Autistic Appointee to US Govt Agency is not Pro-Cure

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/exclusive-ari-neeman-qa/all/1

I saw him talking on CNN earlier.

I like this guy.

No more pity. It doesn’t help anybody.

AMEN.

I like this guy. Someone who recognizes that curing people or forcing them into the patterns of everyone else will only decrease the diversity of the world.

Read "cure" as "enforce conformity on through Mind Rape"

>>I saw him talking on CNN earlier.

Yeah. Hence me googling his stuff so that I could post it here...

edited 10th Oct '10 9:36:13 PM by BalloonFleet

I thought I'd never see the day.

Though, the odds of the mainstream media talking extensively about the anti-cure movement are, sadly, quite low, simply because they can milk the "cure autism" view for all it's worth

This article reminds me that I'm considered more burdened then I feel.

edited 11th Oct '10 3:41:51 AM by occono

How the heck is Autism supposed to be cured if the cause of it isn't even known?

How the heck is a neurological disorder like autism supposed to be cured anyways. Personally I think effort should be expended on things to help the autistics who are already here.

It's vaccinations. Don't vaccinate your kids!!!!

So "Pro-Cure" is the general sentiment towards Aspergers/Autism in the US?

No, it is the general sentiment of stupid people towards anything and anyone they perceive as "different". Including homosexuals, people who don't conform to their social standards, muslims that dare believe the Quran is the only holy book, etc.

And those who are ignorant of the anti-cure side, or those who's only knowledge about Autism comes from Autism Every Day (Damn you Oprah)

@Korg: all too often, when "cure" is used in that kind of context, it means "test and abort".

Any cure should be a choice, made by an informed adult, in strict confidentiality. Some people may take it, some wont. Thus, funding should be available to search for a cure, but it is also important that the government stays neutral on whether or not the option should be used. The potential for abuse is very real.

The most problematic issues revolve around parents and their children, everything from screening the fetus in the womb to treating children so that they will not experience the condition. These issues are very problematic, and there needs to be an honest public debate.

Realistically, an actual cure is probably never going to be an option. The question of whether or not to prevent it is probably a more salient one.

I'm not clear on the meaning of "cure" here, I don't think, or possibly something else.

Can someone explain this issue to me, please? If no one minds.

Essentially, making sure no one with autistic traits will ever get born again.

Which, IMHO, will lead to a noticeable decrease of smart people who are required to keep science functional. Byebye Western Civilization.

Given the veracity of most “autism” any attempt to “cure” it is self-defeating.

Autism is a documented phenomenon; insinuating that it's just being made up by hysterical parents is really insulting and borderline trolling.

The question of whether we should seek to "cure" it, however, depends greatly on a number of factors, not the least of which is the severity of the condition. On the one hand, you have people who can, with a low to moderate amount of assistance, function quite well in society and rightly reserve the right to pass judgement on their own need for "curing".

On the other hand, you have people who are incapable of living anything resembling a "normal" life, and are more or less locked out of communicating meaningfully with other human beings. I would assert that something that could assist them in doing so without causing them undue harm would be a net good.

To expand on Fighteer's last paragraph, I have met two people with autism who I think suffered strongly detrimental effects from it. One of them was incapable of speech, and didn't understand social conventions well enough to know not to grab my crotch. The other was, in essence, a younger Christian Weston Chandler.

I've participated in a forum run by Ari. He's a really cool guy - I'm so excited that he's gotten such an important role. (Though it makes me feel inadequate, too, since I'm 21 and nowhere near achieving something like that.)

Regarding the severely autistic - note that he said quite a lot about designing AAC systems. In my opinion, the best thing that can be done for the autistics who are really struggling is to research better education and accomodations. After all, even if we find a cure, it'll probably only work on freshly-diagnosed 18 month olds, not on the people who've already lived several years as an autistic person. But it's simply amazing how finding the right assistive device can change a person's life dramatically.

^^^ Yes, but all too often "autism cures" seem to refer to curing all autism, while a lot of higher functioning autists may be quite happy with their condition, despite the decreased functionality on the social side.

Suggesting those should also be 'cured' is pretty insulting and condescending. It essentially comes down to eugenism of people certain asshats don't like because they do not conform to their ideal of social interaction, which apparently forbids extreme shyness and means everyone should be an outgoing, party-loving loudmouth with hundreds of friends who are all also like that.

Autistic people are also people, and suggesting that everyone needs to be 'cured' because those who are worst off are indeed worst off is ridiculous. I am not suggesting low-functioning autists should not receive any help, but you cannot apply the same solution to everyone just because some people have it really bad.

edited 12th Oct '10 9:31:07 AM by TheStupidExclamationMark

I'm not sure how going from "These people should be able to be cured" translates to "These people should be cured."

It's like saying that there should be no movements to help people control their own psyches. If that were the case, we'd have to outlaw anti-depression medications and psychologists.