I have an idea to end the pro/anti-cure debate...

Post Reply New Topic

I am a very high-functioning aspie myself. My idea is that that a voluntary cure for language impairments and intellectual disabilities as well as a pill that allows us to pick up on cues more and have eye contact be more natural (like ritalin for adhd people) isn't a violation of anyone's rights. I understand why someone might dispute the second part, but like I said, it's optional. Some people with ADHD see ritalin as suppressing their personalities, so they don't take it. And I don't understand how language impairment and intellectual disabilities is something that people wouldn't want to get rid of. This is NOT a pro-cure argument, as I do not believe in a true cure for high-functioning autism (in the same way that ritalin isn't a cure for ADHD), and don't think that it should be mandatory. Why is this view frowned upon by aspies?

From my point of view it seems like even if the cure were purely opt in by the individual, there would be risk of parents deciding for their child to receive it without their input, or those who decline the treatment may receive further stigma by being okay with how they are.

[sarcasm]

Why not also have "voluntary cures" for homosexuality, dark skin, and heresy?

[/sarcasm]

Ending the Pro/Anti debate will take more than effective treatment for impairments (which I am open to).

It would also require that snake-oil salesmen stop spreading misinformation; finding a way to report science in the media without hyperbole; and a cure for human beings acting irrationally based upon prejudice and ignorance.

i dont have a problem with the 2 suggestions, either a cure for ID which inhibits people all around in life, or a pill like ritalin that temporarily enhances social ability

I think too many resources are going into looking into a cure and not enough going into treatment.

I am wholy against the idea of a "cure" because it has the connotations of getting rid of autism all together.

However, finding successful (and humane) ways to treat (I include permanently overcoming a symptom in that wording) the more debilitating symptoms of autism, I am totally fine with.

If cure turns out to be the only way within viable means? Then I'd only agree with it if it's used after determining how debilitating the symptoms of the individual are. The biggest worry I have about a cure is if it ends up being used either at birth or before the severity can be determined. It reeks of forcing conformity; and whilst yes, many of us have had our lives destroyed by the effects of autism, a large number of those same people are still proud of being different - many of the defining factors for purely-autistic traits (discounting learning disabilities that may or may not be directly related to autism) resulting in unfulfilled lives are down to how autistic people have been treated for being different. And educating people should be considered the key to dealing with those issues, not curing.