Doyle Saylor wrote: > We had a member of Aspies for Freedom (AFF) on our show yesterday. Melody > Kohut remarked some on the spectrum. She was originally diagnosed as > someone with Asperger's but was then re-diagnosed in High School with > Autism. Her point was that one had a hard time recognizing the who is what > especially when someone reaches adulthood. The adult is often able to > function and disappear into human society as a 'kind' of Autism.
Much more than in purely physiological medicine, diagnosis is very much an art (and not a science) when dealing with emotional, mental, perceptual, or cognitive issues. The point of this kind of psychology and psychiatry should be to help people "disappear" into human society, so that they're treated as individuals (and with respect) rather than as being representatives of some diagnosis. (BTW, when they come out with a new edition of the DSM, all these diagnoses will change. The current diagnoses are the result of committee decisions and are thus often arbitrary. For example, the bit about those with autism having a speech delay (and those with AS not having that delay) doesn't seem to work in practice.) > AFF is opposed to 'curing' Autism. I agree that the whole obsession about "curing" autism (embraced by the "Curebees") is obnoxious and shows insufficient respect for those with autism and AS [Asperger Syndrome]. The point is to help people with autism adapt to society -- and more importantly (because it's been largely neglected) to help _society_ adapt to the fact that there are a lot of people who don't function "normally" and should not be expected to be that way. (It's like putting little ramps in sidewalks to help people with wheelchairs mainstream themselves.) However, if someone actually found a cure for autism, I'd bet that a lot of parents would go for it. Adults with high-functioning autism or AS are _much_ less likely to do so. But some people with low-functioning autism might. If there were some "cure" that was as easy as taking insulin for diabetes, some might choose it. (How about that partial "cure" that was reported for John Elder Robison?) At least for adults, it should be a choice rather than ruled out by the extreme reaction to the "cure autism" movement. The key issue is respect for those with autism or AS and their right to self-determination. > Their position is that it [autism] is normal and What in heck is "normal" anyway? usually, in our culture, "normal" means "good" in some sense and represents some sort of ideal. (For a long time, being WASP was seen as "normal.") I think we should stop using the word and talk about "typical" (as empirically defined, not in terms of some ideal) and the fact that having a wide variety of different people is typical. Variety is the spice of life! > they make an important point that genetic research in Autism is a search to > find the genes and stop babies being born with the genes. Maybe it is for some. But there's also the bit about warning parents of what to expect and how to prepare for the possibility of having a kid with autism. Genetics might help here. There may also be gene therapy recommended for certain genetic problems that make people more susceptible to autism. Of course, with any genetic diagnosis, we should remember that genetic markers send only ambiguous signals and that prospective parents must be informed that autism and AS are not horrible horrible diseases. After all, think of the splinter skills! Of course, the genetic basis for autism (if it exists) is likely a variety of bases. Fragile X syndrome, for example, is exhibited as autistic symptoms for some, but most with Fragile X don't have autism. And most with autism don't have Fragile X. The professionals are also becoming more and more conscious that there are environmental causes that bring out the genetic potential (pollution, TV, some people say vaccines, etc.) These things encourage fixing the environment, not aborting fetuses with "autistic" genetic markets. Like keeping really young kids from watching TV, which is a good idea anyway. > This is a > eugenics debate. Only if it is interpreted narrowly (see above). I am sure that there is a eugenics dimension to the Curebee obsession, but it's the eugenics that should be the main target, not genetic research. > She draws the parallel with Downs Syndrome in which 90% of > babies detected with the genetic markers are aborted. Down syndrome is different, a poor analogy with autism and AS. It's very different. BTW, do you respond to these abortions by advocating restricting abortion rights? > And in relation to > that a recent news item on Schizophrenia admits that genetic researchers > have concluded that Schizophrenia is not genetic. So they can't find the > baby to abort. The 'final solution' to Schizophrenia cannot be fixing the > babies genetics. So what? that seems irrelevant -- or only relevant if one clings to a reductive (narrow) interpretation. I should mention that the non-genetic angle can be quite obnoxious (cf. Thorazine). > Melody says and I think this right too, the incidence of Autism has not > increased, it is the ability to know or distinguish a cognitive mode of > thinking from other patterns of thinking has increased. Increasing ability to diagnose autism (separating it from "mental retardation") is an important basis of the "epidemic." (There's a word that should be dropped in this context.) But we really don't know how important increasing diagnostic ability is in this issue. It's a mistake to jump to the conclusion that it's totally a matter of increased diagnosis. Given the increasing role of pollutants in US society (including TV), it's possible that there is also an objective increase in the prevalence of autism. It's also possible that changes in the educational system make autism and AS more salient problems than they used to be. But we don't know. > She said and your [my?] > family shows this also, her Dad did not know he was Autistic until she was > diagnosed. Then the family inheritance indicated there was more there than > was socially recognized. Of course, the social recognition of autism is to some extent irrelevant. My father was never diagnosed with AS (which he likely had) but it had a social impact anyway: he was often quite depressed and drank (self-medicated) too much. His problem was socially recognized (especially by my mother) but not interpreted correctly, I believe. In any event, as I said before, diagnosis should be only a first step (and there is no pill to cure or even help those with autism or AS). We have to remember that each person with autism or AS is different from all others with these disorders. They are not mere avatars of some syndrome. > Others dispute those conclusions about the > increase in Autism as being some sort of environmental exposure like mercury > that makes people Autistic. That is very controversial and can't be > resolved by debate here. Right. But we should recognize that more and more the professionals in this field (who deserve respect too) are saying that the whole phenomenon is overdetermined, having both genetic and environmental causes. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
