Anti-cure Cowardice?

Post Reply New Topic

Anbuend isn't an activist???

She's been on CNN twice! I call that activism! OK, maybe some people wouldn't agree, but anyone who gets publicity should be applauded for their activity in my opinion.

+10000



Source:UrbanDictionnary.com

Who says those who want a cure, want to impose anything on anyone? Who would permit forcing people against their wills? Not any of the NTs I know. I agree, anyone who tries to force people against their will is a coward. But we learned our lessons in the past, about free will. You can't force anyone to be treated against their will. Jehovahs witnesses deny blood transfusions, and no one forces them to be given transfusions. Everyone has the rights to choose not to be treated(or cured). Besides, the public outcry would be strong and fierce. People would react, they wouldn't just sit there and bear silent witness. You have too little faith in people.

Anbuend, Sleepy, I don't approve of any of this kind of bashing either. But when it comes to Aspies bashing NTs, I think it just makes a wider gap to bridge understanding, makes it harder to gain acceptance, and only reverses any progress that's been made.

In the Racial Equality era, there were two distinctive camps, to me. The pro-equality camp which supported being equal, and the ones who fought back the fire with fire of their own. Black Power as a battle cry, the Black Panthers, the more militant and angry approach. History shows which camp was the one to bring about equal rights to all, and which camp only served to create yet more hate, back and forth.



You really present things well, I agree with what you said.

TLPG, Elan said "... activists like you 'anbuend' and others..."
Elan didn't say she wasn't, in fact, Elan said that she was an activist.

LePetitPrince, thanks.

Elan, I concur with your impressions towards those who are pro-cure, pro-treatment. I think of myself as a human being, one of worth, who makes a difference. I don't hate myself, or my AS, as both are futile. I got dealt my hand, and I have to play it.

I don't support anything as bad as those against a cure claim, like being cured against their wills, or forcing abortions of autistic fetuses. It's a black and white issue for them(anti-cures), with people being either for or against a cure. I wasn't against a cure, so I was for a cure, and therefore, complicit in the genocide of autistics, the aborting of autistic fetuses, hateful of autism and autistics, and as such, I'm a terrible person to them.

I'm not. Many people like me, who are cast as being the "bad guys" because we aren't against a cure, are hardly the monsters, eugenicists, and idiots we're made out to be. We're human beings, people, with lives, feelings, opinions, and conciousnesses of our own. Don't presumptiously attribute our intentions to be of an evil nature.

If they truly wanted the equality they demand and order, they would not deny others equality.

You seem to have lost your quote as you've written nothing I've actually said. You did not answer all my questions. In fact you didn't answer most of them. Those being:
-Why do the arguments need "philosophical strength" as Autism and related issues fall into the field of psychology not philosophy?
-Could you explain what you mean by philosophical strengths?
-What are your criterea for a developed argument? (because you say ours are not developed)
-What is your definition o mental illness?
-You say the purpose of your original post "was to provide possible explanations for those who are anti-cure" why is this needed, can we not explain for ourselves, as the impliance is that we can't?
-What is your qualification for determining what the "underlying factors" of what people actually believe, and how do you know?
-What are these scientific and medicinal factors you claim to include?

I did analize your points before giving my interpretation and conter points, and used your number system to do so. You didn't directly quote where you were getting your interpretations from either. However, I wish to be fair about this issue. As you seemed to miss my interpretations because I do not rely heavily on quotes, I will reformate my response and interted between quotes of yours with clearer interpretation. It will take me a awhile to do this, I'm not to good with computer formating and will need to do this on word and paste it here, so I ask for your patience in this matter.

