Cure for Autism? What the big deal?

Post Reply New Topic

I just found out that scientists are determined to look for a cure for autism. But the Aspies seem to have a problem with this cure. They say that we don't need a cure, why is that? Are they happy being Aspie? I'm an Asperger's and for some reason I'm not proud of it.

What's wrong with curing it? If you guys think we shouldn't find a cure for Asperger's or high functioning autism. Why don't we find a cure for the ones who are low functioning?

What's the deal with this issue? I'm new to researching the disorder, so please don't be offended.

It's because I don't wish to be cured. If I was cured, I'd become the thing that I fear the most, which is NT. Most of the NTs that I went to school with, were snobs, and they hated my guts, just because I was different. Why would I want to be like them? I also wish not to take the cure, because I'm not defective. You can't fix something that's not broken. You also can't cure something that's not a disease. Another reason that I'm against a cure, is because if it comes into effect, than we would all be forced to take the cure, and especially if bosses were to hire us, and they told us that we has to accept a cure for our AS or HFA. I'm very against that type of thinking. If you want to get yourself cured, go for it. I'm not going to stop you. It's my personal choice, not to be cured.

Last edited by CockneyRebel on 19 Feb 2008, 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

others would be more help than me on this.

It is a hot hot hot potato this one.

Personally I would not mind my OCD TS Anxiety and all the like cured, tommorow, but I love being the different person I am.

A few problems with the whole "cure" "search"

1. Why cure us when we're not dying or sick or suffering? Find the cures for every disease covered by MakeAWish before coming back to us.

2. It's another thing celebrities can get behind to seem "caring". I've lost alot of respect for many celebrities because of this

3. We can lead normal, productive lives. Look at Gary Numan, who is one of the most successful musicians of the 80's (in England anyway, us Americans only know "Cars", but still) or Bram Cohen, the creator of BitTorrent (and all around swell guy) or even our own Alex Plank.

4. Curing us could change our personality. This is my NT girlfriend's biggest fear. Will a cured me be the same man she fell in love with?

5. Unlike other things people are looking for cures for, there's a huge fraction of people who have AS/Autism/Etc. who don't want to be cured.

I am who I am, and part of who I am is autistic. If you cured that when I've spent my life making it work for me, what do you take away from me? Do I want it taken away?

I am at peace with who I am and the way being an Aspie makes me behave. I will take being an Aspie over being cured any day

If I was on the low-functioning end of the spectrum (which I think isn't that easy to define, IMO), I would like a cure.

I'm not for curing autism, but I'm not against it either. I think people should be given a choice and not have it imposed by society or whatever.

And yet another X-manish thread.

it is.

From what I read on this forum, and from what I know of myself, people don't view their aspergers as a separate entity to themselves, as an illness that has invaded their body. It is a name for a collection of traits which they have, which are part of them and intimately intertwined with their personality. If you are diagnosed late in life, you will have spent your life up to diagnosis regarding these traits simply as aspects of yourself - which they are.

It seems a bit silly to say that the non-AS you would automatically become materialist, malechevian and talentless, but then you have no way of knowing what the non AS you would be like. Who would want to fundamentally change their personality, having no idea what it would turn out like, in pursuit of anything?

I haven't tackled the LFA issue yet - what I'm currently feeling about that is that if someone cannot tell you whether they want to be cured, it is equally unethical to give or deny them a cure! Super.

In this case I thank the limitations of science. I don't see that a full cure will ever be developed.

There is a fiction book "Speed of Dark" that covers this exact topic. What would happen if you were "cured"? Sure it's fiction but it brings up everything that we've discussed on the topic.... both good and bad...

would it be nice to be able to fit into society and converse with people? Sure... but would I want to give up many of the things that make me me? I'm not sure.

If you suddenly didn't go into fits because of the wrong sound/taste/texture/etc.... would you still be the same person? would you act the same?

It's these type of questions that can't be answered that make the idea of a cure so much of a hot topic.

Many people have come to terms with who they are. If you say hey I can "cure" you of that annoying stimming but I'm not sure if everything else will remain the same... it frightens them.

i for one, find the prospect of a cure frightening. I for the most part, like me, and would changing a fundemental aspect of what makes me me be good or bad? Would i still be me or would I be a different person?

If believe in wanting a cure for self,nothing wrong with that,it should be about choice,and not having it forced on others.

Am LFA,and do want a partial cure as am have no quality of life and am going to be living in 24/7 care res. homes for the rest of life,am moving to a more supported/higher complex needs home soon which should help a little,but they do not have res. homes in quiet areas [countryside type] here,so am going to be in same situation.

