ASAN Position statements

Post Reply New Topic

I foolishly left out epilepsy on the subject of co morbids.

Epilepsy is no minor condition and effects 30% of us and can kill just on its own or via falls and accidents.

Can also cause brain damage as i know someone with epilepsy whos damage showed on an mri scan and has serious memory problems from it.

Compare that to lung cancer risk through smoking 15-30% depending on light to heavy use and you can see why our average lifespan is so lowered from autism.

Also why demanding an end to research is immoral.

ASAN is my favourite organization because they have the same belief about a cure that I have. I don't wish to be cured and I think it's great that spectrumites who don't wish to be cured has an organization that stands behind them. I support ASAN. The way that I see it is that there are autism organizations for those who do wish to be cured.

I’m for free choice if a cure is ever was found, you don’t want to be cured in principal good for you, just don’t be cured if one was ever found, really simple, not so hard a decision is it?, to not walk to your doctors, go in and say put me down for the new autism treatment xyz!

Or to say to your doctor im not interested.

But what about others that do?

A fear that a cure would be forced upon you is a straw man argument and an entirely different debate.

ASAN & other like them pretend they speak for all autistics which is false as they only speak for themselves and their supporters.

They also dictate & try to impose their will on those of us (there are many) who want to be cured in principal, we don’t impose our will on those that don’t want to be cured that`s the difference.

Also, a failure to distinguish between severity of symptoms in saying they don’t want a cure in principal is offensive to those who have it really bad & betrays lack of empathy in others.

I'm not above critiquing ASAN either (obviously) but how is the fear of forced treatment unrealistic? If Autism is badly stigmatized enough, a cure could be forced on some, or doctors could be dishonest with patients in order to coerce them into taking their drugs. Big Pharma has a death grip on modern medicine, and forced/coercive medical treatment for fiscal gain is absolutely a thing.

Also, many of those who would get "treated" would likely be children or nonverbal and may not be able to advocate for themselves. Yes, I agree that a cure should be developed for those that want it, but in the current political climate and current medical system in the US (most of us on WP are based here I think), I don't think it's a "strawman" concern that bringing pharmaceuticals into the picture could corrupt medical practices and be a gateway to human rights violations.

Everything you have just said is a classic strawman position. The discusion was about someones right to be cured in principal if they want to and should not have that right dennied to them by a vocal minority for whatever reason that suits them.

Everything else is a seperate discussion, there is no autism cure, there has never been any official announcements of what would happen if there was. So presenting such a reason to refute a cure in principal is strawman.

Of course your welcome to your opinion and fears rightly or wrongly based, but the bottom line was ASAN trying to impose their will on others that suit them and pretending falsly to talk for the whole community which is wrong.

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/str ... mples.html

I would prefer a perfect world where people who want a cure can get it and people who do not want a cure do not get any repercussions beyond the traits/symptoms they chose to have.

But I also think that if there is a cure people who refuse to have it are going to face repercussions. I think a cure won’t be mandatory but the repercussions will make it so it might as well be mandatory. I am thinking either no insurance or much higher rates, employment discrimination and no benefits or accommodations because nobody is going to want spend money to help people who chose to be that way.

Of course children or fetuses will have no choice in the matter, the decision will be up to the parents who even if they are pro ND will face the the same bad choices plus possibly being ostracized.

If I am right, which is the lesser of two evils people wanting a cure not getting it or people who don’t want a cure facing a choice between near total exclusion or caving in and taking a cure they abhor? Damm if I know, lets hope it never comes to that.

Its unlikely they'll be a total cure in our lifetime, what you'll have is varrious treatments to many of the symptoms like sensory problems and axiety.

Of course getting there with these require the goal of cure even if its not realistic.

As far as fetuses are concerned it will just be presented as a positive in ensuring normal brain development as opposed to curing anything, a bit like folic acid.

I do sympathise with those that criticise the US healthcare system though as this non autism article explains very corrupt.

https://thesaker.is/the-oligarch-takeov ... an-crisis/

And that, not autism, is something that should be weeded out of the population.

If low-functioning people want a cure, then they should be cured. But I'll bet a cure would make them high-functioning rather than NT.

High-functioning people would perform better than NTs in a lot of circumstances if we just got some accommodation.

That is a stereotype, and not necessarily true. Also, how are you going to weed out pettiness or tendencies towards social judgement? That's an evolutionary trait displayed in all cultures across the world.

This was less of a problem in earlier eras when:

(1) social rules were explicitly taught by parents, rather than being expected to be picked up informally by preschoolers on the playground (preschool didn't exist back then -- it's no coincidence, in my opinion, that "Asperger's syndrome" first became a widely known thing approximately one generation after large numbers of married middle-class women began needing to work outside the home in the early 1970's (resulting in the need for all-day preschool),

and when, even longer ago:

(2) most people didn't need a whole lot of social skills anyway (traditional farmers didn't need to sell themselves the way people in today's economy do).

Even within my own lifetime, there were some entire professions in which, if you were lucky enough to have the necessary talents, you could easily get away with a significant lack of social skill.

Engineering was one of those professions; engineers were stereotypically regarded as socially awkward. Furthermore, when I worked as an electronic engineer in my twenties and early thirties, it was also acceptable to engage in some forms of what are now called "stimming." (For example, at a job I held for seven and a half years, I was told that when I really needed to think hard, I was free to get up, leave the office/lab area, and walk around in the warehouse. My boss himself had a yo-yo that he played with to relieve stress.)

So, I've experienced firsthand a workplace that was friendly to my particular form of autism, at least, without anyone even thinking of it in terms of "autism." So I know that an autistic-friendly workplace can indeed exist. Alas, it seems that working conditions for engineers and programmers have become far less autistic-friendly over the past few decades, especially with the rise of the "open office" fad.


Perhaps not on a society-wide basis, but it is certainly possible to create autistic-friendly enclaves.

Moreover, once those autistic-friendly enclaves get big enough, they are likely to have some influence on society as a whole, resulting in a more humane environment for everyone, not just for autistic people.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 16 Dec 2019, 3:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It's true for many of us and would probably be true for more of us (though not all of us, of course) if therapy for autistic children were to focus more on strengths-based cognitive development and less on trying to get autistic kids to make eye contact just like an NT.

Exactly. Instead of worrying about what's 'normal', worry about what's functional.