Negative alternative to "cure" selection...

Post Reply New Topic

In a recent thread, I asked you guys to think of a negative term to be used instead of the word "cure" in relation to ridding people of Autism.

Please choose one of the eight terms listed above. You have five days in which to cast your vote.

Once a decision has been made, you must use the new term casually on this site, on other sites and in your life. Also, writing the term and it's definition in your signature could help to spread the word.

I voted for neurological murder/genocide because I think it is the most accurate description of ridding the world of Autism.

Voted the same as you, OP.

The closest definitive action that any research organization can accomplish toward a goal of a cure is remediation of the behavioral impairments identified by the American Psychological association as Autism Spectrum Disorders. Autism Spectrum Disorder is a criteria construct of behavioral impairments defined, described, and agreed upon by a committee of psychological experts.

The potential causal factors that work together underlying those behavioral impairments, are potentially impossible to fully determine, as well as potentially impossible to fully eliminate. Therefore one can only definitively work toward remediation of behavioral impairments/co-morbid symptoms, tailored to each individual's unique struggles associated with the described spectrum.

Since remediation of behavioral impairments/symptoms associated with the spectrum was not a choice as that is what the word cure typically means in the real world of reputable autism research, I choose the choice change as it comes the closest to what cure means in the world of reputable autism research.

It's not likely that anyone is going to convince someone to use a term they don't agree with, if others vote for it, as there is no possibility for enforcement of that requirement. There is no way that I am ever going to refer to a cure as neurological murder/genocide, if a thousand people vote for it, because that is not what is being researched toward per the remediation of behavioral impairments/co-morbid symptoms associated with the spectrum being done world wide, that some refer to as a cure for autism. People can describe the research as something that it's not, if they choose to.

The word cure associated with autism is used as a metaphor in the world of autism research, to simplify and concisely describe a very complex mission of autism research across the globe, that could take a volume of books to completely describe.

One can avoid using it, which is my own personal choice by more fully describing the actual research that is being done, but that only effectively works if one understands the actual research that is being done. It's why so many people take the easy route and call it a cure; not everyone likes to read research papers and provide the details.

There are two research organizations one in California and one in Australia researching a prenatal test for autism, but I suppose that phrase has a negative enough connotation for some already. However, the purpose of that research is all generally directed at the remediation of behavioral impairments and co-morbids associated with autism through earlier intervention.

Abortion could be an indirect result that neither research organization has control of as it could be a legal personal choice, that is not an associated goal of the research.

There are people that refer to that specific individual legal right as neurological murder or genocide, but it is a personal legal right, not associated with the actual research goals that currently exist, or the word cure, in the reputable world of autism research.

It is an issue of medical ethics and laws, as to whether or not the tests if developed will be allowed for general use, for selective abortion. This is a particular area where input from the general public could potentially make a difference per these ethical issues, not associated with the goals of the research. No one can stop the scientific research as it is being done across the globe.

One can only take effective routes if they want to influence actual potential change, in what may eventually be reality. It is the political process, not the scientific process, that one can potentially influence, per this issue of prenatal tests and potential laws that govern their usage.

Aghogday has a very good point, but it sucks the fun out of this.

My vote is still for repurposed (or repurposing). I like how it sounds and it has a bit of a sci-fi flavor, which mixes well with my belief that autistics may be an evolutionary step forward.

I think a word you need for this is one that is one that its not innately a bad thing - its not innately a good thing it is innately a change, but has more information than just "change". You're making a brain one that is something different, possibly against the will of the person who you are doing it to.

The closest I see on there is reprogramming.

I don't see the issue as black and white.
Autism can be both a gift and a curse for some - for others its mostly a disability and others it is considered a difference only.
it depends on the level of severity (deviation from the dominant NT culture) and level of functioning in that dominant NT cultural landscape.
Cure can be construed as trying to help people on the spectrum to be less disablied - I have been "guilty" of doing this to and for my clients as well as to and for myself.
At the same time I try to repsect and celebrate the differences that are inherent in both my clients and myself.
I also try to educate others so that there is hopefully more understanding and tolerance for the neurologically diverse.

Note abuse of autisic individuals through treatments such as chelation therapy, packing etc should never be condoned.
Also sadly we live in a world where some people choose to abort unborn children on the basis of gender. We live in a world where we currently have more choices than were ever possible in previous generations - this is an ethical dilemma for our current culture to consider - how much do we really wish to alter nature, and what will be the consequences for doing do.
Hopefully human beings will eventually come to the realisation that whilst we can control a vast number of things, we loose something very important by having total control. The universe is a mystery and if we intend on discovering all its secrets and playing god there will be negative effects. We have more choice and control than ever before however we are overloaded with options and unfortunately our overall happiness as a species is diminished as a result of trying to have it all. I think there is much to be said for the downshifting movement. Life is better when you accept what you have and learn to be happy with it. Appreciate things in their non-prefect state.