Before I do that I would like express certain points, some of them reiterated.
-Not everyone who is against a cure is against treatment, most who I know of (personally, heard or read about) who are against the concept of a cure are not anti-treatment, myself included. Anti-cure does not equal anti-treatment.
-You say that "the autistic persons lack of experience of anything else besides autism" I would counter with the neuro-typical person lacks "personal" experience with anything thats not neuro-typical in nature, and thus may not be the best type of person to judge what it is like to be autistic or what is best for someone who is autistic. A neuro-typical doesn't have to live in an autistic's world, but an autistic has to live in a neuro-typical's world, thus many of us have more second hand knowledge about NTs them most NTs have about auties or aspies. Not everyone on the autism spectrom has just an ASD, thus thats not the only way we're looking at things. This statement also implies that autism is the only thing an autistic person has or is, which directly counters your originally claim that a cure would not drastically change the "personhood" of an autie or aspie (if its all they have, they would be drastically changed).
-You group, "anti-cure", "anti-treatment", and "anti-autism-is-a-disorder" into the same group. These are NOT the same things. They are three distinct groups. Some people may belong to more than one or all three but not everyon and it doesn't make them the same. You claim most on the spectrom are in all three of these groups. A majority I know, personally and have read posts on, fall into the anti-cure group, but not the other two. For those I personally have not found a majority.
-You state, and I quote: "As an aside, I think it is only psychological when people in the autism community merely turn the arguments that were first developed about autism back towards those who made the arguments, namely science and medicine. In doing this, they can avoid the conceptions themselves, namely the concepts of normal, abnormal, autism, neurotypical, well-being, rationality, etc, and simply take the finger being pointed at them and bend it back toward the finger pointers. A rather immature, and intellectually weak method of response. Purely psychological. 'What you say about autism can be said of you' 'You say I have a disease because I'm autistic...well I don't and maybe it's you that has the disease as a neurotypical, end of discussion' 'Who is to say my autistic impairments are adverse to my well-being, or impairments at all, or that my life would be better without these so called impairments.'"
-When have I done this?
Never in my life have I ever said or alluded that neuro-typicials are diseased and autism is normal. Never. I do not believe this, advocate it, or consider it as a valid argument. Further, I am insulted by the implience that I say something like about a NT. My siblings are NT as are my parents and a good many of my friends, and I would never insult them, or their kind, like that, as you have insulted my kind by calling us all cowards. I try to guide myself by high moral and intellectual standards and do not appreaciate such an affront to my integrety and intelligence.
-I have never claimed that autism doesn't have impairments.
-No, I do not think autism is a disease, not because I "can't face reality" rather because it does not fall under the definition of a disease as found in a dictionary. I do, however, think its a disorder because it does fall under that definition as found in a dictionary. I am a literal person, so I interpret words by their actual definitions, if something doesn't fit into that definition, than I don't use the word for it.
-I understand the concepts and definitions of normal, abnormal, autism, neuro-typical, well-being, and rationality. What evidence do you have for implicating that I don't? Would you like me to define them for you as proof?
-You also say: "As for autistic people who are pro-cure pro-treatment and accept the conception of autism as an adverse illness, these people appear to have more advanced conceptual and imaginative abilities, that is, they can go beyond the limits of their experience and conceive of other possibilities, and have the courage to do so, and are not fearful about allowing for the possibilities of cure and treatment, and can courageously accept and understand the concept of autism as an adverse medical illness, and accept the efforts of others to help those with autism, and can understand what efforts are helpful and which are not (adverse medicines, gimmicks, etc), and can all the while maintain a strong conception of themselves as perfectly valuable human beings deserving of the same respect and rights as others." Thus, implying that those who are anti-cure, like me, are opposite all these things.
-Again pro-cure and pro-treatment are not the same thing. I an not pro-cure, but I am pro-treatment.
-I merge the definitions of adverse, medical and illness to come up with a definition of "adverse medical illness" as a severe disease acutely inhibiting ones physiological functions thus depleting their physical health to the point of requireing medication to fix it. By this definition autism and related disorders do not fit (they are primarily psychological, medication can not touch core symptoms and is not among the best treatments, autistic people can be in good physical health). What is you definition of "adverse medical illness", perhapse if your interpreting the phrase differently it may explain the disparity between why we do not agree on autisms placement under this definition?
-I am not afraid of treatment, nor do I deny myself treatment. I do not think I need a cure for reasons I've already stated, nor do I think it is feasible, based not on fear or emotion but on the research I've done concerning Autism and Asperger's Syndrome.
-I recognise and support the efferts of those who try to help autism. When have I said I didn't? My mother works in an autistic support classroom to teach and help autistic individuals. Iam proud of what she does and am happy that she helps her students. I've volunteered to help at a conference bringing information on and services for autism to the area around my college this April. I will be part of the walk to raise funds for Autism Link. The next weekend I'll be returning home to attend an autism awareness walk with my family to raise awareness and funds for research on autism. If I do not respect those who wish to help autistic individuals why would I do these things?
-I realise that there are other ways of experience, and do not claim that mine is better, or another way of being is bad. I have not said anything against they way neuro-typicals in general experience the world. I am not afraid of the way neuro-typicals think and experience things, nor am I afraid of the way I do, and I am not afraid of experiencing things differently form someone else. Does this make me a coward? How so?
-I do enough research to be able to determine good treatments from bad ones or gimmicks.
-I do see autistic people as human beings with innate value and rights, just like everyone else. My seeing the possiblilty of a cure as unfeasable, unnessesary, and non-compulsery does not counter my views on the absolute rights and values of humanity also belonging to autistic persons.
-Lastly you also state: "I mention 'the autistic persons lack of experience of anything else besides autism', and in a recent post I discussed that, nevertheless, there was a point of clear observable functioning prior to the onset of autism, which 'NewportBeachDude' discussed in more depth, and this is a central point of reference for those in science, medicine, and parents, to have a basis to work toward understanding what happened that caused the profound decrease in well-being from what they were once like...what caused the immense suffering to start, and how can it be lessened in any degree that is agreeable to everyone."
-you basically contradict yourself in the opening sentence here.
-The onset of autism is not in fact "a central point of reference for those in science, medicine, or parents"
-Most scientist in the autism field know that autism basically manifests itself around age two or three they've known this for years, its in most authoritative texts on autism. In fact they the earliest that autism can be accuratly diagnosed at present is 18 months and to do so is very challenging, and usually only with the most severe of cases.
-Human developement, in general, before age two it is too varried and slow, to detect most types/forms of autism in most of the population.
-Not everyone in science and medicine is concerned with re-evaluating this, some are trying to see if it can be traced earlier on a broader basis, others are concerned with the functioning of the disorder or effective treatments.
-You continue the above quoted statement of the so called central point as "a basis to work toward understanding what happened that caused the profound decrease in well-being from what they were once like...what caused the immense suffering to start"
-Most scientists studying the cause of autism conclude that autism is a biological genetic brain based disorder which somebody is born with. Though some do look into whether alternative senerios can effect the brain and genes to case autism, and they trying to find out which genes are most effected by autism. (It appears to be caused by gliches several not one gene.)
-It is parents who say that their children were normal and something made them autistic. Right now many parents blame vaccines (most scientists and doctors don't support this claim of vaccines causeing autism, so grouping parents, medicine and science togeather in this instance is inaccurate.)
-Could your definitions of well-being and immense suffering?
-I don't see myself as suffering immensely because I'm an aspie, it doesn't cause me extreme pain which is how I define immense suffering, and I think that my well-being, which I define as personal health and happiness, is fine. Aspies and Auties can be healthy and happy, and are not always in pain, as such ASDs do not drastically decrease well-being to cause immense suffering.
Thats all I have to say for this post. My dog is waiting for her walk and I have some assignments for class that I need to get done. I'll try to get back to reposting my interpretations and arguments form your first post as soon as I can. If I don't get to it tonight I'll try after classes tomarrow or Tuesday. I am sorry for this delay, but I'm in college and have other obligations.

