Commentary on neurodiversity versus cure for autism

July 5, 3:05 AMSpecial Needs Kids ExaminerHeather Sedlock

Previous Next

12 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Special Needs Kids Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

  
Me.

Yours truly wrote an article  about Jon Mitchell, an autistic, who happens to have some very controversial views on the subject of autism and the treatment/cure thereof.

Alan responded with a comment which deserves a response. However, due to the Internet Explorer not working correctly, I could not respond. I had initially decided to only respond to his question directed to me,directly. His other comments do not require a response, necessarily, from me. Others could have taken up the conversation and there is not very much room in the comment field for me to address it all. However, since the comments are not working properly for me I will now take the time to respond to it all. Please forgive the use of first person, because it is cumbersome to talk about oneself in third person while describing opinions that one has about a particular subject. See?

Alan said:

A cure likely means prenatal tests and selective abortions which sends the msg that disabled people's lives are not worth living, twists and suppresses women's freedoms. If you're thinking support/intervention OTOH, these do not *cure*

How does a cure likely mean selective abortion? If one can cure an individual of what ails them, in this case autism, why destroy him or her because he or she has that ailment? You can just cure them instead. I do not follow that logic but grant that it could be possible that some will abort if a gene is identified that says “this child is predisposed to autism.” But that’s only if a gene is found… and that’s only setting the person up for predisposition. There are also environmental factors... “triggers” that need to be identified. Of course, that’s only if you believe that autism is both hereditary and environmental. I grant there is much room in this debate because a specific cause is not known at this time, 100% scientifically backed. What is known so far, with science, is that it is more likely to be a combination of predisposition and environmental triggers, from what I have read on the subject.

Further, there is a test that detects down's syndrome prenatally and yet, there are literally millions of children being born today with down's syndrome. So to me, a prenatal test does not always equate abortion. Nevermind whether or not selective abortion should be morally opposed to or not. That deserves a whole other conversation!

Now, “support and intervention” does not necessarily mean cure but then again, that depends on your definition of “cure.”  If cure means removing obstacles so that a person can function in society is “cured” then support and intervention can clearly lead to a cure. Or, some may say that it leads to “recovery.” It would be similar to an addict who overcomes his or her  addictions. That person is still considered an addict; however, he or she is in recovery. There are some that use “recovery” and “cure” interchangeably. See the article touting that Jenny McCarthy saying she “cured” her son. That was the headline on the cover. However, when you read the article inside, she says he is recovered from his autism. To me, there is a difference. To others, not so much.

Alan also said, in response to my saying that people who are pro-neurodiversity (pro-ND) point to famous people suspected of being autistic as proof that all autistics are genius. :

"It does not mean that, any more than when gays, blacks, women, etc point to successful gay, black, female, people. It is instead for awareness (by pointing to people the public is already familiar with and respects), as well as community pride"

I hear you and I sit corrected. Perhaps that is what it means for you. I have read and am unable to relocate a comment left by a pro-ND person who said what I had said originally. There were actually several persons who have said it. However, just like I do not speak for all autistic people, nor does Jon, neither do these folk speak for pro-ND everywhere. Perhaps what I said was meant by them but not by all pro- ND persons.

I originally said “A child locked inside his own world, and unable to communicate, would probably like to be “cured” so he can share his “genius” with the rest of us."

Alan said:

“1. you don't actually know. 2. a cure may also remove the talent. 3. why the quotes, implying not a *real* cure or genius”

This is the part that I was originally going to respond to in the comment section.

1. You’re right. I do not know, for sure, how every autistic person feels about his or her autism. I only know how this one (myself) feels. I chose the words “would probably” instead of “could want.” You cannot say for certain either that every autistic person would not want to be cured, either.  You can only speak for yourself and if yourself is autistic. You could speak for other autistics who have expressed such views to you, but again, that does not mean every single autistic. When you’ve met one autistic person—you’ve met one autistic person.
2. Could not a cure also help a person clarify their talents? Why does it have to remove the talents? I see that you say “may” which means there is that possibility. No one will know if a cure is never found, will one? 
3. As you can see throughout my response, I use quotes around words frequently. This is not meant to imply anything other than a) it’s what someone else said or b) it is a term that can have many connotative meanings, or c) that I am referring to the word itself, as in when defining a word. In this case, it was b. I did not imply anything; you inferred. I used the quotes around cure because to some “recovery” is the same as “cure” as I mentioned above. I used quotes around “genius” because of a lot of reasons. Genius can mean so many things.  I won’t waste time here to list all of its synonyms.

