The Cure Question
I've just come from WrongPlanet, and from yet another inevitable discussion--the repetitively posed, "Do you want a cure?" question.
Most people on WP say no. Some say yes. The ironic thing is that it's a question we'll almost certainly never have to answer in real life.
Autism is such a complex disorder that a cure would only be available once we become capable of physically modifying the microstructure and biochemistry of the human brain to the extent of changing any configuration to any other (at which point we will have bigger ethical problems to worry about than just curing autism). What is most likely to happen, with today's autism "cure" research, is that we will find a prenatal test which allows people to abort autistic fetuses (along with the inevitable false-positive non-autistic fetuses), and we will find medications which may make the lives of autistic people easier (or possibly just make the lives of their caretakers easier). A cure for currently existing autistic people simply won't happen--once we find that prenatal test, the research money will go somewhere else.
So the autism cure question is theoretical, but it's increasingly becoming symbolic. It's really not the prospect of a cure that's being discussed when people talk about it; the real question is something more along the lines of, "Should we accept or even treasure having autism; or should we fight autism and accept only the person we would be without it?" It's a question that is fundamental to our identities as autistic people.
No wonder at least one in fifty topics is some variation of, "So, do you want to be cured?"
To answer the question with "No" is to identify with the neurodiversity movement, or at the very least to declare that you think being autistic means there is nothing wrong with you. If you also consider yourself disabled, a "No" can mean that you believe that there is also nothing wrong with being disabled, and that you probably also agree with the disability rights movement. In most cases, it's a statement that you consider autism part of your identity. In some cases, of course, it can just mean that you're sick of people putting you down for having autism, and are feeling angry and defiant and would like them to take their prejudice and stuff it someplace uncomfortable. It can mean that you don't consider autism a disability in the first place, or even consider yourself superior, and don't want to get rid of what you think of as an advantage.
"Yes, I want a cure" can come from many sources. It can be someone who simply believes that autism is like an illness which doesn't affect their personality; they see it as a group of deficits that can be removed without changing them. It can come from someone who believes that disability is inherently negative and autism is a disability, and therefore should be cured. It can be a consequence of poor self-esteem and the desire to get rid of an unacceptable self. It can come from someone who has been very badly mistreated for being autistic, knows that non-autistic people are not generally mistreated this way, and sees removing the autism as a solution to the problem. It can come from someone who has encountered a lot of obstacles due to their autism, and believes that the best solution would be to remove the autism.
But I think your answer to the question matters less than the impact of the question itself on society's acceptance of disability, and of how it handles autism in particular. That society as a whole tends to focus on a cure for autism, rather than acceptance of and integration with autistic people, says a lot about how society sees autism. When the concept of autism is matched with the concept of cure, it is put into the same category as cancer, diabetes, and AIDS--something that's foreign to the person; something that society can't accept. With something like cancer, that makes sense--we don't want people in our society to have cancer; we think of their real selves as the people they are when their heads aren't muddled from treatments, and we encourage them to fight the cancer so that they can go back to their normal lives. That outlook makes sense, for the most part.
But if you look at autism the way you look at cancer, you create a lot of problems. Suddenly you're divorcing the "real person" from the way they think and behave, even though those thoughts and behaviors come from their own brains--brains that are neither injured nor chemically altered from their usual state.
Imagine if people saw developmentally delayed folks that way. Little Johnny's inability to read at the age of nine is a "symptom", and he needs "intensive treatment" to be "cured". His failure to dress himself until the age of six is a "behavior" that needs to be handled. His struggle with the multiplication tables in high school is something that's thought of as detachable from his "true self"--the person Johnny would be without his "illness". If he could only be cured, Johnny could become a doctor or a lawyer. While he's "sick", Johnny will never be truly happy.
It hasn't been long since we learned that instead of trying to turn Johnny into a typical boy, it made a great deal more sense to teach him what he could learn and hire him for a job he could do. Turns out we've been underestimating the people we used to brand with their IQs and push into boxes labeled with what we thought they couldn't do. Turns out there's nothing stopping them from living their lives and having as good a chance at happiness as any other human being out there. Maybe that's even scary for some people because it means they have to throw out the idea that intelligence makes you superior.
But we still haven't got that point with autism. Autism is similar--there are things we can't do, things we learn more slowly, things we have to be shown how to do. There are unexpected skills, too, sometimes even in the fascinating form of savant skills (actually, half of savants are autistic; the other half are developmentally delayed). Autistic people learn differently and usually require small adjustments at school and work. Just like developmentally delayed people (and yes, I'm aware there's overlap), most autistic people can work, and the lives of those that can't aren't any less meaningful. A life with autism can be a happy, useful, fulfilling life, in no way inferior to a typical one.
