speaks will continue to plague us. All the scientists are trying to erase us and replace all of our personalities with ones that society deems fit. Even here on WrongPlanet They are promoting the idea that what we all need is simply a cure to make everything that makes us who we are disappear. More of us need to start speaking out against this cure idea. Once this cure is produced the may start taking away services on the grounds that we all should just take the cure and stop being who we are.

It gets tricky when it comes to mental illness as often that is permanent, but sometimes there is a cure. Often there are treatments that can allow the person to function so they aren't less abled than they would be if they didn't have that mental illness. In many cases it's probably more of a disability than a true illness.

Everyone has a right to an opinion but that does not mean they aren't horribly wrong.

This is a subject quite close to me emotionally, very important.

It largely depends on "the bar", I dont believe we should be offended by people saying autism is an illness, or blue is an illness, or Naturism is an illness, people are allowed and should believe as they find appropriate based upon the information (valid or not) that they have at the time, however much information that is.

Should we be careful with how we allow a majority to define us and how they understand that difference?

Definately.

Personally i believe the current definition and much of the understanding (even within health authorities) of Aspergers syndrome is a result of bias, not objectivity.

A person who's primary traits are, auditory perception, literal/logical processing of stimuli..
is defined as having "social/communication difficulties" while within a culture evolved by a majority (a member of which is doing the defining) who's primary traits are visual perception and emotive processing of stimuli and events.

Anyone else surprised at the commonly held health authority conclusion?

Does this mean we dont require assistance in an almost fully alien society and culture, no.
Does this mean we should allow defining of us to be negatively cast also no.,

I dont think we should get offended, I think we should educate.

THIS.



ill·ness
   /ˈɪlnɪs/ Show Spelled[il-nis] Show IPA
–noun
1.
unhealthy condition; poor health; indisposition; sickness.