Don't cure autism now

Post Reply New Topic

I know what you mean, Steve. I've had the highest scores ever seen on aptitude tests that not only weren't challenging, they should not have been challenging, and this was in a large metropolitan area. I've also experienced having to find ways to occupy myself that took me to places hopefully far enough away from the epicenter of an ill conceived activity to avoid the resulting fireball if someone dropped his cigarette.

The same apes think that they know everything when they can't understand that dropping a cigarette into gasoline will cause a devastating release of energy that will immolate much of the surroundings and anyone who is still within the blast radius.

I will say it again, they have their own program going to suppress people who are smarter than they are and they do this because otherwise they have no hope of competing, not on a level playing field.

While I appreciate and agree with the views that 1) unilaterally viewing autism and AS as disorders that need a cure is deeply misguided and 2) (at least in many cases) medicating children in a way that changes their personalities either temporarily or permanently is morally suspect, I wonder if it's worth considering the possibility that research into the genetic and neurobiological basis of autism spectrum personality traits might ultimately be very helpful.

For one thing, even if they did discover the particular genes that lead to autism or AS, any type of gene therapy or splicing that would eliminate this genotype from the pool wouldn't even be on the horizon. There are several true disorders or diseases for which researchers have identified the problem genes (Huntington's and the breast cancer genes leap to mind), but they still have no way to remove these genes from from the genome and replace them with the healthy alleles. What happens instead is that knowing what genes are related to a phenotype helps researchers to understand the developmental pathways that lead to that phenotype. One thing that this kind of research would do for our understanding of the autism spectrum would be to illuminate whether the myriad aspects of autism come from one or multiple pathways. This could answer questions about whether us super-smart aspies really need to pay the price with hyper sensitivity to loud noise and dependence on routines, or whether we could potentially treat the bad things without losing the good. (yeah, I'm an optimist. so what?)

More importantly (and likely) though, it could lead to a drug-based treatment for really severe autism that would be likely to lessen the traits all around, although unlikely to eliminate them. As I said above, I'm not a huge fan of medicating children, but here's the thing -- all the problems that I find annoying about AS are totally debilitating for those children with severe autism. Imagine not just being bothered by a loud noise or unexpected touch, but totally losing it when those unwanted sensory experiences came your way. Most importantly with the language thing -- research shows that an ability to read eye gaze is essential to learning words (check out Paul Bloom at Yale if you want to read about it), so if one thing that's keeping these kids from learning language is an neurobiologically based aversion for looking at people's eyes, then I wholeheartedly advocate treating that aversion. It's hard to argue that learning language doesn't drastically enhance everyone's lives -- it allows us to learn and engage with concepts and the world in a way that is unimaginable for a person without it. There are two nice things about drug-based treatments. First, you can alter the dosage to find one that strikes the best balance for a person between getting rid of things that are debilitating and preserving things that are enriching or a source of self-identity. Second, if the drugs don't work for a person then they can stop taking them and the effects wear off. If we could lessen the severe symptoms that affect some autistic individuals then we'd potentially be giving them the gift of the aspie life that we all enjoy so much.

While I haven't always loved my geeky, introverted self, I'm now happy with my identity as an aspie and all the benefits that I suspect are tied to this particular personality type. At the same time, there are still things I wish I didn't have to deal with. For example, I'd love it if I could look a stranger in the eye without that queasy shot of panic, and if there's a way to eliminate these truly negative aspects (does anyone who experiences that really want to keep it? it drives me nuts. even with people I've met and come to like, I have a terrible time looking them in the eye) while keeping the positive things I've been endowed with, then I'm all for it. A possible response to this is: "Well, if NT's didn't expect eye contact, this wouldn't be a problem!" The problem with this reponse it that there's a reason that NT's misinterpret us, which is that the things we do most often warrant the interpretations they're making. Unfortunately, there are a lot more liars and rude people in the world than there are people with autism/AS, and lack of eye contact and social gestures really are clues to deception and rudeness in these people, so how can you blame an NT for assuming that if you're not making eye contact or saying hello then there's something a bit dodgy about you? I guess an alternative to playing by their rules is to explain to new people that you meet why it is that you're acting differently, but to me this seems impractical.