I firmly believe that acceptance is possible; but standing in the way of that acceptance is the "cure mentality"--the idea that the best thing for an autistic person is to be cured of autism.
If people assume that the best possible thing for an autistic person is a cure, then they will see autistic people the way they see people with an illness--people are better off without the illness; the illness is something extra, something that isn't part of them; the goal of their lives should be to get rid of the illness so they can live a normal life again. Living your life, pursuing your goals, while also happening to be autistic seems odd to anyone who's bought into the cure mentality. "Get well," they say, "and then you can do what you were meant to do." No wonder they think autism is a dead-end life!
That there isn't a cure doesn't do anything to change the effect of focusing on one. If a cure is the goal, then there won't be very much effort to let autistic people live good lives as autistic people. There won't be much effort to educate them, or to accommodate them in the workplace, or to include them in the community. There'll just be a search for a cure; and autistic people will be presumed to be waiting around until the cure comes and they can live lives as normal people.
On the other hand, if a cure is not the goal, then you have to deal with the reality of autistic people living in this world as autistic people--not just as people who are sick and waiting for a cure. You have to deal with educating autistic children; you have to deal with the services autistic adults need; you have to deal with teaching non-autistics to live and work side-by-side with the autistic members of their communities. If you aren't focusing on a cure, then your goal becomes the acceptance of diversity.
To focus on a cure when there is no cure is a very good way of saying, "We don't want autistic people in our community; we don't want to have to deal with the hassle; we don't want to have to deal with people who are different. We just want them cured so that they will be like us."
Most people on WP say no. Some say yes. The ironic thing is that it's a question we'll almost certainly never have to answer in real life.
Autism is such a complex disorder that a cure would only be available once we become capable of physically modifying the microstructure and biochemistry of the human brain to the extent of changing any configuration to any other (at which point we will have bigger ethical problems to worry about than just curing autism). What is most likely to happen, with today's autism "cure" research, is that we will find a prenatal test which allows people to abort autistic fetuses (along with the inevitable false-positive non-autistic fetuses), and we will find medications which may make the lives of autistic people easier (or possibly just make the lives of their caretakers easier). A cure for currently existing autistic people simply won't happen--once we find that prenatal test, the research money will go somewhere else.
So the autism cure question is theoretical, but it's increasingly becoming symbolic. It's really not the prospect of a cure that's being discussed when people talk about it; the real question is something more along the lines of, "Should we accept or even treasure having autism; or should we fight autism and accept only the person we would be without it?" It's a question that is fundamental to our identities as autistic people.
No wonder at least one in fifty topics is some variation of, "So, do you want to be cured?"
To answer the question with "No" is to identify with the neurodiversity movement, or at the very least to declare that you think being autistic means there is nothing wrong with you. If you also consider yourself disabled, a "No" can mean that you believe that there is also nothing wrong with being disabled, and that you probably also agree with the disability rights movement. In most cases, it's a statement that you consider autism part of your identity. In some cases, of course, it can just mean that you're sick of people putting you down for having autism, and are feeling angry and defiant and would like them to take their prejudice and stuff it someplace uncomfortable. It can mean that you don't consider autism a disability in the first place, or even consider yourself superior, and don't want to get rid of what you think of as an advantage.
"Yes, I want a cure" can come from many sources. It can be someone who simply believes that autism is like an illness which doesn't affect their personality; they see it as a group of deficits that can be removed without changing them. It can come from someone who believes that disability is inherently negative and autism is a disability, and therefore should be cured. It can be a consequence of poor self-esteem and the desire to get rid of an unacceptable self. It can come from someone who has been very badly mistreated for being autistic, knows that non-autistic people are not generally mistreated this way, and sees removing the autism as a solution to the problem. It can come from someone who has encountered a lot of obstacles due to their autism, and believes that the best solution would be to remove the autism.
But I think your answer to the question matters less than the impact of the question itself on society's acceptance of disability, and of how it handles autism in particular. That society as a whole tends to focus on a cure for autism, rather than acceptance of and integration with autistic people, says a lot about how society sees autism. When the concept of autism is matched with the concept of cure, it is put into the same category as cancer, diabetes, and AIDS--something that's foreign to the person; something that society can't accept. With something like cancer, that makes sense--we don't want people in our society to have cancer; we think of their real selves as the people they are when their heads aren't muddled from treatments, and we encourage them to fight the cancer so that they can go back to their normal lives. That outlook makes sense, for the most part.
