NationStates Jolt Archive

NationStates, let your considerible legal, bio-ethical, moral, political, and philosophical resources come to order.


Let us handle this matter by trial. Neo Art has agreed to be judge. We will need representation for the pro-treatment side, and the anti-treatment side.
The mods will serve as bailliffs, even if only in the normative excercise of their duties on the forum.

This thread will serve to pick counselors for each side and as a place to discuss and decide the procedural details. Neo Art, as Judge, is the arbiter of such.

The issue: Shall a procedure be developed and funded for the purposes of reversing the effects of autism and related conditions?

It has been put forward that autism is not a disease, some going so far as to say it is no different then being blue eyed or born on Thursday. Others feel it is a disease, a condition that can and should be corrected.


EDIT NOTE: There is one remaining position, that the treatment can ONLY be done to a consenting adult, thus precluding its imposition on children.


The jury shall be nationstates as a whole, minus any individuals acting as officers of the court. The poll shall be considered open until the thread dies, naturally, but the trial itself, and the final official poll (which will not be opened until after closing arguments) will take place in another thread, to be opened by the Judge.

The stakes: If the pro-treatment side prevails, I will give $50 to an Autism treatment research 501(c) group. If the anti-treatment side prevails, I will give the money to an opposing group. I swear this on my life, for whatever that's worth.

Nominations for the last remaining lawyer?


EDIT:

Neo Art is hereby invested as Judge for this trial.

Counselor for Anti-Treatment: Trotskylvania. (This role shall not limit Trotsky's right to hold a separate opinion from his "client") Anyone who would like to serve as Second Chair Counsel should check with the Trotsmeister.

Counselor for Treatment Mandatory: Neesika (has stipulated in vitro or before adulthood for mandatory treatment)

Cousenlor for Treatment, Adult Subject Chooses: OPEN (note, Judge Neo Art may have accepted someone into the position before I've edited this, so check the last page or so to make sure its still open)

Counselor for Treatment, Parent Chooses: Jhahannam

Drunken, Disgraced, Disbarred, yet Brilliant ex-lawyer to act as mentor to younger protagnosist, a la Donald Sutherland in "A Time To Kill": OPEN

WTF is Autism?

WTF is Autism?

Are you serious?

WTF is Autism?
.
Autism is a brain development disorder that impairs social interaction and communication, and causes restricted and repetitive behavior, all starting before a child is three years old. This set of signs distinguishes autism from milder autism spectrum disorders (ASD) such as Asperger syndrome.

Autism is highly heritable, although the genetics of autism are complex and it is generally unclear which genes are responsible. In rare cases, autism is strongly associated with agents that cause birth defects. Other proposed causes, such as childhood vaccines, are controversial and the vaccine hypotheses lack convincing scientific evidence. Most recent reviews estimate a prevalence of one to two cases per 1,000 people for autism, and about six per 1,000 for ASD, with ASD averaging a 4.3:1 male-to-female ratio. The number of people known to have autism has increased dramatically since the 1980s, at least partly due to changes in diagnostic practice; the question of whether actual prevalence has increased is unresolved.

Autism affects many parts of the brain; how this occurs is poorly understood. Parents usually notice signs in the first two years of their child's life. Early behavioral or cognitive intervention can help children gain self-care, social, and communication skills. There is no cure. Few children with autism live independently after reaching adulthood, but some become successful, and an autistic culture has developed, with some seeking a cure and others believing that autism is a condition rather than a disorder.

Are you serious?

I've heard of it, but like what does it do to a person?

WTF is Autism?

That is the most fundamental question to be settled here.

That said, there are ample places to get simple descriptive terms, but I will not reference specific ones in order to avoid bias.

.

Thanks, that helps.

Bear in mind, the information posted from Wiki is clearly rooted in the pro-treatment side, in its descriptive language and its context.



In the interest of fairness, could somebody from the opposing position post a description more consistent with the anti-treatment interpretation?


As impetus, shall we say that the first person to post such a link or definition in a sound way shall be given the place of First Chair Council for the anti-treatment side?

My Vote: Treatment: Yes, but as optional to the adult individual.


I believe that it would be a good idea to allow the adult and thus, consenting, autistic person to have the choice of whether or not they wish to reduce the effects of autism.

Some people will argue that autism is a disease which destroys families, and this is obviously strongly opposed.

Many groups such as AFF (Aspies for Freedom) uphold the view that Autistic Spectrum Disorders are not a disease to be cured like Tuberculosis, but part of who a person is.

I agree with this, having a friend with Asperger's Syndrome I can see what an amazing person he is and while AS isn't wholly responsible for this, it is at least part of what makes him, him. And I wouldn't wish him to be any other way, he is fantastic. I do, however, sympathise with families living and coping with a member who has dibiliatingly severe ASD, and cannot begin to imagine the hardship this can entail.

If we accept provisionally that ASD is part of what makes someone who they are, then in that respect it is like, say colour, or gender. I don't want to sound like a bad stand-up comic saying "You see, black people, they walk like this. And then white people, they walk like this" and I don't mean to be racist in any way but I don't think you can deny that your race inevitably makes up part of who you are. I don't think that it defines the whole person. People should not be judged by their ethnic background, of course not, but you must surely see how our race or gender or ability forms part of who we are.

Having said this, some people desire to change an aspect of who they are. Take a man who wishes to have a sex change operation to become a woman. I get annoyed when people say things like "Oh, it's just the next step after being gay" or other ignorant comments of that ilk. I believe that men getting operations to become women are genuinely women born into men's bodies. Your gender isn't defined by what formation of reproductive tissue you have, it's who you are in your head, in your neurological makeup, or if you so believe, in your soul or whatever you believe it to be. The vast majority of us are lucky enough that our bodies match up with our minds and I sympathise with those who genuinely feel born into the wrong body.

So, some people feel that their current condition is not right for them and wish to change to what they want to be. And I think it's great that Gender Dysphoric individuals actually have the choice to become who they feel they truly are. Thus, I believe that we should give ASD persons the CHOICE to change and reduce the effects of their autism if they so desire.

If they genuinely feel that autism is part of their lives and who they are then, of course, that's fine. They should in no way be forced to change who they are. But, if there are some individuals who feel that they want to live a life free of, or with reduced, autism then that is their choice. Bringing it back to the GD example, you could equate it to someone with ASD feeling that they were meant to live a life without autism and thus feel like a non-ASD individual born with ASD, and thus they should be allowed the opportunity to realise that desire.

I support the research into methods to reduce the effects of ASD but only for consenting adult individuals, as they deserve the right to choose who they want to be. Autism is not necessarily a negative thing, and is not a disease to be cured. But if an individual with ASD is genuinely unhappy with themselves this way one cannot tell them to just 'get on with it' and this is the way that they are. They should be allowed the choice to be who they want to be.

I'd nominate myself as counsel, but unfortunately I do not feel that I have sufficient knowledge of the subject to do so. So I'll wait and see what happens.

My Vote: Treatment: Yes, but as optional to the adult individual.

*snip*

.

Based on the snipped part, may I invite you to serve as lead council for the option you chose (making this a four way trial, irregular but not impossible)?

You would most specifically be in contention with those who would make the treatment mandatory.

I imagine we will develop protocols as we go.

If you accept this position, I will EDIT the original post to designate you as Lead Council for what I imagine will be abbreviated as the "Adult Chooses" camp.

If not, thank you for a cogent and thoughtful post anyway.

I'd nominate myself as counsel, but unfortunately I do not feel that I have sufficient knowledge of the subject to do so. So I'll wait and see what happens.

Well, sufficient knowledge might be a necessity for expert witnesses, but let's say that counsel need only have a willingness to make cogent argument for their side.

Which side would you want?

Well, sufficient knowledge might be a necessity for expert witnesses, but let's say that counsel need only have a willingness to make cogent argument for their side.

Which side would you want?

Okay. I'll take the anti-treatment side. One quick question: this is going to be done in the style of a formal court preceding, right?

Okay. I'll take the anti-treatment side. One quick question: this is going to be done in the style of a formal court preceding, right?

Well, I'm not a lawyer (I start my stint as lawyer larva in September), but I thought we'd emulate it as much possible, once we have a judge.

I figured:

Opening arguments for each of the four.

Calling of witnesses for each of the four, with 2 rounds of cross and redirect (if wanted) for each.

Threadjacking by Lunatic Goofballs resulting in 11 page examination of desert-food aerodynamcis.

Closing arguments.

But I'm open to suggestion.

Can anyone tell me what percentage of autistic adults are self sufficient? That would be a big help in making a decision

That's cool. It'll help establish order. I'm just a little confused about what would constitute an "expert witness". I think before we can start this trial, we need to get a list of NSG'ers who are knowledgable of autism; Doctor's, Psychologists and the like, so that we know who to call to the stand.

can we not just randomly pop in comments/racial slurs/outright lies?

Autistic people have Autastic powers when in the presence of plutonium!

That's cool. It'll help establish order. I'm just a little confused about what would constitute an "expert witness". I think before we can start this trial, we need to get a list of NSG'ers who are knowledgable of autism; Doctor's, Psychologists and the like, so that we know who to call to the stand.

Well, because posters come and go, it might have to happen as the trial goes (highly irregular, I admit).

How about in order to call a witness as expert, they need some professional background as you've described, and if opposing council wants to challenge their expertise, they may do so in a separate filing (separate thread?), where if they prevail, the testimony is stricken.

Other kinds of testimony could be:

Firsthand witness: Family, friend, or self of autistic person.

Amicus Brief: Opinion of any poster without above properties, taken or left by jury as they see fit.

I will enter you as council for "Not a disease, no cure to develop", yes?

Clearly a challenging choice!!! My hat, sir! Or, ma'am.

can we not just randomly pop in comments/racial slurs/outright lies?

Autistic people have Autastic powers when in the presence of plutonium!

We'll call those "Amicus Briefs."

Might as well classify them, we can't stop them anyway.

Can anyone tell me what percentage of autistic adults are self sufficient? That would be a big help in making a decision

Good point to raise.

If anyone has that information from a credible source (or wishes to challenge the number given), please file an amicus brief (post inserted outside the normal structure), or if you wish to present the data in an organized way, contact the appropriate counselor. Who in all likehood hasn't been chosen yet.

if you are serious about proposing a formalized debate on the subject and want someone who is impartial on the subject and with a familiarity on procedural arguments, I'll do it, but you need to let me know exactly what I'm doing.

Hi, sorry it took so long to get back to you, I got wrapped up in a very enjoyable and heated debate about the effects of pornography and implications, or not, towards rape and violent behaviour in the "Porn criminalised in Indonesia" thread.

Based on the snipped part, may I invite you to serve as lead council for the option you chose (making this a four way trial, irregular but not impossible)?

Thank you very much for the offer but I just don't have the necessary time or will, if I'm honest.

If not, thank you for a cogent and thoughtful post anyway.

You are welcome. Thank you for the offer and compliment and I was glad to be able to offer a point of view.

Well, because posters come and go, it might have to happen as the trial goes (highly irregular, I admit).

How about in order to call a witness as expert, they need some professional background as you've described, and if opposing council wants to challenge their expertise, they may do so in a separate filing (separate thread?), where if they prevail, the testimony is stricken.

I'm cool with that. I think that is a splendid idea, actually, and should help streamline the process.

Other kinds of testimony could be:

Firsthand witness: Family, friend, or self of autistic person.

Amicus Brief: Opinion of any poster without above properties, taken or left by jury as they see fit.

Sounds good. If we could have posters title their posts according to what type of testimony they are entering, that would be splendid too. Like for instance, someone who is leaving an Amicus brief should head their post "Amicus Brief".

I will enter you as council for "Not a disease, no cure to develop", yes?

Clearly a challenging choice!!! My hat, sir! Or, ma'am.

Yes. I'm for a challenge, and I am a sir, for clarification. :p

and if you want me to officiate you're gonna need to let me play with the rules a bit :p

I swear I will only be disruptive if I think it might actually help. *nod*

if you are serious about proposing a formalized debate on the subject and want someone who is impartial on the subject and with a familiarity on procedural arguments, I'll do it, but you need to let me know exactly what I'm doing.