In my limited time reading a few different message boards, it occurs to me that many with ASD (autism spectrum disorder) would argue, in the event that a cure or treatment caused another ASD person to be neurotypical, that they were better off ASD. Those with ASD arguing this take a highly parental intellectual role: they believe their ideas are crucial, and that as such they must speak for the entirety of ASD persons. And this is the case even if the cured ASD person states that he or she now prefers being neurotypical.

In the imagined example of a severely autistic child who received a cure and became a neurotypical child, I believe the above ASD people would, still, argue (1) there was nothing wrong with the child in the first place, and (2) there is nothing better now that the child is a neurotypical. They would dismiss the increase in communicative, social, sensory, and emotional abilities as irrelevant.

Astounding, at least to me.

I think their views are highly relativistic in nature: for example, on their view, who is to say that being alone all day, and counting blades of grass all day, is any worse than having extensive social relationships, challenging work, challenging physical activity, taking part in a cultural and political life, etc, is any better? It is as if they think there must be a factual answer to this issue, and if there isn't, then no one can say anything to anyone else about how they live, except perhaps if they are harmful to others. This approach, however, cannot respond to the thousands of years of philosophy, in which very reasonable discussion is provided about general issues like "what kind of life is good" "what should we do" "what is the justification for arguing that one kind of life is better than the others", etc. (Of course this has nothing to do with specific "kinds of life" etc, but rather, general things like the goal of happiness, the goal of avoidance of suffering and pain, the goal of self-fulfillment, the goal of developing and improving basic abilities, the goal of life long learning and critical reflection, the goal of the building and sustaining of valuable social relationships, etc).