I hope no one found this post to be pedantic (although I'm an aspie who tends to sound that way). I'm well aware that you're all intelligent individuals who may know more about these issues than I do. I just thought it seemed like some discussion of the upside of the research sponsored by groups like Cure Autism Now seemed necessary. After reading this thread, I checked out CAN's website, and I had a hard time getting a sense of what their specific aims were. I find it hard to believe that any parent wants to make their child a cookie-cutter version of "normal" or to risk eliminating any gifts that make them unique, and I think we should all consider the possibility that this organization was founded by parents dealing with more harrowing forms of severe autism in their children, and that for them and their children any of the benefits of autism/AS personality traits are being masked by the difficulties. Maybe I'm naive though, and these are just parents who are being intolerant of their difficult children. My point in this post is that while how society views autism/AS matters very much, a dislike for the talk of a "cure" shouldn't preclude appreciation for research into the cause(s).

One bad side of a drug-based "cure" is that if it doesn't work on a particular child, that child is in for even more of the same kind of hell that caused him to respond badly in the first place. More, worse, and more violent. If the drug can't fix him, hitting him might, punishing him for "bad" behavior might, keeping him from having a sane moment might. My mother was violently into me to "straighten out" since before I was two years old and it continued in my 20s. And every time someone objects to the so-called professionals that drugs historically have been bad for people, they say "That was 20 years ago. We have better drugs now." That's what they told me 30 years ago. There's also the manufactured emergency approach, where a partially educated counselor says that something bad will happen right away if they don't get the drugs into bodies right now.

I don't want the kind of idiots that I was raised by to have any power to decide who stays and who goes. I don't want them to judge my behavior at all, not with the kind of "judgement" that I've seen. They don't get to say that there are no excuses, when they know every well that what they did to me caused it. I will not submit my brain chemistry, my behavior, or my thoughts to them for judgement or manipulation. They wanted me to stop living every time they found out that I had made some kind of mistake, but they want me to let them continue to screw with my life no matter how many times they screw it up.

Maybe there is nothing there to cure at all except the way that people treat each other. If there is a genetic tendency to be unable to tolerate bullying then maybe that tendency is an improvement. Maybe most if not all autistic behaviors are learned helplessness types of behaviors, where you repeat a thought or a motion endlessly because you can't complete the thought or the actions. Maybe what most of us need to do is find out what that is and find some way to complete it or let it go.

Tons of autistic people learn language without looking at people's eyes, and tons of "severely" autistic people know language perfectly well. It's not always a matter of knowing language.

Whatever I am, I don't want it cured. Humanity is basically a good idea and I believe that people like us are the best hope for humanity.

Over 720 chromosomal breakpoints have been noted so far for the autistic spectrum. I definitely fear the possibility of a curative abortion (i.e., they find a few genes which are most common on the spectrum, test for those, and then allow the parents to abort) but as for an actual genetic cure, I think it's highly unlikely given the HUGE range of genes involved and that they are so inconsistant person to person.

With over 720 genes identified so far, that's a lot to potentially account for while trying to genetically engineer a foetus.

In other words, they haven't identified anything.

I just think it is awesome that you can voice a choice.


I think everyone on the spectrum.....should have that same choice.


I advocate right nor wrong.....just a choice for everyone.


for myself, I would choose not so much. I don't need to be "cured". for my children...I feel like I owe them the right to speak for themselves.

Sophist,

Frankly, I think Autism should be what the name implies. IT seems to be defined right.

AS should be what Hans Asperger stated. It seems most define it right.

Hyperlexia!?!? Well, I had what the name implies, and it is only PART of what its "society" states. The other symptoms are not consistent, and may represent autism.

Anyway, even autism, and AS, show different symptoms, and degrees. It would be silly to believe they were on one gene.

HECK! When I saw that one sight said dan ackroyd had Heterochromia, I asked my mother what color eyes I had! She said *****BLUE*****! She was WRONG! WHY did I ask? I have a distinct memory of looking into a mirror one day, and seeing that they changed from blue to green/grey! Were we BOTH wrong?

Also, I have bown hair, but my beard is redish!

It makes you wonder even how many genes are involved even with THAT.

Steve

I don't want to be cured. I like who I am. Mind you, I would understand if a little boy or girl who cannot speak or communicate would like to take a 'cure'. As Aspies, we're the light version on the spectrum. I would understand if someone who is higher on the scale, if you will, would want to take the cure.

Regarding choice, it's not going to be a choice for most people, and the weight of the direction in which the choice would be, would be towards cure or prevention, not away from it. So "advocating choice" sounds good on paper but it's not what's going to happen.