Revison/rejection of "Anti-cure Cowardice"
31 Jan 2008, 5:20 am
Then why are they so nasty towards Amanda Baggs? She flies in the face of their myths.
A hit! A very palpable hit!
31 Jan 2008, 9:34 am
1) It's a basic right and everyone should retain it no matter what.
2) Your argument makes no sense in any way. Not wanting to be cured does not make one responsible for the actions of those who are expected to create one. The no-cure supporters neither have the choice, nor the responsibility.
If I don't need a 8 feet plasma TV, would that make me responsible if the thing is never produced?
Abuse and neglect can induce autistic behaviour in human children and one could say, autism is induced. This induced autism can be reversed when the child is placed in suitable environment.
Autistic Behaviour does not equal Autism.
I think you ought to read their arguments better. And not turn the facts around. I think the no-cure supporters are asking for options other then 'curing', because currently the attention and funding is on curing and treating rather then, for instance, support and education. The no-cure people are, I think, asking to be approached, seen and supported as humans with equal value and they want to be accepted as they are rather then as something sick that needs to be 'cured' first.
The call for a cure for autism implies that autistics are inferior and it is this view that the no-cure supporters oppose.
____
Perhaps for the same reason you seem to get mad about (just swap 'normal' and 'autistic'):
____
You and I know that, but I am not convinced that everyone involved in curing does. Making symptoms go away is a lot more lucrative then helping people improve their lives.
Neither do I, but I realize that they've organized their (and our) world around their strengths and weaknesses and not those of autistics. They do not understand us and our problems with the way they've organized the world as as well as they understand their own problems. And that is not a conspiracy-theory, it's just how people work and an issue that should be discussed.
31 Jan 2008, 3:14 pm
In my original post here, I provided what I think is strong anti-cure position that anyone, if they wished, could state in response to pro-cure arguments. My position, obviously, isn't intended to be a position against the various competing concepts of normality, disorder, autism, neurotypalism, nor the question of whether someone with autism or Aspergers ought to receive treatment, etc. Rather, it is a position about, in my view, the psychological perspective that any person with autism could take. Namely, that it would be a blind gamble to accept any treatment or cure for autism. I explain why in my original post http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt54994.html
As I wrote in my other post http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp1175413.html#1175413 I think the current anti-cure arguments and anti-treatment arguments are poorly justified, and the response of most in society (the general public, doctors, scientists, politicians, families of autistic people, organizations, educators, etc) is to set aside the anti-cure arguments as being given from people who's perspective is irrelevant, similar to how most people with personality disorders vehemently argue against having any disorder, against any treatment, and so on. (This I believe is a major aspect of having a personality disorder...the person doesn't recognize it, doesn't seek treatment for it, and rejects it's diagnosis and treatment...most with personality disorders who seek medical attention do so for other reasons such as depression, anxiety, from the insistence of family, etc, and it is then that they are given the diagnosis, which they usually reject.
As for the non-autistic public who are anti-cure, this is interesting, as their perspective is different than those who are autistic. But you will find that their positions are essentially identical to those with autism, as if they have adopted some of the common anti-cure positions of many with autism. They taken on the role of advocate using the positions of people with autism.
Anyway, while I find my original post to be a possible anti-cure argument (which I revised later at this thread http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp1175413.html#1175413 based on some useful comments by many at this thread, and after further consideration), I do think, in retrospect, that it might be worth being willing to take the gamble regarding trying a major treatment or cure, especially since, during the treatment development there will be, IN FACT, children and adults who will have tested the treatment or cure and the effects will have been observed, and the testimonies of the family and the patients themselves about the results will be given.
Some other things:
It could be asked "HOW could anyone with autism or Aspergers even want a treatment" as their is no basis in their experience for them to have such a desire?" It is not as if they acquired Aspergers at age 15 and would like to be as they were pre-15yrs old. In regards to this, I'm very interested in the pro-cure pro-treatment opinions of those like me who have Aspergers or autism. What are you bases in experience for wanting a treatment or cure? Or, is your position one of curiosity, that is, being open to the possibilities of a major treatment or cure?
I've been surprised at the commonly head view of what a cure is by many with autism and Aspergers, namely that it WILL fundamentally alter every aspect of the make up of your self. I do not think those in medicine trying to develop a cure believe it will do this, nor is this their goal. As in schizophrenia, for example, the goal is to not alter the person to the extent that there is a different person, but rather, to retain the person (personality, identity, attributes, etc) and to restore their prior level of functioning. Of course with autism, the prior level of functioning was not experienced, though it did in fact happen prior to the onset of autism at 0-2 or 3 years old. The goal is to reach the nature of how things were then. I've been surprised at how many people with autism reject these obvious factual considerations. And those who look at what you're doing will reject your positions quickly and easily, and say your perspective is made within the throws of a disorder, like those with personality disorders, and they will reject your perspective, as they have done.