Last edited by elan_i on 05 Feb 2008, 12:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

You need to read everything you just said and apply it to yourself. I came here and made a short general post with my opinion on this subject. You then singled me out and attacked every word I wrote. I have NEVER claimed to be an expert (my first post even said so) yet you continually accuse me of thinking I know it all - when YOU are the one who claims to know more about this than me! I never once said anyone here is right or wrong, simply posted that based on my experience and opinion, that children who appear to just "become autistic" out of the blue were often displaying small signs long before that went unrecognised. I have seen this and can definitely understand how autism seemed to come out of nowhere to the parents.



A clear example that you do not read posts and just argue and attack. I explained clearly what I meant by "off" and "not quite right", that these are terms NTs use and I clearly explained in DETAIL what I meant by them. An NT looks at "Little Kenny" and says "Something's not right. Kenny's a bit off." The 'specific pathology' is that Kenny doesn't make eye contact, engages in solitary play, but to the untrained eye it's difficult to put a finger on his behaviour. I explained all this and I'm sure it's going over your head once again.



For anyone *else* who is interested in the topic, my belief (yes "belief", lest somebody accuse me of trying to know it all) is that Autism is a genetic condition. This is based on literature I have read plus the fact that Aspergers runs in my family on my Father's side and it seems to be a pattern that when there is an Autistic child, there often seem to be family members who also have social difficulties consistent with Aspergers. Could it be dormant and possibly triggered? Absolutely and perhaps this accounts for the stories of children who appear to regress. But I would say based on the many children with autism I have met and worked with, that although they appered to be perfectly normal or NT, close revision seems to support that there were some Autistic behaviours earlier on.

Well, in your limited time reading, you've hit a mark. It can also be because of pride, or justifying their ASD to themselves.

If the person who got cured was better off, that'd mean that they're wrong. To certain people with ASDs, this is completely unacceptable. They have to be right. They seem to know best; and if you're a teenager? You just don't get it, or you don't understand, or you aren't old enough to know anything, or you don't have the life experience. Being teenaged, Aspie, and pro-cure is to be a walking joke. And that's why I stick with this name.

You'd be right. I've met some pretty fanatical people, and you'd be dead on with a few. One of them even frequents this forum... Anyways, that is indeed what some people believe. They defend themselves with emotional arguments with no actual basis in anything but superstition, ignorance, and fear. They revile the idea of a cure, and they hate the concept of normality. Some even go so far as to mock NTs, and promote that being normal means mediocrity, boring, and average, and that they're better than that.

It'd be as astoundign to me if I weren't so used to it. Every forum I visit, there's always some kind of NT bashing, subtle or plain, and some forums don't even allow discussions of a cure.

A very interesting and strong point you make, there. It clarifies some things for me.

Shelby, your arguments and insults are in your feet.

Elain_i and Joeker: The two of you make some interesting points and touch on things that I do agree with. Elain, I think you are brave to start the posts you do knowing the climate you find yourself in. But, they are topics that are valid in the Autism Spectrum world. The more these debates go on, the more I see a big chasm between the advocacy of Autism and advocacy of Asperger. There should be seperate movements with organizations that have separate agendas that speak for the important issues faced by both. I would support both movements, even though I'm pro-cure and pro-treatment, because I want people with Asperger to get their health and welfare needs met as well so they can live the best lives possible.

Thanks.

No, they should not be seperated completely, Newport. If we do that, AS advocacy will fall over because it will be seen as close to enough to the NT's definition of "normal" and not bother with it. We need the proven link between ourselves and Autism (the Spectrum) to get the help that we may need. It has been proven that the general rule in getting Aspergers early will make things OK. But that's the key - get it early. If you don't, then there will be problems - certainly with coping with life without a DX to guide you (I can talk through experience there).

Besides - purely because we are on the Spectrum, we do share a lot of traits with Autistics, especially HFA.

Important point, and I noticed your discussion of it earlier in some of your other posts. I'm tending to think there are a number of different advocacy perspectives, and I found your posts useful in more seriously considering the distinction you mention.

First is that on behalf of autistic children from 0 years old to some point, say in the early teens. Here parents and others advocate for them. Some parents refuse to accept the diagnosis of autism as an illness, but rather believe it is, only, a difference, and they will, as such, refuse most treatments and therapy. Some parents will accept the diagnosis as a medical illness, and will seek aggressive medical and therapeutic treatment.

Second is the perspective by third-parties about autistic children.