But if you look at autism the way you look at cancer, you create a lot of problems. Suddenly you're divorcing the "real person" from the way they think and behave, even though those thoughts and behaviors come from their own brains--brains that are neither injured nor chemically altered from their usual state.
Imagine if people saw developmentally delayed folks that way. Little Johnny's inability to read at the age of nine is a "symptom", and he needs "intensive treatment" to be "cured". His failure to dress himself until the age of six is a "behavior" that needs to be handled. His struggle with the multiplication tables in high school is something that's thought of as detachable from his "true self"--the person Johnny would be without his "illness". If he could only be cured, Johnny could become a doctor or a lawyer. While he's "sick", Johnny will never be truly happy.
It hasn't been long since we learned that instead of trying to turn Johnny into a typical boy, it made a great deal more sense to teach him what he could learn and hire him for a job he could do. Turns out we've been underestimating the people we used to brand with their IQs and push into boxes labeled with what we thought they couldn't do. Turns out there's nothing stopping them from living their lives and having as good a chance at happiness as any other human being out there. Maybe that's even scary for some people because it means they have to throw out the idea that intelligence makes you superior.
But we still haven't got that point with autism. Autism is similar--there are things we can't do, things we learn more slowly, things we have to be shown how to do. There are unexpected skills, too, sometimes even in the fascinating form of savant skills (actually, half of savants are autistic; the other half are developmentally delayed). Autistic people learn differently and usually require small adjustments at school and work. Just like developmentally delayed people (and yes, I'm aware there's overlap), most autistic people can work, and the lives of those that can't aren't any less meaningful. A life with autism can be a happy, useful, fulfilling life, in no way inferior to a typical one.
I firmly believe that acceptance is possible; but standing in the way of that acceptance is the "cure mentality"--the idea that the best thing for an autistic person is to be cured of autism.
If people assume that the best possible thing for an autistic person is a cure, then they will see autistic people the way they see people with an illness--people are better off without the illness; the illness is something extra, something that isn't part of them; the goal of their lives should be to get rid of the illness so they can live a normal life again. Living your life, pursuing your goals, while also happening to be autistic seems odd to anyone who's bought into the cure mentality. "Get well," they say, "and then you can do what you were meant to do." No wonder they think autism is a dead-end life!
That there isn't a cure doesn't do anything to change the effect of focusing on one. If a cure is the goal, then there won't be very much effort to let autistic people live good lives as autistic people. There won't be much effort to educate them, or to accommodate them in the workplace, or to include them in the community. There'll just be a search for a cure; and autistic people will be presumed to be waiting around until the cure comes and they can live lives as normal people.
On the other hand, if a cure is not the goal, then you have to deal with the reality of autistic people living in this world as autistic people--not just as people who are sick and waiting for a cure. You have to deal with educating autistic children; you have to deal with the services autistic adults need; you have to deal with teaching non-autistics to live and work side-by-side with the autistic members of their communities. If you aren't focusing on a cure, then your goal becomes the acceptance of diversity.
To focus on a cure when there is no cure is a very good way of saying, "We don't want autistic people in our community; we don't want to have to deal with the hassle; we don't want to have to deal with people who are different. We just want them cured so that they will be like us."
I really, really enjoyed and agreed with this.
I've been saying basically this forever, only not nearly as in detail.
(Anonymous)
BRILLIANT piece, thank you for posting it
The rhetoric is the same, only even less dangerous for physical disability cures that do not involve the brain. For people with a difference originating in the brain, I cannot imagine how offensive it would feel for someone to propose a cure. "No thanks, I like myself enough to leave my identity alone -- get used to it!"
As for my spinal issues and use of a wheelchair, if a cure were offered, I would not necessarily want it -- I don't want the change society wants in me, that I will "look and act like their concept of normal." I happen to have extremely severe chronic pain because of unusual and pervasive spinal damage, so I would want the pain reduced but keep the wheelchair. I will do my part to make other people's attitudes change and get this world more accessible; I don't need to scrap the wheelchair. It's hot! It gets me around. It makes me a more comfortable sitter. Why do I need to change this just so others don't feel awkward around me. It's a small, diverse world! Get used it!
(Rant obviously directed at closeminded people, not us with disabilities or our allies who "get it"... thanks!)
(Anonymous)
Re: BRILLIANT piece, thank you for posting it
"I have been TOO"
sorry I made it confusing
(Anonymous)
Because these are obviously the only reasons an autistic person wants to cure autism (and all of those who don't want a cure are obviously psychologically healthy and "enlightened," unlike those who do).