I find this website forum to be, in general, a possible great example of what is said when one is in the throws of a non-neurotypical condition that saturates most everything about the person. The vehement rejections, the denouncing of not only neurotypical medicine but of neurotypical personalities and life styles, and, the assertion of the supremacy of autistic and Aspergers people, the use of rare examples of autistics who are historical figures to define all autistic people.
Regarding Amanda Baggs, I did this post and am curious of any thoughts:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp1170170.html#1170170
I fully understand the need for her to do this, and find it to be a very creative way to deal with her other problems, about which I am incredibly sorry to her that she has gone through what she has in her life and that she has those problems. I say this is an incredible example not in the sense to criticize her, as many have done at length, or mock her, but rather in the sense of how unique and interesting it is, and sorrowful as well.
In this case, this is a person who finds what I consider "secondary autism" or "selected autism" to be more beneficial or preferable than being neurotypical with severe psychiatric symptoms caused by a myriad of very unfortunate occurrences, such as, it appears, sexual and physical abuse, mental abuse, and her own abuse of intense recreational drugs, etc.
So there may be neurotypicals, such as some with other diseases or dysfunctions of varying sorts who may actually prefer, in the hypothetical arrangement I gave above, to be autistic rather than what they are. For them, it would be an escape from their usual selves, and all the horrific pain they encounter.
So in essence, she (her thought, and historical experience) is of a non-autistic, and as such, in her representation of herself to others, she speaks from a non-autistic intellectual capacity, and from a non-autistic history. Some have said that she breaks various barriers of what an autistic person is, and this seems to be due to how she, in essence, is not-autistic, but rather is likely, and astoundingly so, emulating one for various therapeutic reasons. I will say that Malingering and Factitious Disorders, which appear to be a factor here, are very serious disorders not to be mocked and laughed at, as many and growing numbers are doing to Amanda, especially in regards to the huge volume of posts Amanda made from 16 years old onward over the last 9 or so years, where she at times states she was unknown to her given the Malingering Disorder diagnosis (which as I discus above with personality disorders) is usually how the diagnosis it made (that is, unknown to the person and at appointments where the person is seeking help for something else). Amanda also posted that she found the "need" to more and more "adopt autistic strategies" to deal with various things. I've seen some replies in Amanda's defense, and am trying to understand the situation better, but so far I haven't seen any direct response to the volume of posts she made over the last 10 years, nor the direct accusations against her. At the core, it seems that she was fully verbal at the standard time of language acquisition, that is, there were no verbal communicative delays, and, she did not exhibit autism nor Aspergers in her early childhood 2yrs old through 12yrs old I believe, and then problems began occurring sometime around 12yrs old due to very unfortunate abuse, then increasing until she was led to abuse LSD and possibly other drugs at 16yrs old, but between 12 and 16 she attended a college actually and was fully verbal. The drugs caused great neurological problems for her and after 16yrs old is when I believe she became as she is. At least this is the general account I've been learning of.
31 Jan 2008, 3:41 pm
Maybe the most a cure will ever be is to improve the functioning of one's sensory capacities, and/or, decrease the sensory symptoms. Maybe, as is the case with, it seems, all of the other treatments for various conditions, there will be no cure, but instead different treatments. I don't know of any cures for even the most detectable conditions like cancer, heart disease, etc. There are only treatments. How can anyone even expect a cure if there are none for even cancer, etc? The only cures I know of are for bacterias and viruses, not for structural things about the body...heart disease, cancer, tumors, etc. There are only treatments that of varying levels of success. Removal of a tumor is not a cure, it is a treatment. Maybe the best for autism spectrum disorders will be treatments that impact the sensory symptoms to varying degrees, and there have been none that have significantly impacted these symptoms.
There have been no major treatments for autism/Aspergers, by which I mean, treatments that impact the condition to such a degree that there are fundamental improvements and the person is not longer considered as having autism or Aspergers. Autism organizations devoted to treatment admit this, as do doctors. All existing treatments have only anecdotal evidence.
31 Jan 2008, 5:22 pm
elan_i, you're posting personal information about another individual. If that weren't bad enough, you're also making false accusations for no apparent reason, other than to upset her. If you continue to talk about her on the forums, you will be banned. I will be removing the posts you made from this topic that contain potentially defamatory content.
_________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/alexplank
Personal FB: http://fb.me/alexplank1
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Anti-cure Cowardice? |
07 Apr 2008, 8:08 pm |
| Opinions on pro-cure/anti-cure for class assignment |
07 Mar 2017, 1:47 pm |
| For those of you who are anti-cure |
19 Dec 2012, 5:39 am |
| Pro or Anti Cure? |
10 Jun 2011, 10:31 pm |
