Hacker News Reader

Comment by Yizahi | Hacker News Reader

Why is the word disability or illness is somehow shameful? Making people stop calling some illnesses an illness just forces doublespeak and shifting of the same meaning to a different word. "We don't call autistic people ill, we call them alternatively healthy"(c) or some other similar bullshit. I'm not normo-typical for example and have some conditions. If someone will call me ill, I would simply nod and agree because that's what truth is about me. What's the big deal? Being different from majority is a disability, and instead of shamefully hiding it behind doublespeak and twisting words, it would be better to acknowledge it and help all of us to be accommodated by the said majority.

View on HN

My ADHD is not a disability or an illness.

It's a brain pattern / way of thinking which doesn't fit the avg societies expectations.

It's a disability when it hinders me lifting my life but even then you allow the narrative be written by the others.

And my ADHD (rather severe) is both a disability and an illness, and it sucks. It affects my wellbeing in all possible senses and I know it without projecting blame on some virtual "others". It can be even mitigate with medicines, because it is literally a disorder throwing off my internal body chemistry balance off.

It is no different than say diabetes T2. Both are diseases which are caused by wrong levels something essential, both can be mitigated by a treatment which changes levels of that something. Both have significant societal impact on a life of the affected person. Yet, there is no doubt in the social networks that T2 is an illness, while ADHD is for some reason not afforded as much.

a disability or illness implies the need to be cured. but for high functioning autistic people it is not clear whether they are actually having a disability or an illness that needs curing. if something doesn't need curing then it's not an illness, nor a disability. so either we don't diagnose people who don't need curing but do need an explanation for their differences as autistic, or we accept that at least some high functioning autistic people are not disabled or ill.

i mentioned before the book "Speed of Dark" by Elisabeth Moon which explores this topic.

I just want to note that asking people with severe autistic symptoms may be as pointless as asking a person with alzheimer. They have no frame of reference in that particular moment. But that is only my hypothesis, so I may be wrong. But for example I have an ADHD for decades and I'm sick and tired of this quite obviously illness and disability. I would immediately pay if there was a one time cure for it, no debate even for a second.

I just want to note that asking people with severe autistic symptoms may be as pointless as asking a person with alzheimer

well that is the ethical question, isn't it? i mean for severe symptoms that cause obvious problems, sure. but what about lesser symptoms? where do we draw the line? the affected person should have a say in that, and, what i find much more important, outsiders need to be neutral. while those affected obviously can't be neutral about it, those outside often aren't either. we define what is normal, and we try to explain every deviation from normal as a problem that needs to be fixed.

i am not diagnosed, but i do have behaviors that i think are not normal. they are not getting in the way of my life, so i don't need them fixed, nor do i want to fix them, but if i were to be diagnosed then there sure is someone who would insist that all those diagnosed should be fixed whether they want it or not.

and even worse those that want to take away my autonomy because they believe that anyone diagnosed is not capable of leading a normal life and should not be allowed to do certain things, such as raising children.

did you see the movie "i am sam"? sam is one of those with severe autism who as you say don't have a frame of reference for their own disability. regardless of whether sam could be cured, or whether he should be cured, it should be possible to create an environment where he can live together with his daughter. who gets custody should not even matter. you don't separate siblings either just because one sibling is not able to care for the other. so why separate sam and his daughter? it's done in the belief that children better be raised by normal people and that the bond they have with their own less capable parents doesn't matter.

the point i am trying to make is, cure or not, first of all, as a society we need to make accommodations for those who are ill or disabled. we do it for those using wheelchairs or for blind or deaf people, so why not for autistic people as well?

instead of changing every individual to conform to society, i believe society should adapt to accommodate all individuals so each one can live a dignified life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com