It has nothing to do with the fact that there are those profoundly disabled by autism and we feel it unfair that they should remain in that state. "Anti-cure" doesn't mean "anti-progress." But how long will this progress take? 100 years? What do we do about the profoundly disabled in the mean time? Since Neurodiversity wants more money to be spent on community programs, education and helping autistic people in the real world it will be very difficult to see any real problems since many want to stop much of the funding towards genetic research.
It also has nothing to do with the fact that the economy cannot truly handle giving every needed support and accommodation to every single autistic person so that they can be successful. It has nothing to do with the fact that "Neurodiversity" isn't going to happen in poor countries where there are no services, where a cure would bring billions of dollars of relief.
"most autistic people can work, and the lives of those that can't aren't any less meaningful. A life with autism can be a happy, useful, fulfilling life, in no way inferior to a typical one."
Than why is the employment rate among people with ASDs about 80%?
Once disabled people start working, they'll also become more active consumers. That will actually help the economy, in the long run. Poor countries included.
Your second paragraph about profound disability would fall under the "believes that disability is inherently negative and autism is a disability, and therefore should be cured" category.
Because not getting the job =/= not being able to do the job?
People don't have to tell you why you're not being hired. Most hiring decisions, beyond ascertaining that the person has the skill set necessary to do the work, come down to, "Do I like this person? Do I want to see this person every day? Would the other people in the office like this person and want this person around? Does this person fit in?" If entie interviewers are getting strong not-one-of-us signals from an autistic person, that person will not be hired unless they must have someone right now and this is the only qualified person they've been able to find.
And that's even more true during times of high unemployment, like now. Employers are pickier than ever.
I think this had everything to do with the fact that I turned my application into the manager in person and I didn't look like every other perfectly groomed, blonde streaked, skinny little tight pants-wearing hot girl in the store.
And the store manager is a lesbian too, so I hate to say this but I think she hires eye-candy. Being a bisexual woman, I find that a little disturbing and seriously misogynistic. In the entire time that store has been open, aside from the fairly butch looking manager, there have been nothing but hot, young, thin, trendy looking girls that have worked there. And maybe 5 or 6 hot young guys, a few of who have been gay.
In my experience, the only place that hires just about every kind of person, whether they have neuro issues, have sizist issues, or are a different ethnicity is Wal-Mart. One of the managers at my local Target is in a wheelchair and one of the checkers wears a hijab. It seems that only the really large chains are openly indiscriminate with their hiring practices, and the small franchises are left to their own devices.
What I mean with this long rambling comment is that as awful as it is that people with functioning levels of autism who can and should be able to get jobs are being discriminated against, it isn't anything new and is unlikely to change as women, ethnic groups, little people, the wheelchair bound, the obese, and any other "minority" are going to be discriminated against on a daily basis. Until we can change the close-mindedness and opinions of the people who do the hiring, we will all continue to be passed over no matter our qualifications.
"Since Neurodiversity wants more money to be spent on community programs, education and helping autistic people in the real world it will be very difficult to see any real problems since many want to stop much of the funding towards genetic research."
What do you mean here?
"It also has nothing to do with the fact that the economy cannot truly handle giving every needed support and accommodation to every single autistic person so that they can be successful."
Because economics trumps human rights. I forgot! Also would like to see evidence of your claim.
"It has nothing to do with the fact that "Neurodiversity" isn't going to happen in poor countries where there are no services, where a cure would bring billions of dollars of relief."
So get the services there, instead of leaving people to languish while we chase a wild goose.
May I post it in the Autism Women's Network forum?
and you can find the post I did of your post here: http://autismwomensnetwork.org/forum/vi
But the point is: does someone need cure if the community were as friendly as we can only imagine? Does an autistic (depressive, schizophrenic, hyperactive) person feel good with himself, in his own world? Is this his problem or just his personality trait? The answer is not obvious, is it?
(Anonymous)
My take on it is this. Relativity, the fact that different people mean different things by "cure" never mind there being no agreement on what it is that is to be "cured" in the first place.
I would guess few save for the died in the wool Martyr would not wish to alleviate any number of difficulties in there lives, yes NT's want that too.
When those difficulties are couched in the terminology of illness, when social difficulties are alleged to arise from internal physical causes, then the conversation becomes irrational.
Look at the example of cosmetic surgery for Down's children. It is alleged it will make there lives happier because it will mean they are subject to less overt prejudice. Well any kind of cosmetic surgery is justified by similar, but is it a cure?
