A "cure" for Autism

Right now, there is no cure for autism or related things, and there seem to be none on the horizon. I've heard from several sources that the 'cure' some people at least really mean is 'find a way to diagnose in the womb so we can abort'. Much truth to that?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Or else they mean 'let's ignore the facts and follow some quack theory that predicts there being an actual cure'.

As I said before, the "It's a quack theory to search for a cure" thing shouldn't be used to deny research-not that that stops us from criticizing bad research policy.

^ I'm not saying to assume any research looking for a cure for autism is quackery. That's just stupid - of course it's theoretically possible to figure out a real cure for autism. (Or at least for certain forms of autism, since autism is a heterogenous condition just like mental retardation is.)

But the only people I've seen claim that we're anywhere close to a cure for autism are working from theories that aren't supported by the facts - eg mercury poisoning, dietary causes, etc. Probably the only 'cure' with any empirical support is ABA, and the data indicates that ABA doesn't actually cure autism, it's just highly effective at teaching skills. (Only one study claimed a cure from ABA, back when we didn't know about higher functioning autism, and it's never been replicated.)

Doesn't mean a cure is impossible. It just means we don't have one, and won't for a long time.

Oh yeah, like the people who think vaccines cause autism.

Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread yet, so I will just give my response to the OP very quickly.

I would say, if such a "cure" would be developed, it's okay, for someone who wants it. But nobody should be coerced into bein "cured".

edited 1st Feb '11 3:05:24 PM by Herbarius

I personally don't trust ABA, what with it being developed by Pavlov for... You know, Dogs. And then used by pseudo-psychologists to 'cure' homosexuality.

Actually I just stumbled onto a good point there. Trying to 'cure' autism is like trying to 'cure' homosexuality. Neither is actually a disease and for both, the most significant problem people who 'have it' experience is the result of other people's failure to accept the difference. The grand majority of Autists can live perfectly happy and productive lives as long as their environment stops pestering them to be 'socially acceptable' in their behaviour. Completely non-communicative Autists are actually a minority of the total number of Autists world-wide.

People need to stop looking for a 'cure' and need to start looking for 'understanding'.

Looking at myself, for instance, my problem isn't that I am 'not good at communication', my problem is that most non-autists don't want to take the time to accept that I'm sometimes going to answer hypothetical questions, that I won't answer 'how are you?' with 'I'm good, how are you?' unless I'm actually good, that I'm not going to lie about whether or not those pants make your ass look big to stroke your ego and that I'm not refraining from making eye contact because I'm lying, because I'm upset or because I'm trying to be rude, but because I sometimes simply forget that eye contact is more important to them than it is to me.

^ Which brings up an interesting question: If there was a so-called "cure" for homosexuality that would make a homosexual person heterosexual, would people take it to improve their social acceptance?

Some people probably would. But it depends on the specifics.

To that, I would say the same thing as I said above, if someone wants to do it, okay. But not be required or coerced into doing it.

On another note, education should be improved such that there wouldn't be any social acceptance issues for homosexuals. So it is doubtful if anyone would even choose that option, if it existed.

However, in our world how it is now, I could imagine some people would wish to do it. After all, there are some who commit suicide because of such issues, and I guess taking a "straight pill" might be a better alternative to killing yourself. (plus those who are too frightened to follow through with their suicide plans)

edited 1st Feb '11 7:16:22 PM by Herbarius

Looking at myself, for instance, my problem isn't that I am 'not good at communication', my problem is that most non-autists don't want to take the time to accept that I'm sometimes going to answer hypothetical questions, that I won't answer 'how are you?' with 'I'm good, how are you?' unless I'm actually good, that I'm not going to lie about whether or not those pants make your ass look big to stroke your ego and that I'm not refraining from making eye contact because I'm lying, because I'm upset or because I'm trying to be rude, but because I sometimes simply forget that eye contact is more important to them than it is to me.

Wait.

It's not your fault for not being able to pick up on social cues, it's their fault for having them in the first place?

edited 1st Feb '11 8:10:31 PM by Wicked223

: Social cues are boring, so I could understand it. I mean, why do small talk when you could talk about something funny? =D

No Wicked, it's no one's fault with regards to social cues.

Although to be honest I find it rather ironic (in the correct sense of the word even) that people who are supposed to be more socially adept than me by virtue of not having a disability in that direction find it more difficult to pick up on my lack of understanding of their initial meaning than it is for me to eventually realize they must've meant something else.

And if they are going to continue claiming that I'm the one who's socially inept, then it is their fault that they in all their communicative mastery can't be bothered to ask me why I'm not looking them in the eye, rather than assuming I'm being intentionally rude or evasive, when none of my other body language, facial expression or verbal communication implies that I am. And it is their fault for, rather than saying to me 'I think you're not using that word in the same context as I'm used to', assuming I'm insulting them when I use a word for it's literal meaning without realizing it has a negative connotation.

And for that matter, yes it is their fault if by 'social cues' you mean that they don't tell me in advance whether they want me to tell them the truth or lie to them when they ask a question but by god they will skin me if I choose wrong: "Do these pants make me look fat?" *truth:*"Yes." "What!?! You asshole!" "Would you still love me if I got fat?" *remembering last time, lie:*"No, of course not." "What!?! You asshole!" "So do you want to have dinner at your parents' or mine?" *remembering the last few times* "I don't really care either way. You choose." "Again!?! You never give me a straight answer any more."

