Bobby Newman says that the discussion of treatment for autism "requires an appreciation of this simple fact. Without intensive intervention, many individuals diagnosed with autism will eventually wind up in institutions, unable to feed or even toilet themselves independantly". Firstly, most of Leo Kanner's original group of autistic kids eventually learnt to speak. He described the process of autistic speech development, with echolalalia, pronouns reversals and eventually well developed speech. Secondly, although I didn't appreciate this until recently, quite a lot of autistics do. The three webmasters of www.autistics.org certainly appreciate that fact, since they were all institutionalised and have serious problems with self care. This brings me to another point, which is that all three of those webmasters did have "intensive intervention". At least one of them lost skills due to such intervention. At least two of them have iatrogenic PTSD because of such intervention. So it seems the implication of that statement, that the lack of such "intensive interventions" is the cause of institutionalisation, is untrue.
Now we get to what I consider the most upsetting part of this. Bobby Newman says: "Suppose you were the individual who, without treatment, was destined to be standing alone in the corner of an institution, dependant on everyone around you to take care of even your most basic needs, rocking perseverately and unable to sample what life has to offer. Would you like someone who could speak and could interact with the everyday world speaking on your behalf and counseling against treatment? No, I wouldn't either." I hate people putting words in my mouth. My answer is that I don't know, and Bobby Newman doesn't know, what that person would want. Only the people who've been in that situation would know. Amanda Baggs, who has been in that situation, answered that question herself. She said that it depends on the person. She would want people like Michelle Dawson speaking for her and counseling against treatment. She would not want members of the previously described "pro-fester" group (the ones I call pro-fester) counseling against treatment.
Next, Dr Mulick begins his article. Firstly, he claims autistic self-advocates "are outraged by logic and free debate". However, so far I have not seen much logic. I admit that I can get upset about arguments disagreeing with me, even if they are logical, but I try my best to control it. It is easier to do so in writing than in person, as I can more easily take a break when I'm upset.
On the other hand, much of this seems to be a matter of personal attacks on Michelle Dawson and people like her, "strawman" arguments (mischaracterization of an opponent's arguments in order to make them easier to discredit) and assumptions that we must share certain beliefs which I, for one, find incompatible with the beliefs I do have (do you think I would advocate against curing autism if I thought institutionalised autistics wanted a cure - as opposed to simply wanting freedom and acceptance?). False oppositions (such as the assumption that an autistic person either gets intensive behavioural treatment or will be institutionalised) occur frequently. If you can give me a logical argument in favor of teaching autistics to act normal, I will listen. If I don't agree, I will respectfully tell you what I disagree with. Arguments can get heated, but I will promise to do my best to prevent from verbal attacks and illogical arguments.
Dr Mulick then claims he met Michelle Dawson, and she presented herself as an "autistic journalist", which he says is an oxymoron. By definition, autistics have differences in behaviour and social interaction, and commonly also communication. These are certainly not incompatible with wanting a career involving communication. It is common for people who feel as though their perspective is not being heard to seek to raise awareness. He also describes her as a self-appointed expert on the autistic perspective on life.
Secondly, Michelle Dawson says she did not claim to be a journalist. As she said: "I did not present myself to Dr Mulick as an expert in anything." It appears to be common for NTs (as I am assuming, possibly innacurately, Dr Mulick is) to assume things about a person and then claim they directly said that. I heard of one girl, hospitalised for anorexia nervosa, who claimed she had "a disease that makes me unable to eat sweet things" when asking a nurse to stop giving her large cookies along with her meals. The nurse assumed this girl was diabetic, and when she found out the girl's true diagnosis, she angrily accused the girl of lying. However, that girl had not said she had diabetes. She said she couldn't eat sweet things due to a disease she had. People with anorexia nervosa often report unbearable anxiety when pressured to eat foods they consider fattening, and this was the case with this girl. In effect, she was telling the truth when she said she couldn't eat sweet things. She didn't say what would happen if she did eat something sweet.
Next Page