I don't know what a cure for my autism would consist of, it is all speculation, and until something realistically does exist, assuming that it even can (which I doubt) the arguments are all a bit pointless because no-one can ever have common ground.
(Anonymous)
*puts away poker, ashamed at her unoriginality*
(Anonymous)
(Anonymous)
Cure
My eldest son is at this "level". He will be independant. His dx's have gone from non-verbal mild PDD to mild NLD in 8yrs. There was no brain transplants, no personality changes. He was taught appropriate social and behavioural skills - classroom and playground survival - that doesn't mean we still don't have behaviour, nor some really weird comments - but, he's doing well at school, has friends and outside activities.
This is "cure".
Wanting the same for my youngest son who has autistic disorder, is barely verbal, and will probably never go to Univ, never have true friends, never live on his own.... is not being cruel, mean, unloving etc... If I didn't wish these things for him, if I refused him the right to strive for these goals... that would be cruel and mean and nasty...
I saw yesterday there's a drug in human trials for Fragile X to help with functioning that may help autistics.... I hope it works and yes, if it does and becomes available... we'll consider using it too.
Re: Cure
I think it's so interesting that you consider your older son "cured". I can understand where you're coming from, and I think that if you didn't say he was "cured", implying nonautistic, implying to many people brain transplants, but instead just told his story...I think many of us "NDs" would agree with you that this is a wonderful thing and, like you said, what every loving parent would strive for. And looking for ways to improve the younger's functioning is also a good thing, and what many of us "NDs" spend inordinate amounts of time doing, although we may be less likely to look to drugs for philosophical reasons.
I'm a lot like your older son, in terms of developmental history. I don't consider myself "cured" or nonautistic, just high-functioning. Like you said, there were no brain transplants involved, just education and hard work and yes, acceptance of what my limits and bents are and accommodation of that.
I guess, the disconnect, the reason I can understand why you want a "cure" while I don't, is that I don't consider things like friendship, interdependence--I don't believe true independence is ever possible for anyone, but interdependence and autonomy and self-direction, certainly--and such as incompatible with disability. And I do believe that your younger will achieve them, and he may not get to that point the same way I or your younger did, it may look different, but it will happen.
And I think it's interesting, that if I look at your posts and remind myself that you define "cure" as "functioning"...
We agree. And I think a lot of other "NDs" do too. And maybe, instead of arguing about what to call it, we could work on giving people the supports they need to access it. Let us have our different philosophies, but focus on our common ground.
Re: Cure
I call it "learning" and "development" when an autistic person becomes more independent. To call it "cure" is to imply that autism prevents one from learning and developing, and that any improvement must mean that the autism is disappearing. But that's not so. Autistic people learn and grow just like any other group of people does; but they learn in a uniquely autistic way. They can even lose their diagnosis when autism is no longer disabling; but they will still have the autistic cognitive style, and can easily still be culturally autistic.
If you say that when autistic people learn, they are being cured, you are implying that autism makes a person who cannot learn, does not grow, and will be forever as disabled as they are right now, unless somehow the autism disappears. Forgive me if that seems to me like a rather distasteful position to take. An autistic person who learns to speak is no more cured than a dyslexic person who learns to read.
Re: Cure
And I know lots of people who considered reading dyslexics and epileptics who are having a good spell "cured". This:"autism makes a person who cannot learn, does not grow, and will be forever as disabled as they are right now, unless somehow the autism disappears" is not the view I take, but if I am looking for common ground with someone who does, then perhaps using their language will be more productive than arguing in philosophical circles with them.
(Anonymous)
Re: Cure
Re: Cure
But if you focus on acceptance, the automatic next step is to help your child learn the way he learns best, and to insist that he's given all the opportunities he deserves. You stop trying to make him non-autistic; you start trying to show him how to be the most successful autistic person he can be. You don't sacrifice happiness at the altar of some nebulous non-autistic future.
It's just illogical to claim that people who do not focus on a cure don't teach their kids, or don't try to learn, how to be more independent and more skilled. I think it's the when you accept autism, and insist on society accepting autism, that you're free to focus the most on practical, daily-life, useful skills. When you understand that you or your child is autistic and will always be, the natural response is, "Okay, so, how do we use this information to make life better?"
Re: Cure
Re: Cure
Re: Cure
Besides, this me is the only me I know. Who would I be if I was cured? And why cure me anyhow, I'm not contagious.
My dad always told me, "Better the devil you know than the devil you fear." So, I guess I would opt out of any cure.
I'm also active on LJ and WP. May I add you to my friends list?