Basically, you would serve as the "judge" in this "trial".

Specifically:

Referee the traffic of the counselors. (i.e. Okay, so and so has rested, next we'll hear from so and so).

Rule on objections (So and so's objection is valid, the statement of whoever is striken).

Instruct the jury (i.e. educate us all on how this kind of procedural argument might work in whatever country you are from, what things we can ignore, and can't, etc).

Although this is technically a mod job, you could respond to posters who are out of line, not so much by the forum rules (mods will presumably handle that), but in the sense of a pseudo "trial" context.

Also, you would now take over from me, and YOU would be the one setting up how this goes.

Lastly, please wear a black bathrobe, or if you are a black person, post naked.

and if you want me to officiate you're gonna need to let me play with the rules a bit :p

If you accept the role of "Judge", I hereby transfer all OP rights and rule making authority to you without condition or right of withdrawal.

Basically, if you want, you are the judge and can reverse anything that has been decided so far. I will edit the OP as per your instructions.

well the other problem is, if we're doing jury by forum, a lot of what happens in a trial would go on behind the eyes of the jury. Are we simply going to do this as a degree of moderated debate, or are we to simulate to some extent the trial experience?

Well, I'm not a lawyer (I start my stint as lawyer larva in September), but I thought we'd emulate it as much possible, once we have a judge.

I figured:

Opening arguments for each of the four.

Calling of witnesses for each of the four, with 2 rounds of cross and redirect (if wanted) for each.

Threadjacking by Lunatic Goofballs resulting in 11 page examination of desert-food aerodynamcis.

Closing arguments.

But I'm open to suggestion.

Shall we do this Phoenix Wright style?

well the other problem is, if we're doing jury by forum, a lot of what happens in a trial would go on behind the eyes of the jury. Are we simply going to do this as a degree of moderated debate, or are we to simulate to some extent the trial experience?

I would like to emulate the trial experience to the extent possible, but so many conditions exist that make this difficult, I am willing to accept any approximation that preserves at least the general premise of a trial and still allows for relatively free debate.

How about this: Any counselor may TG the Judge with the understanding that the judge shares this TG with the other counselors for "Sidebars". The Judge may privately TG counsels as a whole at will for "Chambers". That work?

Shall we do this Phoenix Wright style?

Heh, my hope is the story might be less linear...I'll be happy if Lunatic Goofballs doesn't somehow land us in Hentai land.

I would like to emulate the trial experience to the extent possible, but so many conditions exist that make this difficult, I am willing to accept any approximation that preserves at least the general premise of a trial and still allows for relatively free debate.

How about this: Any counselor may TG the Judge with the understanding that the judge shares this TG with the other counselors for "Sidebars". The Judge may privately TG counsels as a whole at will for "Chambers". That work?

well how about this? We shall keep this thread open for solicitation of those who wish to serve as "attorney" for each side, as well as discussion of the various functions of how this will work. Once that is done we will create a new thread with the proper form and function. All arguments made will have to be repeated.

How's that sound? And since you have a vested interest in this it seems, would you like to take a side?

well how about this? We shall keep this thread open for solicitation of those who wish to serve as "attorney" for each side, as well as discussion of the various functions of how this will work. Once that is done we will create a new thread with the proper form and function. All arguments made will have to be repeated.

How's that sound? And since you have a vested interest in this it seems, would you like to take a side?

Agreed, sounds great.

With your permission, I'll take "Counsel for Treatment, Parents Choose" unless somebody better qualified or more deeply motivated wants it.

Agreed, sounds great.

With your permission, I'll take "Counsel for Treatment, Parents Choose" unless somebody better qualified or more deeply motivated wants it.

sure, works. And if we do not have enough interested parties, we can simply split the line into two, develop treatment, no treatment.

sure, works. And if we do not have enough interested parties, we can simply split the line into two, develop treatment, no treatment.

Sounds reasonable. Keep this open for, say another day so that all of the time zones might have at least some chance to see it, then assess at some point tomorrow? That work?

Two issues: One, the protreatment side is clearly winning the straw poll. Shall we say that the actual verdict will be from a poll that won't be posted until AFTER closing arguments?

Also, Trotskyvania I think should be allowed to modify their side to not necessarily be absolutely "No treatment".

If we do reduce it to one on one from a four way, shall we make it "adult chooses" vs. "parents choose"? Or let Trots decide what the opposite to "parent chooses" should be?

I'll stick with the no treatment side. That'll make it more interesting, I think.

I'll stick with the no treatment side. That'll make it more interesting, I think.

Let some number "V" equal to (2)(4/3)(pi)(r^3) be the volume of your cajones.

V is arbitrarily large.


If you should triumph, your victory will be all the more impressive.

Believe it or not, I get that a lot. :p

Believe it or not, I get that a lot. :p

Just so we're clear on how things line up, your position is "No cure should be developed", am I understanding that?

I don't want you to be given a client who hasn't made their position clear.

If you want to make any kind of Initial Filing, perhaps a paragraph that clarifies your position, or its possible the Judge will expect something like that from each of us, I don't know.

Just so we're clear on how things line up, your position is "No cure should be developed", am I understanding that?

I don't want you to be given a client who hasn't made their position clear.

If you want to make any kind of Initial Filing, perhaps a paragraph that clarifies your position, or its possible the Judge will expect something like that from each of us, I don't know.

Yes, that is the position I am taking for this trial. "No cure should be developed".

I think I'll wait for Neo Art to make a request on initial filings. It is his prerogative, after all.

I swear I will only be disruptive if I think it might actually help. *nod*

"boy I have no idea what to do with all that wet mud I have outside!"

Trot's position is clear. The new thread will have a poll only after all arguments have been made.

Yes, that is the position I am taking for this trial. "No cure should be developed".

I think I'll wait for Neo Art to make a request on initial filings. It is his prerogative, after all.

Already kissing up to the judge, huh? No, you're absolutely right.

I was wondering, should we ask the Neo Art what the rules are for caselaw, precedent, etc, like from what countries can we draw caselaw, can we use precedent at all, can we reference it as illustrative example, etc?

If you beat me, please don't file for costs. I spent all but the $50 stake money on billiards lessons.

Autism is a serious condition that should be treated as soon as possible so that those with the condition can lead normal lives without the hinderance that their ailment causes so many today.

Trot's position is clear. The new thread will have a poll only after all arguments have been made.

Should I leave the other two counsel positions open in the OP for a day, or close them out?

Should I leave the other two counsel positions open in the OP for a day, or close them out?

leave em for now

Autism is a serious condition that should be treated as soon as possible so that those with the condition can lead normal lives without the hinderance that their ailment causes so many today.

Cool, we'll be doing another poll once the main trial thread has proceeded to conclusion, and that poll will decide the Fifty Bucks.

Remember to vote early and often!

Just kidding. Do vote again in the final poll when it happens, though.

leave em for now

Will do, your honor.

I'm going to jump in the bath.


By no means would I want the image of my bloated, pasty naked mass to in any way disrupt my esteemed opposing colleague or distract him from crafting his opening argument.

At all.

It's not a disease. They just function differently. Like so-called ADD and ADHD.

Already kissing up to the judge, huh? No, you're absolutely right.

I was wondering, should we ask the Neo Art what the rules are for caselaw, precedent, etc, like from what countries can we draw caselaw, can we use precedent at all, can we reference it as illustrative example, etc?

If you beat me, please don't file for costs. I spent all but the $50 stake money on billiards lessons.

I can't expect a non lawyer to be held to a standard of a lawyer. Moreover this is an "ethical" not a "legal" argument. As such, I suppose any source that may be used in support of your position may be used. The other hand of that equation is that this "court" considers no source as having particular precidential value.

I can't expect a non lawyer to be held to a standard of a lawyer. Moreover this is an "ethical" not a "legal" argument. As such, I suppose any source that may be used in support of your position may be used. The other hand of that equation is that this "court" considers no source as having particular precidential value.

Understood.


With your permission, once this thread is ready to yield to the actual "trial" thread, may I ask that we conclude this thread with an aggregate listing of all your pre-trial procedural rulings so that the rules are all easily found in one place?

Understood.


With your permission, once this thread is ready to yield to the actual "trial" thread, may I ask that we conclude this thread with an aggregate listing of all your pre-trial procedural rulings so that the rules are all easily found in one place?

yup, that sounds like a good idea, I'll start keeping lists.

I realize that Autism is not a curable affliction, however it is treatable just as learning to walk again is a problem over come by stroke patients.
and yes, I am one of those who put one of the other three answers other than "there is no 'cure'".
I do this because, I've known several individuals with the affliction and I was very good friends with them...they can be some of the *expletive deleted* coolest people.

I was wondering, should we ask the Neo Art what the rules are for caselaw, precedent, etc, like from what countries can we draw caselaw, can we use precedent at all, can we reference it as illustrative example, etc?

If you beat me, please don't file for costs. I spent all but the $50 stake money on billiards lessons.

Well...that might become quite the headache. I dunno, i guess we can just leave it as his prerogative.

Lol, file for costs. You're having the time of your life, aren't you?

Will do, your honor.

I'm going to jump in the bath.

By no means would I want the image of my bloated, pasty naked mass to in any way disrupt my esteemed opposing colleague or distract him from crafting his opening argument.

At all.

You're pulling out all the stops, aren't you? I'm afraid I'll just have to take photographs, and *ahem* sell them back to you as wonderful works of art, if you catch my drift. You wouldn't want me to do an exhibition, would you?

I would be willing to argue the 'Mandatory Treatment', in vitro or before adulthood, if no one else wants to do it. But this thing can't start tomorrow because I have to write a last minute paper.

I would be willing to argue the 'Mandatory Treatment', in vitro or before adulthood, if no one else wants to do it. But this thing can't start tomorrow because I have to write a last minute paper.

ok it's yours.

ok it's yours.

I've edited the OP accordingly, but also have a question.

The remaining position, "Develop Treatment, Adult chooses" is not necessarily incompatable with either "Parent Chooses" or "Mandatory Prior to Adulthood and for In Vitro" and could conceivably be merged with either depending on interpretation.

Shall "Adult Chooses" mean

a) that ONLY an adult may consent, thus precluding the procedure to children (thus being most opposed to Mandatory Prior to Adulthood)

or

b) the procedure shall be developed, with decision made by parents prior to adulthood and by the adult him or herself thereafter?

Or yet a third meaning?

Judge's call, I will amend the OP accordingly.

I've edited the OP accordingly, but also have a question.

The remaining position, "Develop Treatment, Adult chooses" is not necessarily incompatable with either "Parent Chooses" or "Mandatory Prior to Adulthood and for In Vitro" and could conceivably be merged with either depending on interpretation.

Shall "Adult Chooses" mean

a) that ONLY an adult may consent, thus precluding the procedure to children (thus being most opposed to Mandatory Prior to Adulthood)

or

b) the procedure shall be developed, with decision made by parents prior to adulthood and by the adult him or herself thereafter?

Or yet a third meaning?

Judge's call, I will amend the OP accordingly.

My concern with B is the question of informed consent by an autistic individual...but I'm not the one making the argument.....let's go with "a" because "b" is too similar to an existing argument.

My concern with B is the question of informed consent by an autistic individual...but I'm not the one making the argument.....let's go with "a" because "b" is too similar to an existing argument.

OP has been changed to reflect "a" as the last remaining choice.

How much longer do you want to leave this one open, and what protocol would you like us to follow for opening arguments?

Thanks, that helps.

No problem :D

It's not a disease. They just function differently. Like so-called ADD and ADHD.

And this is based on your many years of experience as a psychiatrist? Or are you just speaking out your ass?

I'm new, so I hope I'm not being rude. I wanted to chime in. Functional Autism in a guy in this documentary "The boy with the amazing brain" is like the new and improved, socially functional, Rainman. He actually meets the real life Rainman in the movie. I also saw a kid with it in this functional form take over (and I mean TAKE OVER) a high school basketball game. Google it. Autistic kid wins, or something. Anyway, my point is this...if your going to find a cure for it, how about we weed out the functional forms of it causing heightened brain activity, and introduce it, once isolated, into our gene pools?...at a price of course. LOL. Or we could at least learn about it before we wipe it out. Could be the next step in our evolution...and we cured it! Maybe have a provision in any law concerning the cure that extinction is prohibited? I'd go for that. Thanks for your time.