The above is not, of course, something that literally happened to me and those are situations in which, even for me, it's obvious when I should be dead honest and when I should be... diplomatic. They're pretty much archetypical questions (nearly tropes or memes in and of themselves). 'And then he kept talking to me without looking me in the eye, so it's obvious he's lying, isn't it?' (which is a question I have been asked literally) is less clear. In this case it was about a friend of mine who's boyfriend cheated on her and he was lying. But I answered honestly that I do that too when I'm not lying. Then the guy confessed and she became angry at me for being honest with her (for me giving her hope and then having it smashed. Irrational, but I understand why).

For a long time (not as a result of the above example), I hardly ever answered any questions definitively for fear of 'getting it wrong'. I literally did not dare answer the question if I wasn't absolutely, positively sure that they wanted me to tell the truth and even then I sometimes got it wrong.

Nevertheless I don't view Autism as something to be 'cured' despite the difficulty it gave me. Because I never had any trouble except when other people decided I needed to be less like myself and more like them and that I needed to twist the truth the way they did or else I was being 'rude'.

Plus, if you plop someone used to modern western social custom down in, say, Late Medieval Britain, they're be just as 'Autistic' as I am, what with their disrespectful attempts to make eye contact with their social betters, steadfast belief that spitting or picking your nose in public is gross and constantly using words in the wrong context ("That man is by no means gay, he is a filthy sodomite." "What do you mean my father seems nice? How dare you!" "Yes, I fuck horses. It's a proper way for a gentleman to spend his time. Why are you tittering?" (Before I get called on that last one: at that time, the use as a synonym for 'breeding animals' was more common than the slang for human sex, but they probably would understand what you were laughing about. They'd consider you incredibly crude (and rude) for finding it funny though.)

edited 2nd Feb '11 8:01:26 PM by Robrecht

I think that the cure should be needed for people with low functioning Autism, but people with high functioning Autism(like me) Should be able to choose if they want to be cured or not, I personally wouldn't.

Which one's worse? I thought high-functioning autism was the kind that kept you from being able to do stuff moreso than low-functioning?

High-functioning means you have high functions. Low-functioning means you function less. So low-functioning is worse.

Also, I am aboue to have mercury chelated from my body. For medical reasons unrelated to autism, but it will be interesting to see what happens, since I have mercury in my brain.

What I think is that every autistic child should be raised in such a way that they don't want a cure - that they're happy being who they are. With the exception of a few cases where the person has severe self-injury or whatever, most unhappy autistics are only unhappy because of the people around them. And that includes most low-functioning autistics.

I knew a 10 year old boy who wore diapers and could barely speak. When we went swimming together, he'd trill and flap his hands with glee, and he could have hours of fun just staring at a spinning fan. But if there were too many people around, or he wanted something and couldn't explain what it was that he wanted, he'd scream and pull people's hair.

I think a lot of effort should be put into finding the right way to communicate with kids like that. But curing autism would take away a whole lot more than just his difficulties. (All the above traits I described are probably caused by his autism.) The joy he found in a spinning fan, or his whole-body way of expressing excitement, those are things that would be very sad to lose.

I'm sick of people saying 'high-functioning autism is OK but low-functioning autism isn't'. I don't think I'm any better than my friend. I don't think my kind of autism is any more valuable. We're just different. And I know how hard his life could be, how much his Mom worried about what would happen to him in adulthood - I'm not blind to that. But that's a matter of accomodation and acceptance. If our society made it a priority to take care of everyone's needs, we could handle people like him. We could have them cared for by people who are trained to understand them and give them the help they need, and avoid putting too much of a burden on a single person. And if we put someone like him in an autistic-friendly environment, he could live a happy life.

So the problem is that society isn't giving him that kind of environment - not that he's the kind of person who needs that environment.

I've heard from several sources that the 'cure' some people at least really mean is 'find a way to diagnose in the womb so we can abort'. Much truth to that?

I hope not. That like getting rid of all men and saying you have 'cured' male patten baldness.

^^^This said it better than I ever could.

And, either way, doesn't society encourage people to celebrate their differences? Yet when someone has autism, they're constantly told by the media that they're sick and need to be cured. Why is this ok?

I don't know anybody who celebrates their dyslexia, and if dyslexics had the chance they'd probably fix it. If it were possible to rebuild the neurological pathways of my left eye so it would actually work, I'd do it. Sure, I've been that way since birth and thus I don't feel all that limited by it, and if anything I'm pretty content with my eyesight, but it gets inconvenient as all hell sometimes. Yes, it's a huge part of who I am as a person and I've gotten over feeling disadvantaged by it, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't fix it if given half the chance despite some of the benefits I get out of it.

@Ettina

The reason why people think high-functioning autism is OK and low-functioning autism isn't, is because it affects your ability to support yourself without excessive help.

High-functioning autistics can still hold down a job, pay the bills, do their own chores, etc. They do need some accommodations and help, but they can still be generally self-supporting contributing members of society.

Whereas low-functioning autistics need a lot of help, and are less likely to be able to take care of themselves in any way or contribute to society in ways we find useful. (Hold down a job, raise children, that sort of thing.) So people are more inclined to want to cure it, so they can become able to do such things.

I mean, in the case of your friend, I would think the large number of things he could gain would far outweigh the losses. Especially since you act like neurotypical people are incapable of finding joy in simple things or being exuberant.

^Though wouldn't there be more benefit to treating the problems holding them back than fundamentally changing their neurology?

If we could "cure" autism that way, yeah, I'd be all for it.

I mean, I personally am not really an advocate of changing people more than necessary, just trying to help people to get by in life effectively.