Hacker News Reader

Comment by orik | Hacker News Reader

Autistic individuals don't need treatment, they need accommodation from society. (in my opinion, as an autist)

Surely as it is a spectrum they do not all need one thing, a range of treatments to go with the range of issues associated with it. I know you have only provided one sentence but it sounds very close to the institutions of the 1950s.

Accommodations means thing slike disability rights in the workplace, not housing.

The tough part in the US is that it just needs treatment. As an adult that means you are either employed and skilled enough to get health insurance through your employer, or go on disability and live in poverty (while probably getting poor treatment).

I think it unreasonable for you to claim to speak for everyone on the spectrum.

Is what you say true for some? Sure.

But there are many far more severely impaired who desperately need better support systems, as do their caregivers.

Especially considering there are some many that are unable to speak themselves.

(S)he has more right to speak for us than the majority of (neurotypical) decision makers.

Only for those on the lighter edge of the spectrum. I have a severely autistic sister who requires constant care and could never be functional in society. I feel I have more right to speak for her than the OP does. The neurotypical or neuroatypical decision makers argument doesn't really play when the individuals we're discussing lack the ability to make decisions in their own best interests.

But your sister, and her family, needs better accommodations from society.

She needs better treatment, so perhaps someday she could live something even resembling a normal life. She already gets plenty of accomodations from the government and society as a whole, living in a group home, etc. I don't know what other accomodations could really be made.

Yes, just as, as a man who's of below average height, I also can speak for little people.

No wait, I can't...

Agreed. Steve Silberman, author of Neurotribes, says, "If you've met one autistic person, then you've met one autistic person." For me that was definitely a caution against one-size-fits-all approaches.

I also think a fair bit here about how the default becomes invisible when we think about these topics. If you look at a lot of society's institutions, you could see them as "special accommodations" for the neurotypical. Some people will definitely need more support than others. But I'm often struck by how different people just need different support than others. It just looks like extra support because it's not what we're used to.

As a small example, introverts often have a whole host of tricks for dealing with an extroverted world. E.g., sneaking into a bathroom for a few minutes of blessed quiet. The relationship flips when you enter into some introvert-dominated space, like a library. I often wonder what the world would be like if being "on the spectrum" were the majority case, and our current neurotypicals were a clear minority.

I agree (I would never make that claim, other autists may feel differently) , and do think there should be better support systems.

Some individuals may need treatment because they have meltdowns / anti anxiety w/e but I don't think this should be framed as 'treating' or 'curing' autism. Autistic individuals may have all sorts of difficulties in their lives that need to be addressed, but the solution isn't to make those individuals not autistic.

When we talk about struggles that minorities and people of color face in American society today, you don't say let's 'treat' or 'cure' blackness -- I don't even need to explain why that's an affront.

oh, the hardcore pseudo-neurodiversity movement arrived. sorry for impoliteness but you guys need to stop looking only at yourselves as you're old-fashioned high-functioning intelligent people with certain emotional intelligence circuitry altered, perhaps, perhaps something else, doesn't really matter as long as you can talk and be understood.

now compare to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvC5gzmwq_8 and please tell me with a straight face that this kid wouldn't greatly benefit from being able to communicate which treatment hopefully gives him or already has.

alternatively, some of you actually went through treatment and are in a i-am-fine-what's-the-problem state of thinking, which is obviously wrong in general.

No one is against occupational and speech therapy. What we're against is shocking children to make them obey, forced expose to adverse textures and other techniques frequently used to try to prevent harmless behaviors.

shocking children as in electric current? it's so awful i didn't even consider the possibility of it being done, i'm fully against such kind of torture.

If you're posting here then you're probably high-functioning enough to be subclinical. But not all autists are. For many, some form of intervention is necessary to help them cope and live meaningful lives. This is the sad reality.

I agree that society should make accommodations for this but it should also be looked at to see if we can 'cure' it. In the US, there's plenty of accommodations for handicap people (usually people who can't walk) but I'm fairly certain we're still looking for ways to 'fix' that.

I think this quote from Temple Gradin (noted autist) sums it up best:

“In an ideal world the scientist should find a method to prevent the most severe forms of autism but allow the milder forms to survive. After all, the really social people did not invent the first stone spear. It was probably invented by an Aspie who chipped away at rocks while the other people socialized around the campfire. Without autism traits we might still be living in caves.”

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/362838

I think what is needed is to understand what factors (e.g. environmental, genetic, etc) lead to autism so we as a society and parents can try to prevent it.

You can treat the symptoms. Amazing progress has been made.

so you are advocating for eugenics?

although you may have read in some headlines that autism is 'on the rise' and there are an increasing number of diagnoses, I think this is a misinterpretation.

statistics looks like it's on the rise because 50 years ago we didn't know what autism was, and instead we gave diagnosis like 'idiot' and 'imbecile'.

I don't think it's a stretch to say society has always had autists, maybe rather than trying to understand why autism happens energy would be better spent in trying to understand autistic individuals.

No but there is nothing wrong with understanding how now to pass a potentially disabilitating condition to your children.

Pre conception and post conception genetic screening is available and is practiced by a lot of people and in some case whole populations.

If both parents are carriers of certain genes there are solutions if only one it's easier and just selective fertilization is often used.

Autism is a disease, widespread access to screening and more information is not "eugenics"... you're equating disease prevention with forced government sterilization and selective breeding.

a disability isn't a disease. and I'm not equating anything with forced government this or that.

In my opinion as someone who works towards inclusion for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities...

Why not both?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com