Can anyone tell me what percentage of autistic adults are self sufficient? That would be a big help in making a decision

The vast majority. I don't have specific statistics to hand, but I have aspergers syndrome, which is on the autistic spectrum. Frankly, I find the idea of a cure offensive. There are very few people with Autisim that are beyond being able to care for themselves. And even if they were, the nature and make up of their brain is not something to be tampered with in this manner. Autisim is not akin to Parkinsons or Altzimers. It is a condition, not a disease. It creates certian disadvantages to a person, that is true, but it also presents them with some fantastic advantages. If your read the book "born on a blue day" you would see this. A "cure" for autism is rather like suggesting a "cure" for an irritable temper or a predeliction for humming while on public transport. Its part of a persons make up and should not be considered a disease like that. Its not something that will kill anyone. The much harder course has to be taken by society and autsim affected people. Society has to learn to accept and deal with them, and the autisic people need to learn how to function well in society.

I am also appauled that 10 people here have suggested that any cure that would be developed would be made mandatory. Even if, for the sake of argument you disagree with my assement of Autism (which frankly I would find hard for you to do) surely a persons human rights, be they autistic or NT demand that any such treatment is not forced, when this is not a medical treatment (it is not about the persons physical health, Autism will not kill you) but is about the nature of their personality and who they are. How dare anyone consider that anything like that should be forced.

The vast majority. I don't have specific statistics to hand, but I have aspergers syndrome, which is on the autistic spectrum. Frankly, I find the idea of a cure offensive. There are very few people with Autisim that are beyond being able to care for themselves. And even if they were, the nature and make up of their brain is not something to be tampered with in this manner. Autisim is not akin to Parkinsons or Altzimers. It is a condition, not a disease. It creates certian disadvantages to a person, that is true, but it also presents them with some fantastic advantages. If your read the book "born on a blue day" you would see this. A "cure" for autism is rather like suggesting a "cure" for an irritable temper or a predeliction for humming while on public transport. Its part of a persons make up and should not be considered a disease like that. Its not something that will kill anyone. The much harder course has to be taken by society and autsim affected people. Society has to learn to accept and deal with them, and the autisic people need to learn how to function well in society.

I am also appauled that 10 people here have suggested that any cure that would be developed would be made mandatory. Even if, for the sake of argument you disagree with my assement of Autism (which frankly I would find hard for you to do) surely a persons human rights, be they autistic or NT demand that any such treatment is not forced, when this is not a medical treatment (it is not about the persons physical health, Autism will not kill you) but is about the nature of their personality and who they are. How dare anyone consider that anything like that should be forced.

Just to be clear, I'm not terribly keen on the idea of mandatory treatment either -- although the subject of who decides whether we treat infants and children is rather sticky.

Nonetheless, I am curious as to whether you think the rest of the DSM-IV is just a bunch of different abilities. Is manic-depression just like having blue eyes?

If not, what makes autistic spectrum disorders different than other disorders?

And, btw, I am sure you know that autism is, in fact, linked to excess mortality and decreased life expectancy. link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11814268) Also, autism is linked to other disorders and conditions:

A study published by CDC in 2003 found that 62% of the children who had an ASD had at least one additional disability or epilepsy (glossary). Of those children, 68% had mental retardation/intellectual impairment, 8% had epilepsy, 5% had cerebral palsy, 1% had vision impairment, and 1% had hearing loss. Other studies show that 5% to 38% of adults with ASDs have epilepsy.[2] And some people with ASDs may have mental disorders such as depression and anxiety. link (http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/symptoms.htm#additional)

EDIT: I apologize if this discussion is inappropriate for the Trial thread.

Just to be clear, I'm not terribly keen on the idea of mandatory treatment either -- although the subject of who decides whether we treat infants and children is rather sticky.

No, it isn't. Its very simple. You don't. Period. Autisim is something that makes up a person's charachter, it is not the same as a disorder like altzimers or Parkinsons and is not to be treated as such. If you find a way of eliminting the gene that causes Parkinsons, then please get rid of it. But Autism is not the same


Nonetheless, I am curious as to whether you think the rest of the DSM-IV is just a bunch of different abilities. Is manic-depression just like having blue eyes?

Autism is not a direct cause of manic depression. The vast majority of the time such things are caused by the people around that person not knowing how to deal with it. With the right care, such a person could indeed be just fine. I know a great deal about autism, being autistic myself. Such cases are extremely on the rare side, but of course because they are the most extreme and interesting, are the most publicised.


If not, what makes autistic spectrum disorders different than other disorders?

Autism is not simply a disease. Its affects are not purely negative or purely positive. It is a condition. It shapes a persons personality, their ideas, their thought process etc. And the most important thing here is that it does not do so negatively


And, btw, I am sure you know that autism is, in fact, linked to excess mortality and decreased life expectancy

The study you cited is flawed. It cites accidents, which are a secondary function of autism and with the propper care to those in the more advanced stages, can be avoided. It also cites seizures, which are not a symptom of autism but of epilipsy, and while it is true that people with autism often also have epilipsy they are not one and the same disorder. You could eliminate the causes of epilepsy without eliminating the cause of autism. It also cites respetoriy disease statistically increasing with people with mental retardation. However I should point out that mental retardation is not the same as autisim. While there are a small number of people towards the high end of the autistic spectrum with mental retardation, the two are not synonomus. And finally, and this is a flaw with the entire study also, but I feel I should point it out anyway specificly for this point, the study is relating this correlatively. Correlation does not equal causation. At any level.

No, it isn't. Its very simple. You don't. Period. Autisim is something that makes up a person's charachter, it is not the same as a disorder like altzimers or Parkinsons and is not to be treated as such. If you find a way of eliminting the gene that causes Parkinsons, then please get rid of it. But Autism is not the same

So are you arguing that people with ASD should receive NO TREATMENT WHATSOEVER? Really?

Why don't we just stake them out on hills and see if they can survive?



Autism is not a direct cause of manic depression. The vast majority of the time such things are caused by the people around that person not knowing how to deal with it. With the right care, such a person could indeed be just fine. I know a great deal about autism, being autistic myself. Such cases are extremely on the rare side, but of course because they are the most extreme and interesting, are the most publicised.

I didn't say autism had anything to do with manic-depression and I think you know it. My question was your opinion of the rest of the disorders in the DSM-IV: do you think they are all just a matter of different functioning?


Autism is not simply a disease. Its affects are not purely negative or purely positive. It is a condition. It shapes a persons personality, their ideas, their thought process etc. And the most important thing here is that it does not do so negatively

It's great if you find your ASD to be nothing but a benefit, but that isn't the case for everyone. In fact, if ASD isn't causing significant impairment, it isn't Autism under the DSM-IV.


The study you cited is flawed. It cites accidents, which are a secondary function of autism and with the propper care to those in the more advanced stages, can be avoided. It also cites seizures, which are not a symptom of autism but of epilipsy, and while it is true that people with autism often also have epilipsy they are not one and the same disorder. You could eliminate the causes of epilepsy without eliminating the cause of autism. It also cites respetoriy disease statistically increasing with people with mental retardation. However I should point out that mental retardation is not the same as autisim. While there are a small number of people towards the high end of the autistic spectrum with mental retardation, the two are not synonomus. And finally, and this is a flaw with the entire study also, but I feel I should point it out anyway specificly for this point, the study is relating this correlatively. Correlation does not equal causation. At any level.

You did a nice job of ignoring my statistics regarding the co-existence of autism and other disorders. Those facts are awfully inconvenient, aren't they?

Among other things, such statistics show that those with ASD often suffer from mental impairment, epilepsy, and other additional disorders. So it is far from a stretch to look at the mortality statistics regarding autism and find correlations with accidents, mental retardation, and epilepsy. Regardless, I never claimed that there was necessarily causation, only that autism is linked to higher mortality and decreased life expectancy.

So are you arguing that people with ASD should receive NO TREATMENT WHATSOEVER? Really?

Why don't we just stake them out on hills and see if they can survive?

Their condition is not life threatening, so they should not recive forcable medical treatment. Its that simple. Obviously some of them need social services help later in life, as well as special help in schools, but not forcable medical treatment that will "make them better".


I didn't say autism had anything to do with manic-depression and I think you know it. My question was your opinion of the rest of the disorders in the DSM-IV: do you think they are all just a matter of different functioning?

Yes, I do. And as such none of them should be attacked from a purely medical angle. These are not diseases to be cured, they are difficulties to be overcome. To cure them is to fundimentally alter part of them that makes them who they are.


It's great if you find your ASD to be nothing but a benefit, but that isn't the case for everyone. In fact, if ASD isn't causing significant impairment, it isn't Autism under the DSM-IV.

Read very carefully what I wrote, and you will see I did not say that I find it wholely a benefit. I said "Its affects are not purely negative or purely positive. It is a condition". And that is the case. The vast majority of autistics I know and those in the global community that I am a part of do not want a cure. It is their voice you should listen to.


You did a nice job of ignoring my statistics regarding the co-existence of autism and other disorders. Those facts are awfully inconvenient, aren't they?

I ignored them because they are not relevent. Unless there is established causation there is nothing there but numbers.


Among other things, such statistics show that those with ASD often suffer from mental impairment, epilepsy, and other additional disorders. So it is far from a stretch to look at the mortality statistics regarding autism and find correlations with accidents, mental retardation, and epilepsy. Regardless, I never claimed that there was necessarily causation, only that autism is linked to higher mortality and decreased life expectancy.

Correlations, yes. Causation no. And without causation, you have no case. It is the same as noting that the number of pirate attacks rise with global tempretures. Autisim is not mental retardation, it is not epilepsy and it is not nessecarly a cause of accidents. You have proven that they are linked in a certian number of cases, but you have not proven any causal link. Without a causal link there is no grounds for you to say autism causes decreased life expectancy or higher mortality. It may be linked, but then so are lots of other things.

an interesting debate already...unfortunatly now I realize I won't be able to commit to making the actual trial discussion until Sunday night, so I hope those who are interested in the discussion stick around.

I will think about hte format of how I want it to go and get back to this thread thursday.

EDIT: I apologize if this discussion is inappropriate for the Trial thread.

It seems that neither Neo Art as the presiding Judge nor myself as the OP see anything wrong with your on-topic posts and the accompanying links.

I hope that, even if you should decline a position in the trial, that you will file one or more Amicus Briefs, and Neo Zahrebska should similarly feel invited to provide commentary and may even want to coorindate with Trotskylvania to appear as a Material Witness.

The current discussion could be considered pre-trial public discourse, and since the jury is nationstates as a whole, there is really no way to insulate the jury from its own ponderings.

Their condition is not life threatening, so they should not recive forcable medical treatment. Its that simple. Obviously some of them need social services help later in life, as well as special help in schools, but not forcable medical treatment that will "make them better".


As counsel for the "Parents Choose" position, I would point out that it is somewhat problematic to call for special help and accomodation for a condition that one would evidently choose to retain.

To say "This is not a disease and it is something I choose to keep" is not entirely compatible with saying "I expect other people's resources to be directed to accomodating my condition".

Essentially, if your position is that it is not a disease, it would, a priori, require no special treatment.

Most of those who ask for special treatment do so because they have no choice, it is a necessity for them to have access. If a cure were made available and rejected, it would seem that part of that rejection is to then eschew the special treatment that is afforded to disabled people who don't have that choice.

The vast majority. I don't have specific statistics to hand, but I have aspergers syndrome, which is on the autistic spectrum. Frankly, I find the idea of a cure offensive. There are very few people with Autisim that are beyond being able to care for themselves. And even if they were, the nature and make up of their brain is not something to be tampered with in this manner. Autisim is not akin to Parkinsons or Altzimers. It is a condition, not a disease. It creates certian disadvantages to a person, that is true, but it also presents them with some fantastic advantages. If your read the book "born on a blue day" you would see this. A "cure" for autism is rather like suggesting a "cure" for an irritable temper or a predeliction for humming while on public transport. Its part of a persons make up and should not be considered a disease like that. Its not something that will kill anyone. The much harder course has to be taken by society and autsim affected people. Society has to learn to accept and deal with them, and the autisic people need to learn how to function well in society.