Third are adults with autism or Aspergers that advocate for themselves.

Fourth are adults with low functioning autism that still can't advocate for themselves.

Fifth is the perspective of high functioning individuals with autism or Aspergers.

Six is the perspective of lower functioning individuals with autism or Aspergers.

It appears that some people of certain perspectives make claims for everyone. "We don't need a cure" "We're only different, not ill". My point is that the perspectives are different, often, based on the level of ability and/or the level of dysfunction. And also, and perhaps most importantly, based on the level of awareness of one's level of ability and/or dysfunction.

Oh, and it took this long for you to figure out that you do not know anything about what you are talking about?

Now the apoligetic? You are a third party, playing lets you and him fight.


This is all about you, your motives, and they seem to only argravate, so that must be your goal.

You should learn, go read up on trolls.

Ok, the problem I see is that everyone is thinking as a whole group, not individually. The choice should be made my each person, and if there is ever a "cure" for us, then it will be indivual, yet many of you feel it is either everyone is "cured" or noone is.

Good points. And, I've thought of this. Right now, throughout all the 50 states, the vast majority of government agencies and insurers do not cover Asperger children for this very reason...they're seen too close to NT. It's crazy because these kids suffer tremendously in school and society. They don't get Early Intervention because most agencies don't recognize Asperger as being one of the disorders that requires it, therefore the parents are forced to pay for the intervention which is like Berkshire Hathaway money. The situation won't be helped when you have proud, well-meaning, Asperger adults who advoate that there's nothing wrong with Asperger at all...accept it as it is. That's all cool, but some Asperger kids/people NEED THE HELP AND WANT IT. Their parents are dealing with the fallout of no intervention and the ones on the losing end are clearly the children who could benefit from intervention. What happens? Their needs aren't met when it could really have the most effect and they grow up to be teenagers and young adults filled with issues and then doctors only want to give them a cocktail of drugs to cope. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

I don't mean to ramble, but the point I'm making is that you're right about that connection. Although I said the two should be separate in order to appease all parties, the truth is the only way Asperger is going to be recognized in a manner for parents to get Early Intervention to ward off some of these issues, is for it to piggyback on Autism. Right now, Autism has the funds, public's attention, and powerful people behind it advocating. So, it's a Catch 22, dude. Your point is a very good one.

This is excellent summary of the many different perspectives to be considered which must make the jobs of the organizations that speak for Spectrum Disorders difficult. How can they possibly please everyone? I think the goal of most people is to help those in general who want the help. Who are seeking answers. Who need the help. If some don't like it or need it, that's okay. That's to be expected. But, energies of the latter would best be spent organizing and advocating for their own cause instead of crapping on the ones who are out there making life better for hundreds of thousands of us.

Anyway, as your list shows, there are many perspectives to be considered, but I do see some powerful organizations out there trying to help the entire spectrum.

When we talk about cure or treatment in this context it's meaning is as of that of a treatment for pneumonia. I know there are 'treatments' in a broader meaning. As others, I have to cope with the world, myself and other people in one way or another, learning how to best do this - while respecting the boundaries of myself and others - could be considered treatment in this broader sense. Many people, ASD, NT or otherwise do this on a daily basis in varying degrees.

When I say I do not need, or want a cure, I mean that I do not intend to become NT. I would like to remain me and develop and prosper as me, with my abilities, strengths and weaknesses

As children go, they develop, whether they are autistic or nt, and many stereotypical autistic behaviours tend to go away, without treatment. What does not go away is core autism, although I am convinced that with proper guidance, teaching and understanding they can learn to adapt and function, in their way and live and learn in ways that fit who they are, rather then that they are changed to fit what they are, or were, expected to be.

I am and will remain skeptical and critical of any claims of cures and treatment



The autistic or autistiform symptoms visible in attachment disorders (rad) tend to go away when these children are placed - with little extra care - in a normal, non-abusive and caring environment.



There is no cure, you idea's of what a cure will be are rather different then mine and I for one am not so positive that there will be only halleluja-improvements. Modern mental health is more aimed towards reducing symptoms rather then actually helping people.



I somewhat doubt that, you seem to persist in your own idea's about the anti-cure views being a sign of a disorder without really listening. Your whole argument against them is really just an elaborate form of "you are mentally ill and therefore your views, thoughts and opinions are irrelevant and delusional".



You are exceptionally adept with that phrase.



QFT

i dont want to be cured and if someone tries to force a cure on me, i swear i will turn magneto on them.