A problem am have with the cure topics,is when people say aspies should be asked if they want cures,but just cure LFAs,as if being LFA means have less rights as human and do not have an opinion,but at the same time try to promote acceptance of aspies,it should work both ways.

Am see nothing wrong with idea of cure [whether full or partial] as long as it's through choice,and not through killing autistic babies before they're born,doubt it will end up as innocent sounding as that though.

here is the thing. Autism is a genetic condition. There is only 1 known cure for genetic conditions: Genocide.

We are not talking about curing a disease, we are talking about keeping people from being born.

Diversity is the whole plan for survival, what if everyone were a "salesman" they would have nothing to sell... what if everyone were a cheerleader, they would have nothing to cheer on.

By finding and eliminating divergent thinkers, the human race will doom itself, I am talking the eventual fall/death of humans.

Everyone you have ever read about was a little different than everyone else, otherwise there would have been no reason to write about them. What if Thomas Jefferson had not been weird, what if Davinci hadn't been weird, bill gates, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Columbus, The Wright Brothers etc etc. These weren't all autistic, but they were all certainly unusual. Once we start systematically weeding out all unusual people, we will be a society of "normal" people. There will be nobody on the fringe, nobody to write about, nobody to talk about, nobody to invent and revolt.


This is a serious problem, because without diversity it is impossible for a species to improve, or advance.

When we start treating or killing (in utero or otherwise) people just for being different the best possible result is that people will all be the same, and this is basically a doomsday scenario.

shaggydaddy said it clearly

And if you don't think that's what would happen, just look at what has happened with Downs Syndrome.

AS is a mutation and like all mutations it should be "healed" by deciding whether it is an evolutionary advantage or not, the correct way to deal with it is by finding out if it is a trait that enables passing our genes to other generations, if we battle it directly we might be stopping mankind evolution.

The "Autism Epidemic" should answer your question right there. Sometimes Natural selection takes an intellectual route that is not obvious to the casual observer. Humans need to hunt, fish, farm, etc etc in order to survive, so why do we have much lower proportional strength to a chimpanzee, who are our closest primate relatives (DNA similar by roughly 98%). Obviously we had to trade something for our unique intellegence. Evolution valued thought over strength... So what will it value next? Logic over emotion?

A human infant is reliant on his parents for a LONG time, they are very helpless for much longer than almost all other infant animals. Mostly this is because we grow a big huge brain in utero, and come out with this underdeveloped body. But since we didicated so much to that brain, we are the dominant species on the planet. Now let me go a little further with this case study. Many Autistics talk "late" or are pre-occupied with extremely narrow interests, many autistics show high intellegence, with some deficits, many autistics show savant-like abilities... Well we had to trade something for that. What if humans are making a shift to parental dependance lasting beyond 2 years for physical/emotional, and beyond 18 years for fiscal dependance. It would only make sense, that as humans move even deeper into the intellectual plane that we have a longer dependance phase. In a sense "developmental delays" ARE evolution at work. A mother monkey would consider a human infant to be "disabled"...

I am not trying to say that in the future humankind will all be aspies, but it would not suprise me if there were an evolutionary split, wherein aspies and humans become less and less inter-bred and lineage starts to match vocation... in a sense, we are becomming more specialized, and specialization can be to the advantage of both groups.

To put it in a much more biased way...
Pack Animals are 85% instinct, 10% emotion, and 5% logic
Primates are 80% instinct, 10% emotion, and 10% logic
Humans are 30% instinct, 40% emotion, 30% logic
Aspies are 20% instinct, 20% emotion, and 60% logic

I may be off with my numbers, but you get the point, I am not saying aspies are superior, but we are more specialized for solving logical problems, and in the past that has proved useful enough to warrent evolutionary splits.

Thankfully, many parents will not abort no matter what.

As a Catholic and pacifist I have been in many struggles with the principalities and powers with re my consistent life ethic. Whether it be abortion or the poor dieing in the rich mans wars.

I see many connections with the cause to cure autism, and would be interested to know of activist in the aspie world as to whether they too uphold a consistent life ethic or merely a selective one, for their particular cause.

Well said, guys.

And I'll just add to Shaggy's observation to Vexcalibur, Aspergers is NOT a mutation - because it has been around for a lot longer than you think. It's a difference that is already a part of the human race. And more importantly, what harm has it done? None. There is anecdotal evidence that the condition "youth dementia" (written about by Emil Kraepolin in 1893) goes back to 2000 BC. And yet we have progressed.

A mutation would be a major holdback. So where's the hold back?