I am also appauled that 10 people here have suggested that any cure that would be developed would be made mandatory. Even if, for the sake of argument you disagree with my assement of Autism (which frankly I would find hard for you to do) surely a persons human rights, be they autistic or NT demand that any such treatment is not forced, when this is not a medical treatment (it is not about the persons physical health, Autism will not kill you) but is about the nature of their personality and who they are. How dare anyone consider that anything like that should be forced.

We're not in the trial phase yet, but could I line you up as one of my material witnesses for the actual mock trial? I think your testimony would prove to be most enlightening.

The current discussion could be considered pre-trial public discourse, and since the jury is nationstates as a whole, there is really no way to insulate the jury from its own ponderings.

At least we don't have to worry about fighting in this case in the media, eh? :p

Its affects are not purely negative or purely positive. It is a condition.
I'd take that a bit farther and assert that it's not so much as condition as simply a characteristic. Yes, CT, like having blue eyes.

We still need a "Drunken, Disgraced, Disbarred, yet Brilliant ex-lawyer to act as mentor to younger protagonist, a la Donald Sutherland in 'A Time To Kill'".

I nominate LG, if he would graciously accept. :p

I'm new, so I hope I'm not being rude. I wanted to chime in. Functional Autism in a guy in this documentary "The boy with the amazing brain" is like the new and improved, socially functional, Rainman. He actually meets the real life Rainman in the movie. I also saw a kid with it in this functional form take over (and I mean TAKE OVER) a high school basketball game. Google it. Autistic kid wins, or something. Anyway, my point is this...if your going to find a cure for it, how about we weed out the functional forms of it causing heightened brain activity, and introduce it, once isolated, into our gene pools?...at a price of course. LOL. Or we could at least learn about it before we wipe it out. Could be the next step in our evolution...and we cured it! Maybe have a provision in any law concerning the cure that extinction is prohibited? I'd go for that. Thanks for your time.

What do you think will be the next human evolution?
what are the advantages of Autism?
Oh and Welcome to Nation States General (NSG).:)

As counsel for the "Parents Choose" position, I would point out that it is somewhat problematic to call for special help and accomodation for a condition that one would evidently choose to retain.

To say "This is not a disease and it is something I choose to keep" is not entirely compatible with saying "I expect other people's resources to be directed to accomodating my condition".

Essentially, if your position is that it is not a disease, it would, a priori, require no special treatment.

Thats not true. The nature of a disease is not the same as condition, but a condition can still require special treetment and help from people. It is something that will make certian things difficult for people in a way that is not their fault, that itself merits special treatment.


Most of those who ask for special treatment do so because they have no choice, it is a necessity for them to have access. If a cure were made available and rejected, it would seem that part of that rejection is to then eschew the special treatment that is afforded to disabled people who don't have that choice.

No, it isnt. Because the nature of the idea of "curing" autism is babaric. It is asking them to change the very nature of who they are. It is a greater evil. It is essntially saying "You can change yourself to loose part of your identity and stop needing special help, but if you don't, you will stop getting the special help". Maybe what they'd have to give up is not worth what they would gain. That doesn't change the fact that they still need help. I don't think you apreciate the nature in which autism changes a person. You're treeting it very dichotomously. It isn't purely negative and it isn't purely positive. People should have the right to keep the positives and recieve help for the negatives. It shouldn't be expected that they should choose.

Their condition is not life threatening, so they should not recive forcable medical treatment. Its that simple. Obviously some of them need social services help later in life, as well as special help in schools, but not forcable medical treatment that will "make them better".

When, pray tell, did I advocate forcible medical treatment against the will of someone with ASD?

Why is it acceptable -- even required -- that those with ASD get special services, but not treatment?

Do you really think you speak for everyone that has ASD when you reject the desirability of treatment?


Yes, I do. And as such none of them should be attacked from a purely medical angle. These are not diseases to be cured, they are difficulties to be overcome. To cure them is to fundimentally alter part of them that makes them who they are.

Then, with all due respect, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You may be knowledgeable about ASD, but your personal experiences regarding that condition aren't bases for conclusions about other conditions.

I happen to have several other disorders, such as clinical depression, general anxiety disorder, OCD, and they do NOT define who I am and I actively seek treatment to cure those conditions.


Read very carefully what I wrote, and you will see I did not say that I find it wholely a benefit. I said "Its affects are not purely negative or purely positive. It is a condition". And that is the case. The vast majority of autistics I know and those in the global community that I am a part of do not want a cure. It is their voice you should listen to.

You said (emphasis added):

It shapes a persons personality, their ideas, their thought process etc. And the most important thing here is that it does not do so negatively

I'm glad to see you admit that you mispoke. ASD can impact one negatively and one might well want treatment.

Again, you seem to be arguing against a strawman that I would force those with ASD to treatment against their will. I have not said such a thing and do not support that position. But, while I recognize and appreciate your voice, you don't speak for everyone with ASD -- let alone everyone with mental or neurological disorders.


I ignored them because they are not relevent. Unless there is established causation there is nothing there but numbers.

Causation aside they are relevant because they provide us information regarding the co-morbidity common to those with ASD. As such, they help refute your assertions earlier in the thread regarding the condition of the majority of those with ASD. The picture isn't as rosy as you paint it.


Correlations, yes. Causation no. And without causation, you have no case. It is the same as noting that the number of pirate attacks rise with global tempretures. Autisim is not mental retardation, it is not epilepsy and it is not nessecarly a cause of accidents. You have proven that they are linked in a certian number of cases, but you have not proven any causal link. Without a causal link there is no grounds for you to say autism causes decreased life expectancy or higher mortality. It may be linked, but then so are lots of other things.

Fine. Stick your fingers in your ear and repeat the mantra that only concrete proof of causation is relevant.

But you were the one arguing that there is nothing life-threatening about ASD. Care to support that with evidence?

I'd take that a bit farther and assert that it's not so much as condition as simply a characteristic. Yes, CT, like having blue eyes.

Once again, your position on this and related issues is either grossly or deliberately ignorant.

Let's look at the Diagnostic Criteria for Autism Disorder from the DSM-IV (http://ani.autistics.org/dsm4-autism.html):

(I) A total of six (or more) items from (A), (B), and (C), with at least two from (A), and one each from (B) and (C)

(A) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the description, it gives the following as examples: not actively participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or "mechanical" aids )
(B) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level

(C) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(II) Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:
(A) social interaction
(B) language as used in social communication
(C) symbolic or imaginative play

(III) The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder

To my knowledge, blue eyes don't involve abnormal functioning, qualitative impairment, marked impairments, etc.

Thats not true. The nature of a disease is not the same as condition, but a condition can still require special treetment and help from people. It is something that will make certian things difficult for people in a way that is not their fault, that itself merits special treatment.

This is where you've contracted yourself; if they can change and don't, it is their fault. If their reason for not changing is to keep the positive parts, but still expect others to give them special treatment for the negative, then they are not taking responsibility for the trade-off that they've chosen.


No, it isnt. Because the nature of the idea of "curing" autism is babaric. It is asking them to change the very nature of who they are. It is a greater evil.

This is a bit circular on your part.


It is essntially saying "You can change yourself to loose part of your identity and stop needing special help, but if you don't, you will stop getting the special help". Maybe what they'd have to give up is not worth what they would gain.

In that case, they should take personal responsibility for their choice, just like everyone else has to. If you choose to put the burden of your negatives on others (and yourself, of course, but still on others also) so that you can keep the positives yourself, you are essentially saying it is the responsibility of others to help you maintain your "true nature", even if you could alleviate that burden on them.


That doesn't change the fact that they still need help. I don't think you apreciate the nature in which autism changes a person. You're treeting it very dichotomously. It isn't purely negative and it isn't purely positive. People should have the right to keep the positives and recieve help for the negatives. It shouldn't be expected that they should choose.

But this is about choice, at its most fundamental level. I'm not on the mandatory treatment side, but I find it very disingenuous to say that one is entitled to help for something that takes resources from everyone else (including people who would accept the tradeoff of a cure so that those resources used to help them could go to cancer etc), but is not expected to help themselves in any way that would cause them to accept a tradeoff.

Now, for those brilliant autistics (and I imagine there are many) whose extraordinary insights into particular fields warrant the subsidy, that can be done in the form of specific research grants.

But to expect everyone else to accomodate your negatives so that you don't have to give up your positives takes away the choice of the rest of society.

If you choose to keep the negatives and positives, you should be willing to take responsibility and cope with your negatives just as you benefit from the positives.

In those instances where the positives may benefit society as a whole, autistics who develop extraordinary ideas could use the profit from that work to voluntarily subsidize other autistics.

I'm sure you are an exceptional person, Neo Zahbreska, but you have to make choices just like everybody else, and if you choose to reject treatment that would ease the burden on everyone else, its not really fair to continue demanding special treatment from everyone else.


On a separate note, Neo Zahbreska, I hope very much that you will continue to voice your experiences and opinions, especially once the trial begins. If Trotskylvania is interested, perhaps you could even serve as co-counselor to "no cure shall be developed" (if that reflects your view, or you might also want to take the "Cure developed, but only an adult can choose to accept it" counsel position).

If you are too busy to take any of those roles, remember that anyone can file an "Amicus Brief", check with Neo Art on the rules for that. I hope we'll continue to hear from you, especially on the trial thread.

I'd take that a bit farther and assert that it's not so much as condition as simply a characteristic. Yes, CT, like having blue eyes.

The blue eyed don't demand or receive special treatment or resources that could go to other things like cancer, etc.


The parents of blue eyed people don't file suit against some pathogen that may have caused the blue eyes.


If those with this "characteristic" want to be treated as no different than having blue eyes, they seem to be selective in when they want that treatment.

Out of curiosity, $50 Us dollars, Australian, Canadian... what?

The blue eyed don't demand or receive special treatment or resources that could go to other things like cancer, etc.

The parents of blue eyed people don't file suit against some pathogen that may have caused the blue eyes.

If those with this "characteristic" want to be treated as no different than having blue eyes, they seem to be selective in when they want that treatment.
I made no claims as to what they want - I'm referring to what I think they should get.

But, even so, if the legal system was designed such that you could file some claims and get money for no good reason, wouldn't you take advantage of that? I certainly would.

Out of curiosity, $50 Us dollars, Australian, Canadian... what?

$50 USD. My fault, I shouldn't have assumed the USD part would be known.


Of course, last I heard, the USD wasn't doing so great, but all I've got in discretionary income right now is two twenties and a ten, USD.

Once again, your position on this and related issues is either grossly or deliberately ignorant.

Let's look at the Diagnostic Criteria for Autism Disorder from the DSM-IV (http://ani.autistics.org/dsm4-autism.html):
Please, let's.
1. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the description, it gives the following as examples: not actively participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or "mechanical" aids )
I don't think any of these warrant fixing. They're certainly not negative characteristics, and I would argue they could well arise simply through idiosyncrasy. Being uninterested in others isn't a bad thing.
1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level
Again, these aren't really problems. #1 arguably is, though autists do often do quite well with the written language. You don't need to speak if you can type.

This "appropriate to developmental level" stuff is all social interaction related. Social interaction isn't necessary.
1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
So they're unusual. That's what abnormal means: unusual. Is that cause for treatment?

And stimming occurs in 10% of normal children - we're not treating them.
(II) Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:
(A) social interaction
(B) language as used in social communication
(C) symbolic or imaginative play
Again, this is all social behaviour. Asocial behaviour isn't a disability. And as for imagination, you can't measure that except in the extent to which that imaginative play occurs outside the child's head, which, in an extreme introvert like an autist, it wouldn't.
To my knowledge, blue eyes don't involve abnormal functioning, qualitative impairment, marked impairments, etc.
So because these kids are unusual, and score poorly on a subjective, qualitative scale measuring unnecessary qualities, there's something wrong with them?

They sound like ideal children. They're quiet, self-directed, keep to themselves, and don't get into trouble. They never fall in with the wrong crowd, and they're focussed and disciplined in their pursuit of their own interests. Why do they need fixing?

I made no claims as to what they want - I'm referring to what I think they should get.