There is more to say about genius… I have to mention a book called “Dasha’s journal” written by T.O. Daria. She was kind enough to recently forward me an e-book version. I have not yet finished it (about 70 pages to go) and Dasha, the family cat, explains my point brilliantly. In Chapter 7, titled “What’s so special about special abilities,” Dasha explains: 

 “When humans talk about special abilities they mean something that they themselves cannot do. Those with extra-special abilities are called geniuses. On the other paw, people who cannot do what the majority can are labelled, at best, learning disabled, or, at worst, retarded. Thus the measuring stick for any skill is divided into several sections: geniuses (very few in number), above average (quite a few but still in a minority), average (or normal – the majority) and retarded.”

I cannot sing in tune to save my life. Does that mean all those who can sing in tune are “geniuses?” Or are they just “above average?” I cannot draw very many things and have them look the way they do to everyone else. Does that mean the artist who can is a “genius?” Yes, according to this measuring stick explained by Dasha, because these folk can do things that I cannot. But what if that is their only “special ability?” Does that make them savants? Is that different than genius? I don’t know how you perceive the differences, nor any other reader for that matter, and so I used quotes. Not to imply that it is not real, but to recognize that there are many connotative meanings and I was referring to the denotative meaning. I know that not everyone is as literal as I and it may appear that I am merely playing semantics. But in my world and those like me, it is important to note those things.

Personally, I am neither for nor against neurodiversity as it stands. I cannot define it as a specific belief as it means different things to different folk. I can only say that I desire a cure to the degree that it helps those who receive it. Some would consider me a “recovered” autistic because I can function in society on a day-to-day basis, although limited. I still have panic attacks. I still have anxiety. I still obsess. I still have a lot of issues resulting from my autism that I only have learned to hide from the rest of the world. I have no extra-special ability which a cure will remove from me. It is too late for my mother to choose to abort me. I do not see how a cure would twist or oppress my womanly freedoms. And I do not believe that a cure will remove from me the ability to respect all beings just as they are. So, for me, at least, a cure is fairly likely a desirable thing. I can understand that it might not be for someone else. Does that mean I have to forfeit my right for a cure in order to not sacrifice his or her right for no cure?

This question intrigues me because I cannot imagine “fixing” my sons or curing them. They are being taught how to live in the world as it is now because I am unable to change the way the world works. However, I am doing this while maintaining their uniqueness to the best of my abilities. My parents did the same for me, even though then I was just "weird" and not "autistic.". When I’d take 30 minutes to walk a five minute walk because I just had to stop and inspect the leaves along the way… they just made sure I left thirty minutes before I had to. However, because I needed the skill of handwriting, my mother made me practice until it was at least legible, if not the neatest. This is where I admire the philosophical politically correct idea of differently-abled persons being valued on the same level as neurotypical, physically typical others. Just as other segments of populations before have had to strive, and some still continue to do so, for equality of value, so will differently abled people have to strive. However, do we have to sacrifice the right to a cure for autism in order to assure differently abled persons are equally valued? For example, if my sons’ autism were cured in their lifetime, would the person with cerebral palsy have any less value as a human being? Or, conversely, would a cure for cerebral palsy somehow devalue my sons’ lives? Or… as you can see there are many thoughts that run through my brain when  discussing neurodiversity and what it could mean. In the meantime, I can only do what I can to teach my boys to live in this world, as it is, valuing it for what it is, just the way it is.

Lastly, I will say this: Thank you, Alan. Thank you for reading and commenting. Thank you for sharing your views. The sole purpose of my original article was to start a discussion. Whether here on this site, or with you among friends, or with mothers and their doctor, or among scientists, researchers… Through discussion ideas are born and those ideas can be investigated.

 Please share your thoughts in comments below. Don’t forget to “subscribe to email” (above) for updates to this column. Your email address will not be shared.