But, even so, if the legal system was designed such that you could file some claims and get money for no good reason, wouldn't you take advantage of that? I certainly would.

Hmmm...if everybody took money from the government for no good reason any time they could, and the government gets its money from the people...

Given the recognition of ASD as a disorder, in that it causes the abnormal functioning of the human brain, by the established and recognized scientific community...

Given the degree of impairment in everyday life and behaviors, and the increased difficulty of an individual with ASD to function in a world primarily composed of individuals not experiencing ASD, and the amount of social services, and the costs levied on society by the continued presence of such a condition...

Given that increasing rates of ASD amongst children in the western world, as an indication that external, environmental factors are playing an increasingly greater role in the development of such condition in individuals...

Given the costs levied on society in the form of providing special care for the needs of an individual with ASD, and the increasing prevalence of childhood Autism, as a result of artificial environmental factors...

All steps should be taken to develop a cure (a cure, given that this is indeed a genuine disorder), and all steps should be taken to make it readily available to the population as a whole, preferably when a child is identified in vitro as being probable for the phenotypic display of the characteristics of autism, but without requirement that said cure be undertaken, but encouragement and inducements provided.

Further, parents should reserve the right to undertake the procedure in vitro, and up to a certain age, and no further. Once the individual reaches their majority, they should then be permitted to make such a choice on their own.

Further, autism is not merely a characteristic, as would be brown hair or blue eyes. It severely impairs an individuals ability to function in everyday society, without special assistance.

Hmmm...if everybody took money from the government for no good reason any time they could, and the government gets its money from the people...
Democracy fails as soon as the people learn they can vote themselves benefits at each others' expense.

This happened long ago.

Social interaction isn't necessary.



Do we include friendship or romantic interaction under Social interaction? (I'm asking for sake of argument, not insisting they do or don't).

From what I've seen, some higher functioning cases can and do have friends, so they aren't completely asocial, but their social development is impared by definition of the condition, is that correct?

To be honest, I'm not sure I'm willing to preclude a child's ability to fully and freely develop something as beautiful and meaningful as friendship without at least letting the child experience it. It seems that many autistics do have deep and full friendships, but is it more limited in "lower" functioning cases?

Democracy fails as soon as the people learn they can vote themselves benefits at each others' expense.

This happened long ago.


Doesn't leave much chance for conscientious government if people are so eager to be part of the problem...

Given the recognition of ASD as a disorder, in that it causes the abnormal functioning of the human brain, by the established and recognized scientific community...
It doesn't cause abnormal functioning. It basically is abnormal functioning.

But if some people think differently from the rest of us, is that cause to "fix" them? How is this different from prohibitions against thought crimes?
[quoet]Given the degree of impairment in everyday life and behaviors, and the increased difficulty of an individual with ASD to function in a world primarily composed of individuals not experiencing ASD, and the amount of social services, and the costs levied on society by the continued presence of such a condition...[/quote]
If you're the majority, stop offering those services. That's a much more fair solution than changing these people in a fundamental way.
Given that increasing rates of ASD amongst children in the western world, as an indication that external, environmental factors are playing an increasingly greater role in the development of such condition in individuals...
Or, it demonstrates that we're getting better at diagnosing it. Asperger's work describing high-functioning autism wasn't translated into English until 1991.

Doesn't leave much chance for conscientious government if people are so eager to be part of the problem...
No it doesn't. We need to recognise this and adapt to it.

Please, let's.

Before we do, let's recognize something important: we aren't talking about voluntary or chosen behaviors here. People with autism don't have a choice about exhibiting these symptoms. Nor do they deal with each symptom in isolation, but rather with a whole host of symptoms all the time.

(A) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the description, it gives the following as examples: not actively participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or "mechanical" aids )

I don't think any of these warrant fixing. They're certainly not negative characteristics, and I would argue they could well arise simply through idiosyncrasy. Being uninterested in others isn't a bad thing.

Again, these are not idiosyncratic choices in behavior, but rather symptoms beyond the control of those with this condition.

The inability to form friendships is not a negative characteristic?

(B) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental levelAgain, these aren't really problems. #1 arguably is, though autists do often do quite well with the written language. You don't need to speak if you can type.

This "appropriate to developmental level" stuff is all social interaction related. Social interaction isn't necessary.

Total lack of the ability to speak isn't a problem? :rolleyes:

One may consciously choose not to interact socially, but that is different from an inability to do so. The latter may be improved with treatment.

(C) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objectsSo they're unusual. That's what abnormal means: unusual. Is that cause for treatment?

Again, these are behaviors that the autistic person can't control. Might they wish to? What is wrong with them not wanting these abnormal behaviors?

(II) Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:
(A) social interaction
(B) language as used in social communication
(C) symbolic or imaginative play
Again, this is all social behaviour. Asocial behaviour isn't a disability. And as for imagination, you can't measure that except in the extent to which that imaginative play occurs outside the child's head, which, in an extreme introvert like an autist, it wouldn't.

Um. Did you note this is with an onset prior to age 3? We aren't talking about an adult that is asocial by choice, we are talking about children growing up without social abilities.

So because these kids are unusual, and score poorly on a subjective, qualitative scale measuring unnecessary qualities, there's something wrong with them?

Because these kids have multiple qualitative impairments regarding their ability to interact socially, communicate, and to control their behavior, yes, there is something "wrong" with them.

They sound like ideal children. They're quiet, self-directed, keep to themselves, and don't get into trouble. They never fall in with the wrong crowd, and they're focussed and disciplined in their pursuit of their own interests. Why do they need fixing?

Nice. None of what you say is necessarily true, and you blithely ignore the problems affecting the autistic.

Early diagnosis and intervention can help those with ASD lead significantly improved lives. Why would you deny people the chance to be happier?

If I didn't know your attitude was similar when it comes to other mental or neurological disorders, I'd simply write you off as ill-informed. Instead, you appear to be deliberately provocative and unreasonable.

Given the recognition of ASD as a disorder, in that it causes the abnormal functioning of the human brain, by the established and recognized scientific community...

Given the degree of impairment in everyday life and behaviors, and the increased difficulty of an individual with ASD to function in a world primarily composed of individuals not experiencing ASD, and the amount of social services, and the costs levied on society by the continued presence of such a condition...

Given that increasing rates of ASD amongst children in the western world, as an indication that external, environmental factors are playing an increasingly greater role in the development of such condition in individuals...

Given the costs levied on society in the form of providing special care for the needs of an individual with ASD, and the increasing prevalence of childhood Autism, as a result of artificial environmental factors...

All steps should be taken to develop a cure (a cure, given that this is indeed a genuine disorder), and all steps should be taken to make it readily available to the population as a whole, preferably when a child is identified in vitro as being probable for the phenotypic display of the characteristics of autism, but without requirement that said cure be undertaken, but encouragement and inducements provided.

Further, parents should reserve the right to undertake the procedure in vitro, and up to a certain age, and no further. Once the individual reaches their majority, they should then be permitted to make such a choice on their own.

Further, autism is not merely a characteristic, as would be brown hair or blue eyes. It severely impairs an individuals ability to function in everyday society, without special assistance.

As a member of the Autisitc community I am very deeply offended by what you have suggested. Autism yes, is a disorder, but it is not something to be cured. It is part of the nature of who someone is. It is not a disease like Parkinsons or Altziemers. It is debilitating, that is true to an extent, but it also helps make a person a particular way they are. Taking away this is like taking away a bad temper or a nervous streak in someone, only to a greater extent. Its part of the nature of who we are. Yes it is debilitating and yes it is difficult, but as someone who is a member of the Austisic community at large I feel I can speek for all of us when I say that we do not want a cure

Furthermore a cure would provide a false dichotomy. It would mean that people either have to be forced to remove a fundimental part of who they are to be "normal" or they have to live with the disability without any help. Its not fair to threaten someone who would not want to take the cure to not have the social help they need. Its simply unfair. Autism does cause some genuine problems, no one would deny that. But it also gives some fundimental advantages, and its no ones right to take anything from them that is a fundimental part of who they are. I don't want to be "cured" and nor does the autistic community at large. We are not in medical danger and we do not put others in medical danger. It is offensive to suggest that to be autisitc is akin to being mentally retarded etc which would need a cure.

When, pray tell, did I advocate forcible medical treatment against the will of someone with ASD?

Its part of this thread. I'm attacking the whole notion of a cure on every level.


Why is it acceptable -- even required -- that those with ASD get special services, but not treatment?

Because Autisim isn't a simple disease like Parkinsons or Altzimers. It is part of what makes you who are. It has its problems, but it has its benefits also. The propper course of action is to help a person to deal with the difficulties it presents, not merely to rip out a massively important part of who and what they are


Do you really think you speak for everyone that has ASD when you reject the desirability of treatment?

Not everyone, but I would say the vast vast vast majority. I've never ever encountered an autisic person in the real world or online who wanted a cure, and I've met a great many autistic people


Then, with all due respect, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You may be knowledgeable about ASD, but your personal experiences regarding that condition aren't bases for conclusions about other conditions.

I happen to have several other disorders, such as clinical depression, general anxiety disorder, OCD, and they do NOT define who I am and I actively seek treatment to cure those conditions.

Clinical depression is a purely negative thing. OCD in certian cases is a purely negative thing, as is anexity disorder sometimes. Autism isn't ever purely negative. It makes someones life difficult in parts, but better in other ways and as such is not purely a disorder but something that makes up someones nature. The diffrence is that the parts that are difficult can be overcome with help. You don't need to rip apart who a person is to deal with it.


I'm glad to see you admit that you mispoke. ASD can impact one negatively and one might well want treatment.

Again, you seem to be arguing against a strawman that I would force those with ASD to treatment against their will. I have not said such a thing and do not support that position. But, while I recognize and appreciate your voice, you don't speak for everyone with ASD -- let alone everyone with mental or neurological disorders.

I speek for the vast majority of the Autistic community. And yes, you don't support such a thing but there are those who do. I am here arguing against everyone and anyone who would even suppose such a thing.


Causation aside they are relevant because they provide us information regarding the co-morbidity common to those with ASD. As such, they help refute your assertions earlier in the thread regarding the condition of the majority of those with ASD. The picture isn't as rosy as you paint it.

Yes, but the point is that unless you can prove causation, curing autism would not cure these problems. Its as simple as that.


Fine. Stick your fingers in your ear and repeat the mantra that only concrete proof of causation is relevant.

But you were the one arguing that there is nothing life-threatening about ASD. Care to support that with evidence?

You prove to me that there is no Uranium in Uzbeckistan. Or that there is no China in Kamchatka. Proving a negative isn't possible. Its up to you to prove that it is life threatening.

Nice. None of what you say is necessarily true, and you blithely ignore the problems affecting the autistic.

Early diagnosis and intervention can help those with ASD lead significantly improved lives. Why would you deny people the chance to be happier?


Improved by whose standards? Better lives by whose standards? Yours? Your friends? Society at large's? Any of those people/groups of people's opinon on whether or not these peoples lives would be better are just that. Opinons. They are no better or worse than the next person.

This is where you've contracted yourself; if they can change and don't, it is their fault. If their reason for not changing is to keep the positive parts, but still expect others to give them special treatment for the negative, then they are not taking responsibility for the trade-off that they've chosen.

In that case, they should take personal responsibility for their choice, just like everyone else has to. If you choose to put the burden of your negatives on others (and yourself, of course, but still on others also) so that you can keep the positives yourself, you are essentially saying it is the responsibility of others to help you maintain your "true nature", even if you could alleviate that burden on them.

But this is about choice, at its most fundamental level. I'm not on the mandatory treatment side, but I find it very disingenuous to say that one is entitled to help for something that takes resources from everyone else (including people who would accept the tradeoff of a cure so that those resources used to help them could go to cancer etc), but is not expected to help themselves in any way that would cause them to accept a tradeoff.

Now, for those brilliant autistics (and I imagine there are many) whose extraordinary insights into particular fields warrant the subsidy, that can be done in the form of specific research grants.

But to expect everyone else to accomodate your negatives so that you don't have to give up your positives takes away the choice of the rest of society.

If you choose to keep the negatives and positives, you should be willing to take responsibility and cope with your negatives just as you benefit from the positives.

I'm sure you are an exceptional person, Neo Zahbreska, but you have to make choices just like everybody else, and if you choose to reject treatment that would ease the burden on everyone else, its not really fair to continue demanding special treatment from everyone else.


What you are doing here is creating a "devil and the deep blue sea" choice for all autistics, and its unreasonable. On the one hand, you're demanding that they get cured, in which case a very fundimental and definite part of who they are will be destroyed. It is not a disease, its a condition. It means a person is different, and as a result has ceritan disadvantages, but in other respects they have advantages. Its not fair to suggest that they should have their personalites destroyed. On the other hand, your suggesting that if they don't want that, then they should not be given support. Thats babaric and unfair. You're treeting autism like being in a wheelchair "You don't want to walk, fine but don't expect me to push you". Its not like that. Its far far more complext. A person with autism will need that help. Yes they won't need it if they are cured, but then they won't be that person any more. Your putting them in an unreasonable position by inventing a cure. The current system is much better. No cure should ever be developed, in any way.

Improved by whose standards? Better lives by whose standards? Yours? Your friends? Society at large's? Any of those people/groups of people's opinon on whether or not these peoples lives would be better are just that. Opinons. They are no better or worse than the next person.

I think you yourself have admitted that there is a role for special services or treatment for those with ASD.

Re-read what I wrote and I didn't even say anything about a cure. Merely about treatment.

Others with ASD seem to think their own lives are improved by treatment. You are welcome to feel differently, but then your opinion would be no better or worse than mine.

Its part of this thread. I'm attacking the whole notion of a cure on every level.

Because Autisim isn't a simple disease like Parkinsons or Altzimers. It is part of what makes you who are. It has its problems, but it has its benefits also. The propper course of action is to help a person to deal with the difficulties it presents, not merely to rip out a massively important part of who and what they are

Not everyone, but I would say the vast vast vast majority. I've never ever encountered an autisic person in the real world or online who wanted a cure, and I've met a great many autistic people

Clinical depression is a purely negative thing. OCD in certian cases is a purely negative thing, as is anexity disorder sometimes. Autism isn't ever purely negative. It makes someones life difficult in parts, but better in other ways and as such is not purely a disorder but something that makes up someones nature. The diffrence is that the parts that are difficult can be overcome with help. You don't need to rip apart who a person is to deal with it.

I speek for the vast majority of the Autistic community. And yes, you don't support such a thing but there are those who do. I am here arguing against everyone and anyone who would even suppose such a thing.


Again, you aren't reading what I have written, but rather are arguing against some mythical "everyone and anyone."

Your own posts admit that there is a role for treatment of ASD. I never advocated anything else.

I do find it disturbing that you would deny the possibility of a cure to anyone -- regardless of how much an individual may wish to be cured. As for whom you speak, you do not appear to speak for the Autism Society of America (http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_TGRI).

What you are doing here is creating a "devil and the deep blue sea" choice for all autistics, and its unreasonable. On the one hand, you're demanding that they get cured, in which case a very fundimental and definite part of who they are will be destroyed.

First of all, as I've repeatedly said, I"m not on the mandatory cure side, I'm on the "parents choose" side (with adults choosing once reaching). So your statement "you're demanding that they get cured" shows you really aren't reading my argument well.



It is not a disease, its a condition. It means a person is different, and as a result has ceritan disadvantages, but in other respects they have advantages. Its not fair to suggest that they should have their personalites destroyed.

Their personalities might change, but thats not the same as being destroyed. We all change, and somebody whose personality so defined by their autism that they are somehow "destroyed" without it can't be as complex as you insist. They sound more dependent on in then anything.


On the other hand, your suggesting that if they don't want that, then they should not be given support. Thats babaric and unfair. You're treeting autism like being in a wheelchair "You don't want to walk, fine but don't expect me to push you". Its not like that. Its far far more complext. A person with autism will need that help.

So does someone in a wheelchair, so its not as complex as you want to make it.


Yes they won't need it if they are cured, but then they won't be that person any more.

Nobody is the person they were yesterday. A fear and/or resistance to change would seem to be inherent to the autistic mentality.


Your putting them in an unreasonable position by inventing a cure. The current system is much better. No cure should ever be developed, in any way.

So, you want to enforce your choice on everybody.

If you get your way, those autistics who feel different then you don't get any choice at all, because you don't want to deal with the responsibility of having choice in life.

Look at it this way:

My way: Non-Mandatory Cure is developed and Autistics can choose to be treated or to decline treatment as their free will leads them. You get to have your way, as does every other autistic.

Your way: No Cure is developed. You get your way, and any autistic who feels differently is robbed of the right to choose. There is no choice.

Which way really respects more autistics?

Again, you aren't reading what I have written, but rather are arguing against some mythical "everyone and anyone."

Your own posts admit that there is a role for treatment of ASD. I never advocated anything else.

I do find it disturbing that you would deny the possibility of a cure to anyone -- regardless of how much an individual may wish to be cured. As for whom you speak, you do not appear to speak for the Autism Society of America.

Although I don't always agree with your sometimes quickly triggered indignance, I want you to know that I hope to one day have your surgically precise aptness for illustrating the refuting the more egregious aspects of the opposing position.


I find the bolded part particularly potent.

Clinical depression is a purely negative thing. OCD in certian cases is a purely negative thing, as is anexity disorder sometimes. Autism isn't ever purely negative.


What a stark, blatant double standard. You automatically give autism this defining, sacred role, but callously dismiss the possiblity for others?

Boltzmann, Cantor, Picasso's "Blue" period, all people whose depression contributed to who they were, yet you dismiss their condition as "purely negative" while in the same breath considering your own condition so inviolable that you would deny a treatment even to those autistics who want one.

You throw the word "Barbaric" around quite freely for somebody who wants to force their choice on everybody.

Although I don't always agree with your sometimes quickly triggered indignance, I want you to know that I hope to one day have your surgically precise aptness for illustrating the refuting the more egregious aspects of the opposing position.


I find the bolded part particularly potent.

The ASA does not speak for us, regardless of how much they say they do.

If you want organizations that speak for us try these:
wrongplanet (http://www.wrongplanet.net)
Aspies For Freedom ("http://www.aspesforfreedom.com)

First of all, as I've repeatedly said, I"m not on the mandatory cure side, I'm on the "parents choose" side (with adults choosing once reaching). So your statement "you're demanding that they get cured" shows you really aren't reading my argument well.

Excuse me, but you have said previously that if a cure was developed you would say that social help etc should be retracted if people refuse to take it. Thats pretty much forcing the issue.



Their personalities might change, but thats not the same as being destroyed. We all change, and somebody whose personality so defined by their autism that they are somehow "destroyed" without it can't be as complex as you insist. They sound more dependent on in then anything.

It can be defined as destroyed because you are removing an entire faximilaly of how they percivie, process and express their view of the world. This isn't the same as progressive change of personality that all of us go through over time. This is much more complex and direct than that. As someone who has autisim I know this for a fact.


So does someone in a wheelchair, so its not as complex as you want to make it.

Not nessecarly. The vast majority of people in wheelchairs push themselves along with their wheels.


Nobody is the person they were yesterday. A fear and/or resistance to change would seem to be inherent to the autistic mentality.

It isn't that kind of development/change. Its not simple charachter development etc. Its far more serious than that. It effectively eliminates a particular way in which you view the world


So, you want to enforce your choice on everybody.

If you get your way, those autistics who feel different then you don't get any choice at all, because you don't want to deal with the responsibility of having choice in life.

Look at it this way:

My way: Non-Mandatory Cure is developed and Autistics can choose to be treated or to decline treatment as their free will leads them. You get to have your way, as does every other autistic.

Your way: No Cure is developed. You get your way, and any autistic who feels differently is robbed of the right to choose. There is no choice.

Which way really respects more autistics?

Your way means that autisitcs who do not choose the cure do not get the help they might need. That does not represent any autistics. No cure, because you would create a false dichotomoy. It is wrong to destroy who someone is. Period. You don't do it. Curing someone of autism isn't the same as personality change over time. If it was, then autisim would not be as serious as it is, and its very patronising of you to suggest it is.

Excuse me, but you have said previously that if a cure was developed you would say that social help etc should be retracted if people refuse to take it. Thats pretty much forcing the issue.

It can be defined as destroyed because you are removing an entire faximilaly of how they percivie, process and express their view of the world. This isn't the same as progressive change of personality that all of us go through over time. This is much more complex and direct than that. As someone who has autisim I know this for a fact.

It isn't that kind of development/change. Its not simple charachter development etc. Its far more serious than that. It effectively eliminates a particular way in which you view the world

Your way means that autisitcs who do not choose the cure do not get the help they might need. That does not represent any autistics. No cure, because you would create a false dichotomoy. It is wrong to destroy who someone is. Period. You don't do it. Curing someone of autism isn't the same as personality change over time. If it was, then autisim would not be as serious as it is, and its very patronising of you to suggest it is.

I understand you are speaking from personal experience, but can you give us any assurance other than your personal gut-feeling that a cure for autism would necessarily "destroy who someone is" and that this is a bad thing?

For example, you've already said other DSM-IV disorders are like autism in this respect of being conditions rather than disorders. As much as I may respect your perspective of ASD, I know personally that you are wrong regarding other disorders. Between that and the fact that there are members of the ASD community that seek a cure (even though I recognize there is an active anit-cure movement), I'm not sure we can just simply accept your testimony as the gospel for everyone with ASD.

Excuse me, but you have said previously that if a cure was developed you would say that social help etc should be retracted if people refuse to take it. Thats pretty much forcing the issue.


No, its forcing people to take responsibility for their choices. They can choose either way, but have to own up that choice, like the rest of us.


It can be defined as destroyed because you are removing an entire faximilaly of how they percivie, process and express their view of the world. This isn't the same as progressive change of personality that all of us go through over time. This is much more complex and direct than that. As someone who has autisim I know this for a fact.

Removing one thing and replacing it with another doesn't have to be destructive as you assume it is. Change is always complex, and not just for you.


Not nessecarly. The vast majority of people in wheelchairs push themselves along with their wheels.

The point was, the get special treatment, such as ramps, restrooms, and the right to accomodation under the law that other people don't get. As I'm noticing, you don't seem to be reading my argument well.


It isn't that kind of development/change. Its not simple charachter development etc. Its far more serious than that. It effectively eliminates a particular way in which you view the world

It "eliminates" one perspective and opens the possibilities to many others. Your near pathological fear of change, your tremendous insistence on "sameness"...there may be some who want to grow beyond that. Growth can feel destructive sometimes, but it is also very creative if you have the courage to experience it.


Your way means that autisitcs who do not choose the cure do not get the help they might need. That does not represent any autistics. No cure, because you would create a false dichotomoy.

A cure would create choice for both sides. You clearly don't really understand what "false dichotomy" is. You see, I've acknowledged that in other posts that autism is not purely negative or positive. (Were you reading my posts well, you would know that). But people still deserve the choice.


It is wrong to destroy who someone is. Period. You don't do it. Curing someone of autism isn't the same as personality change over time. If it was, then autisim would not be as serious as it is, and its very patronising of you to suggest it is.

Actually, given the way neuroplasticity general progresses, the treatment would very likely be slow and progressive. Gradual change. The fact that you think labeling it as "destruction" is a cogent argument is unfortunate.

Its precisely because autism is serious that people should have the choice.

If you want your fear of change to limit your own chance for growth, thats your choice. But holding others back to ratify your fear and insistence on "sameness" is beyond patronizing.

Why does only your experience as an autistic count, and any other autistics, however many that is, they don't count?

Its sad listening to you insist your way of looking at the world is oh-so-sacred and inviolate, but all those autistics who might disagree with you, you have no problem at all flushing away their way of looking at the world.

Whether social subsidy were withdrawn or not, there may be some autistics who aren't afraid of the change, who, instead of being "destroyed" by change would want yet another new way to see the world, to experience both ways to see the world, and they are willing to make the tradeoff.

Each one of them counts just as much as you do, and yet you so easily take away their right to think differently than you, all the while self-righteously demanding that your difference be subsidized by everyone else.

As a member of the Autisitc community I am very deeply offended by what you have suggested. Autism yes, is a disorder, but it is not something to be cured. It is part of the nature of who someone is. It is not a disease like Parkinsons or Altziemers. It is debilitating, that is true to an extent, but it also helps make a person a particular way they are. Taking away this is like taking away a bad temper or a nervous streak in someone, only to a greater extent. Its part of the nature of who we are. Yes it is debilitating and yes it is difficult, but as someone who is a member of the Austisic community at large I feel I can speek for all of us when I say that we do not want a cure

I would imagine that if there was a way to cure a bad temper or a nervouse disposition many people who suffer these things would take the use it. Why do you seek to remove the possibility of autistics being able to choose to not to be autistic anymore?

Furthermore a cure would provide a false dichotomy. It would mean that people either have to be forced to remove a fundimental part of who they are to be "normal" or they have to live with the disability without any help. Its not fair to threaten someone who would not want to take the cure to not have the social help they need. Its simply unfair. Autism does cause some genuine problems, no one would deny that. But it also gives some fundimental advantages, and its no ones right to take anything from them that is a fundimental part of who they are. I don't want to be "cured" and nor does the autistic community at large. We are not in medical danger and we do not put others in medical danger. It is offensive to suggest that to be autisitc is akin to being mentally retarded etc which would need a cure.

No one is going to force anyone to do anything, and I bet some autistics wish to be cured. You have not denied that autism has it disadvantages and these are what we wish to cure.

Excuse me, but you have said previously that if a cure was developed you would say that social help etc should be retracted if people refuse to take it. Thats pretty much forcing the issue.

I'm guessing he meant government subsidized/provided/funded social services. Why do you have a problem with this? If the government gives disability support to the disabled and a cure is found why should others subsidize their choice to remain disabled if that is their choice?

Before we do, let's recognize something important: we aren't talking about voluntary or chosen behaviors here. People with autism don't have a choice about exhibiting these symptoms. Nor do they deal with each symptom in isolation, but rather with a whole host of symptoms all the time.
Sure, I get that.
Again, these are not idiosyncratic choices in behavior, but rather symptoms beyond the control of those with this condition.
unchosen behaviour can still be idiosyncratic.
The inability to form friendships is not a negative characteristic?
No. But, that's not what the DSM said. The criterion was "failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level". That's not the inability to form friendships, that's the failure to form relatioships the mental health profession deems appropriate. That's a wholly subjective measure.

Who are we to tell people what relationships are appropriate?
Total lack of the ability to speak isn't a problem? :rolleyes:
The deaf community doesn't think so.
One may consciously choose not to interact socially, but that is different from an inability to do so. The latter may be improved with treatment.
It can, but it needn't be.
Again, these are behaviors that the autistic person can't control. Might they wish to? What is wrong with them not wanting these abnormal behaviors?
Nothing's wrong with not wanting them, but you seem to think there's something wrong with having them, and that's where we disagree.
Um. Did you note this is with an onset prior to age 3? We aren't talking about an adult that is asocial by choice, we are talking about children growing up without social abilities.
A lack of social abilities renders them immune to guilt, impervious to emotional manipulation, and unaffected by marketing. There are positives you're ignoring.

And given those positives, why are you so adamant that the way an autist's mind works is somehow inferior to how a neurotypical's mind works?
Because these kids have multiple qualitative impairments regarding their ability to interact socially, communicate, and to control their behavior, yes, there is something "wrong" with them.
You're making a baseless value-judgement. Why are their unusual characteristics wrong?
Early diagnosis and intervention can help those with ASD lead significantly improved lives. Why would you deny people the chance to be happier?
I'm not denying them anything. I'm not arguing the treatment shouldn't be available, but I'm objecting to you telling them there's something wrong with them and that they should want treatment. you might not be forcing treatment on them, but you're coming pretty close to brow-beating them about how "wrong" they are.

Why are we the standard by which they are judged? Why aren't they the standard by which we are judged? Why is the way we work better than the way they work?

I don't have any compelling reason to think that they need fixing, so I won't force them to be fixed, nor will I tell them there's something wrong with them and that they should want to be fixed (as you are so fond of doing).
If I didn't know your attitude was similar when it comes to other mental or neurological disorders, I'd simply write you off as ill-informed. Instead, you appear to be deliberately provocative and unreasonable.
What you're doing is the psychological equivalent of ethnocentrism. The way your brain, the majority brain, works is the best way, and everyone else should want to be like you.

It's offensive. I'm not offended by much, but your position is worse than having laws against thought crimes. You're holding these people inadequate because of something over which they have no control, and you're telling them repeatedly there's something wrong with them. I daerly hope you're not a parent, because what you're saying is an appalling thing to say to a child. "You're inherently wrong, and you should want to be fixed."

Why? So they'll fit in? The internet is a boon for autists; they can and have formed communities through the written word. They're engaging, intelligent people. I suggest you meet some.

Sure, I get that.

unchosen behaviour can still be idiosyncratic.

No. But, that's not what the DSM said. The criterion was "failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level". That's not the inability to form friendships, that's the failure to form relatioships the mental health profession deems appropriate. That's a wholly subjective measure.

Who are we to tell people what relationships are appropriate?

The deaf community doesn't think so.

It can, but it needn't be.

Nothing's wrong with not wanting them, but you seem to think there's something wrong with having them, and that's where we disagree.

A lack of social abilities renders them immune to guilt, impervious to emotional manipulation, and unaffected by marketing. There are positives you're ignoring.

And given those positives, why are you so adamant that the way an autist's mind works is somehow inferior to how a neurotypical's mind works?

You're making a baseless value-judgement. Why are their unusual characteristics wrong?

I'm not denying them anything. I'm not arguing the treatment shouldn't be available, but I'm objecting to you telling them there's something wrong with them and that they should want treatment. you might not be forcing treatment on them, but you're coming pretty close to brow-beating them about how "wrong" they are.

Why are we the standard by which they are judged? Why aren't they the standard by which we are judged? Why is the way we work better than the way they work?

I don't have any compelling reason to think that they need fixing, so I won't force them to be fixed, nor will I tell them there's something wrong with them and that they should want to be fixed (as you are so fond of doing).

What you're doing is the psychological equivalent of ethnocentrism. The way your brain, the majority brain, works is the best way, and everyone else should want to be like you.

It's offensive. I'm not offended by much, but your position is worse than having laws against thought crimes. You're holding these people inadequate because of something over which they have no control, and you're telling them repeatedly there's something wrong with them. I daerly hope you're not a parent, because what you're saying is an appalling thing to say to a child. "You're inherently wrong, and you should want to be fixed."

Why? So they'll fit in? The internet is a boon for autists; they can and have formed communities through the written word. They're engaging, intelligent people. I suggest you meet some.

Nice try. But your offense trips over several facts.

1. I've made perfectly clear my brain isn't the criterion for judging whether others have disorders because I have multiple disorders myself. You apparently deny the existence of my disorders the same way you appear to deny that autism is a disorder. So your whole "ethnocentricity" argument is bogus.

2. Is is wrong to tell someone with diabetes that he or she should get treatment? That there is something wrong with them that can be fixed? or is that cruel?

3. It is one thing to say that no one should be forced or even bullied into treatment. It is another thing entirely to say that one with a disorder is fine and dandy and recommend against treatment. I have no problem with someone who makes an informed judgement not to seek treatment, but to tell people who chould be helped that they don't need it and shouldn't want it is unnecessarily cruel.

4. I'm perfectly capable of recognizing and appreciating the abilities of the differently abled. I know autistic people through the internet and have known some autistic children in person. I don't claim to be an expert on autism, but I know personally they were all struggling with their condition. You might note that, even Neo Zahrebska, recognize a role for treatment and special services for those with ASD.

5. You trivialize what are very really challenges. For example, being autistic with "a total lack of the development of spoken language not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime" is not the same as simply being deaf.

6. Encouraging people to get help that can improve their lives is rather different than making a law against thought crimes. The comparison is desperate and absurd.

What you're doing is the psychological equivalent of ethnocentrism. The way your brain, the majority brain, works is the best way, and everyone else should want to be like you.

This works both ways. By denying the development of an available treatment for autistics to choose to accept or reject, YOU are the one implying they should all be the same way.

I'm guessing he meant government subsidized/provided/funded social services. Why do you have a problem with this? If the government gives disability support to the disabled and a cure is found why should others subsidize their choice to remain disabled if that is their choice?

Yes, that is what I mean. That you for reading my argument well.

In the end, I'd even be willing to continue subsidy for those who reject the treatment as long as the we also honored the choice of those who accept it.

Nice try. But your offense trips over several facts.

1. I've made perfectly clear my brain isn't the criterion for judging whether others have disorders because I have multiple disorders myself. You apparently deny the existence of my disorders the same way you appear to deny that autism is a disorder. So your whole "ethnocentricity" argument is bogus.
I'm using you as a proxy for neurotypicals generally. The ethnocentricity argument holds. Why?
2. Is is wrong to tell someone with diabetes that he or she should get treatment? That there is something wrong with them that can be fixed? or is that cruel?Yes, that's cruel.

You can tell people that they have a chance to alter a characteristic they possess, but telling them there's something wrong with them, or that their characteristic is negative, that's cruel.

Now, I think there's a difference in kind between physical and mental functions. With the diabetic, I'm pefectly willing to tell them that their pancreatic function isn't optimal, because that's demonstrably true. They lack the ability to process or regulate blood sugar.

But with autists, you're complaining about aspects of their personality. There's nothing wrong about not liking being touched, or not liking making eye-contact, or preferring the written language. No one of their characteristics is a negative characteristic, so the bundle of characteristics that denotes them as autistic can't then be a negative bundle (unless you're arguing that these characteristics have a sort of gestalt negativity, but you'd need to show that).
3. It is one thing to say that no one should be forced or even bullied into treatment.
That's what I'm saying, and by telling people there's something wrong with them that's EXACTLY what you're doing.
It is another thing entirely to say that one with a disorder is fine and dandy and recommend against treatment.
I'm not recommending against treatment. I'm not recommending anything. I only wade into these discussions and argue strongly against all of you who do recommend treatment because I want these autists to get a balanced view.
I have no problem with someone who makes an informed judgement not to seek treatment, but to tell people who chould be helped that they don't need it and shouldn't want it is unnecessarily cruel.
They don't need it. And I'm not sayign they shouldn't want it, but I'm also trying to stop you from telling them they should want it. Our preferences don't matter, so we shouldn't make them known; they'll unfairly unfluence the choice to seek treatment.

There's nothing wrong with autists. There are treatments available which can help them to behave more like neurotypicals, but those treatments are by no means necessary, and autists should never be made to feel as if they ought seek treatment. They can - that's good enough.
4. I'm perfectly capable of recognizing and appreciating the abilities of the differently abled. I know autistic people through the internet and have known some autistic children in person. I don't claim to be an expert on autism, but I know personally they were all struggling with their condition. You might note that, even Neo Zahrebska, recognize a role for treatment and special services for those with ASD.
And yet, you seem to want to encourage all people to seek treatment so they can all be the same.
5. You trivialize what are very really challenges. For example, being autistic with "a total lack of the development of spoken language not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime" is not the same as simply being deaf.
No it isn't, and that would be a severe autist. But if you're going to make blanket statements about how there's something wrong with autists, then even mild ASD cases will feel like they should seek treatment even when they don't need to and doing so might actually reduce their quality of life.

High-functioning autists who have made it to adulthood and are successful would probably be hurt by treatment as often and they'd be helped by it. A 30-year-old autist not only has no social skills, but almost certainly knows he has no social skills, and has structured his life accordingly. If treatments suddenly make him desire companionship, he'd be ill-equipped to find any.
6. Encouraging people to get help that can improve their lives is rather different than making a law against thought crimes. The comparison is desperate and absurd.
No it isn't. You're completely glossing over the difference between making help available and encouraging people to get help. By encouraging people to get help, you're telling them they need help, or at the very least that you want them to get help because you think they need it. How would you feel if someone told you that when you were perfectly happy with your life?

And, worse still, autists often can't tell us how they feel when we do offensive things like this because, one, they often have trouble with the spoken language, and two, they often exhibit alexythemia, and thus are unable to describe emotions using language.

Autism is a mental state. It doesn't affect perception (like schizophrenia). It doesn't affect physical functioning (like diabetes). It's strictly a different way of looking at the world, not unlike psychopathy. I don't see why we'd ever tell these people that there's something wrong with them, because we'd never have any basis for doing so.

But with autists, you're complaining about aspects of their personality. There's nothing wrong about not liking being touched, or not liking making eye-contact, or preferring the written language. No one of their characteristics is a negative characteristic, so the bundle of characteristics that denotes them as autistic can't then be a negative bundle (unless you're arguing that these characteristics have a sort of gestalt negativity, but you'd need to show that).

This is inconsistent with a number of the defining aspect of the condition. If it doesn't negatively effect their life, the it doesn't fit the diagnosis description. Even other autistics on this thread admit that some (not all) of the aspects are negative.


I'm not recommending against treatment. I'm not recommending anything. I only wade into these discussions and argue strongly against all of you who do recommend treatment because I want these autists to get a balanced view.

I notice that "balanced view" involves censoring the side that disagrees with you. As show below:


They don't need it. And I'm not sayign they shouldn't want it, but I'm also trying to stop you from telling them they should want it. Our preferences don't matter, so we shouldn't make them known; they'll unfairly unfluence the choice to seek treatment.

Are autistics unable to accept people's right to have an opinion differen then the one they currently have? I doubt it.

I don't think autistics are so weak that they can't even hear a differing opinion. If they are so susceptible to other people's opinions that you have to deny other people's right to voice that opinion around them, I'd say that's a pretty big negative. Fortunately, I don't think you're giving autistics enough credit. I bet they can hear an opinion without automatically being swayed by it. I bet they can handle other people's right to have an opinion just like the rest of us have to.


There's nothing wrong with autists.

According to you, they can't even handle hearing a differing opinion. If you are right, there is something profoundly wrong.



But if you're going to make blanket statements about how there's something wrong with autists, then even mild ASD cases will feel like they should seek treatment even when they don't need to and doing so might actually reduce their quality of life.

And you haven't made blanket statements on the same issue?

If there really is nothing wrong with autists, then they are entirely capable of hearing out both sides and then choosing.

You're completely glossing over the difference between making help available and encouraging people to get help. By encouraging people to get help, you're telling them they need help, or at the very least that you want them to get help because you think they need it. How would you feel if someone told you that when you were perfectly happy with your life?

Any being that is "perfectly happy" with their life wouldn't be perturbed in the slightest by someone having a differing opinion.

Now, somebody that was trying to ACT perfectly happy with their life, they would naturally be terrified that anyone would suggest differently.


And, worse still, autists often can't tell us how they feel when we do offensive things like this because, one, they often have trouble with the spoken language, and two, they often exhibit alexythemia, and thus are unable to describe emotions using language.

So much for "there is no negative to autism" and "there's nothing wrong with autists".



Autism is a mental state. It doesn't affect perception (like schizophrenia). It doesn't affect physical functioning (like diabetes). It's strictly a different way of looking at the world, not unlike psychopathy. I don't see why we'd ever tell these people that there's something wrong with them, because we'd never have any basis for doing so.

So, because you don't understand why, everybody else should lose their right to voice an opinion?

Everyday I listen to people tell me what's wrong with me, whether its a religious person telling me I'm doomed without Jesus, or a doctor telling me I should be doing this treatment rather than that for my own disorder.

And guess what? I can handle other people having an opinion, and I just make my own choice.

If there really is nothing wrong with autistics, they can do the same.


But what you've done, Llewdor, as evidenced by your own quotes above, is say that I shouldn't even have the right to give my opinion to an autistic. That's different than giving a "balanced view", thats trying to censor the other side.

So much for "there is no negative to autism" and "there's nothing wrong with autists".
You're projecting value-judgements. I can describe the characteristics without saying they're "wrong" or negative.
But what you've done, Llewdor, as evidenced by your own quotes above, is say that I shouldn't even have the right to give my opinion to an autistic.
You're allowed. But you're an ass if you do. Or is telling people there's something wrong with them and they need to be fixed somehow laudable?

You're projecting value-judgements. I can describe the characteristics without saying they're "wrong" or negative.

1. Those with ASD themselves as well as those closest to them often view at least some of the symptoms of the disorder as negative, but we are nonetheless suppossed to fake a happy face so as to make you comfortable?

2. Your outrage on behalf of those with ASD would carry more weight if you didn't also take the same position regardling most mental disorders. The last time you got this worked up it was because I suggested someone who was complaining of what could have been symptoms of an anxiety disorder or depressive disorder should consult a medical professional. Yes, it may be a value judgment, but it is okay to say that symptoms causing someone discomfort are negative -- especially where we know they can be treated.

You're allowed. But you're an ass if you do. Or is telling people there's something wrong with them and they need to be fixed somehow laudable?

Yes, doctors, psychiatrists, and psychologists -- the whole medical and mental health profession is just made of asses that want to make others miserable. :rolleyes:

Do you similarly get outraged if someone trys to warn you your zipper is undone?

Now, I think there's a difference in kind between physical and mental functions. With the diabetic, I'm pefectly willing to tell them that their pancreatic function isn't optimal, because that's demonstrably true. They lack the ability to process or regulate blood sugar.

But with autists, you're complaining about aspects of their personality. There's nothing wrong about not liking being touched, or not liking making eye-contact, or preferring the written language. No one of their characteristics is a negative characteristic, so the bundle of characteristics that denotes them as autistic can't then be a negative bundle (unless you're arguing that these characteristics have a sort of gestalt negativity, but you'd need to show that).

I know you think there is a fundamental difference between physical and mental disorders, but that is a bullshit view you don't support with anything other than your own ill-informed opinion.

Mental disorders are very real and their symptoms are far from pleasant.

If autistics merely preferred the written language or not being touched, then bully for them. But if they feel like the want to be able to have other experiences, they should seek treatment.

And yet, you seem to want to encourage all people to seek treatment so they can all be the same.

I encourage everyone who has a disorder that is treatable and would like change to seek treatment.

You apparently feel they should just "be happy" despite their difficulties. And who exactly is being cruel?

No it isn't, and that would be a severe autist. But if you're going to make blanket statements about how there's something wrong with autists, then even mild ASD cases will feel like they should seek treatment even when they don't need to and doing so might actually reduce their quality of life.

Suddenly you are making distinctions between degrees of ASD, when before you were dismissing the diagnotic criteria as not including anything potentially negative. (BTW, different forms of ASD have different diagnostic criteria. We were discussing the criteria for autistic disorder.) Nonethless, I wonder how you can call something more "severe" or more "mild" if it is never even a negative characteristic.

One side reality check: we are talking about a disorder that manifests itself before the age of 3 years old. Are you really going to claim that children under 3 are capable of making an informed decision that they would be happier without treatment for their disorder?

High-functioning autists who have made it to adulthood and are successful would probably be hurt by treatment as often and they'd be helped by it. A 30-year-old autist not only has no social skills, but almost certainly knows he has no social skills, and has structured his life accordingly. If treatments suddenly make him desire companionship, he'd be ill-equipped to find any.

You assume the autist without social skills doesn't want social skills. That he or she perfers a life without companionship. While that is possible, it is not presumptive. Autistics are still human and still have human desires.

To speak on a ground on which I have more knowledge, this is similar to your assumption in a similar thread that my agoraphobia is not a problem, so long as I don't want to leave the house. As I tried to explain to you, I want to leave the house regularly, but I am afraid to do so. My wants and needs don't neatly align with my abilities and anxieties-- that's why its considered a fucking disorder.

No it isn't. You're completely glossing over the difference between making help available and encouraging people to get help. By encouraging people to get help, you're telling them they need help, or at the very least that you want them to get help because you think they need it. How would you feel if someone told you that when you were perfectly happy with your life?

Yes, how evil. I'm encouraging people to get help that they might want or need. If they are perfectly happy with their life, then fine. I'm not the one making the judgment as to whether they are happy or not. They are.

Autism is a mental state. It doesn't affect perception (like schizophrenia). It doesn't affect physical functioning (like diabetes). It's strictly a different way of looking at the world, not unlike psychopathy. I don't see why we'd ever tell these people that there's something wrong with them, because we'd never have any basis for doing so.

Actually there is a fair degree we don't know about autism, including the degree to which it affects physical functioning and perception. But we shouldn't even look into the matter because that would somehow have a negative implication that those with ASD couldn't possibly handle. :headbang:

But if they feel like the want to be able to have other experiences, they should seek treatment.
If you would just say "they can seek treatment" instead of "they should seek treatment", we'd agree.
You assume the autist without social skills doesn't want social skills. That he or she perfers a life without companionship. While that is possible, it is not presumptive. Autistics are still human and still have human desires.
The thing about autists is that their desires often appear inhuman to neurotypicals. They may well not have human desires. I don't think you're accepting that possibility; you're acting like they all wish they had social skills.

Autistic adults do have social skills; they're just different from yours.
To speak on a ground on which I have more knowledge, this is similar to your assumption in a similar thread that my agoraphobia is not a problem, so long as I don't want to leave the house. As I tried to explain to you, I want to leave the house regularly, but I am afraid to do so. My wants and needs don't neatly align with my abilities and anxieties-- that's why its considered a fucking disorder.
But my assertion still held: if you didn't want to leave the house, then your agoraphobia wasn't a problem.
Yes, how evil. I'm encouraging people to get help that they might want or need. If they are perfectly happy with their life, then fine. I'm not the one making the judgment as to whether they are happy or not. They are.
They are, after being bullied by you.

Don't encourage. Just inform.
Actually there is a fair degree we don't know about autism, including the degree to which it affects physical functioning and perception. But we shouldn't even look into the matter because that would somehow have a negative implication that those with ASD couldn't possibly handle. :headbang:
We should absolutely look into it, but I'm inclined not to let neurotypicals do the research for fear they'll misinterpret the results.

I've seen this problem before. In childhood development tests, the evaluation often assumes the child made certain assumptions about the questions that by no means were required by the circumstances - they were just typical. This happens, I think, because the sorts of people who like to work with children are not the sorts of people who excel at logical reasoning... and autistic children are really very logical.

Autistic adults do have social skills; they're just different from yours.

Um. Go back and check the thread. YOU are the one that said the 30-year-old autist had no social skills. I challenged YOUR assumption that such a person doesn't want any social skills.

I guess your value judgments and assumptions are acceptable, but mine are bigotry.

Um. Go back and check the thread. YOU are the one that said the 30-year-old autist had no social skills. I challenged YOUR assumption that such a person doesn't want any social skills.

Its awfully hard to keep your story straight when you're talking out of your ass.
That was poorly done, wasn't it?

I'd happily drop that remark from my most recent post. Alternately, I could argue that before I was talking about traditional neurotypical social skills, whereas now I'm using the term (and it's bad of me not to define terms better) more literally, referring to skills of or relating to society. The 30-year-old awareness that he has no traditional social skills would then itself be a social skill in the second sense.

Better?

You're allowed. But you're an ass if you do.

No you said this:


And I'm not sayign they shouldn't want it, but I'm also trying to stop you from telling them they should want it

So, by your own admission, you are trying to make it so I'm NOT allowed. You contradict yourself a great deal. As for namecalling, its clear you don't cope well with lucid discourse.


Or is telling people there's something wrong with them and they need to be fixed somehow laudable?

You mean how you keep telling us we're wrong for our view?

You don't seem to be able to responde to a clear theme here:

Are autistics unable to cope with other people giving them an opinion that you or they don't agree with?

If so, there is defintely something wrong.

Any condition that would evidently require others to give up their right to voice an opinion is defintely not as harmless as you claim.

Also when you say this:

We should absolutely look into it, but I'm inclined not to let neurotypicals do the research for fear they'll misinterpret the results.

You reveal in yourself precisely the same neuro-bigotry that you decry in others, just as when you call someone an "ass" for daring to disagree with you.

If it is somebody's honest opinion that an autistic should seek treatment, they have the right to say so. If the autistic disagrees, the adult autistic's choice should prevail. But nobody has the right to censor the other side.