Why is a "cure" so controversial?

[Tom]

There are interacting and functioning improvement strategies, and treatments for co-morbids (ie. anxiety) but no cure, so it seems moot point.

So far what I have seen is most efforts towards 'cure' are in fact stealth eugenics research.

If a cure actually becomes a reality it would be worth discussing. But cure is likely a distant possibility considering science doesn't even know what autism is, in all its forms, in the first place.

 

[Nitro]

If it is a true developmental disorder that wires a brain differently,how do you go about doing it without playing god and interfering on a chromosomal level?

Personally,if you want my opinion,I'll take the little bit of garbage I got as an exchange for the gifts that came with them

 

[Mathalamus]

i am the ultimate authority over what goes on in my body. if that means playing God, and effectively erasing my autism, then so be it. i regularly control most of my "autism" to the point where i can be an NT, if i wanted to.

its all garbage, with no benefits.

 

[Shiznown]

It is an odd thing to think about, because when you look at NTs and then look at those who are high functioning, it is difficult to tell who is more "evolved". Many NTs socialize and do social activities and tend to do more partying and things of that nature. A lot of people who are in the tech industry, who are scientists, who have high IQs are more likely to have aspergers. I wouldn't be surprised in 50 years if Aspergers and High Functioning Autism isn't redefined as having a different sort of brain, rather than having a disorder, similar to how the brains of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon differed. People with aspergers are theorized to have more Neanderthal DNA, so it leads me to think that people with aspergers(not low functioning) are just the result of Neanderthal DNA evolving.

 

[Full Steam]

My point wasn't so much would you want a "cure", but more that the deinition of "cure" is so woolly, and the topic so divisive that our community and most health providers are split between pro-cure and anti-cure.

If autism as we know is is defined by the DSM, then we CAN be cured by anything that means we do not fit the criteria any more.

It wouldn't change your brain shape (apart from neuro-plasticity), but there is the possibility that engagement of neurotransmitters, and possible toxin management could reduce certain symptoms below the diagnostic criteria.

That means you are "cured" of autism according the DSM.

We would still think differently, and we would still get on with autistic people better than NTs.

I was close to missing out on an official dx, so I would only need minor changes to be cured.



If that's the definition of "cured" then maybe it wouldn't be so controversial.

 

[Nitro]

"If autism as we know is is defined by the DSM, then we CAN be cured by anything that means we do not fit the criteria any more."

It's a pretty sure bet that many previously diagnosed as aspies or auties would no longer fit the latest DSM diagnostic criteria after learning to cope either.
Would you consider them as cured?

 

[Full Steam]

"If autism as we know is is defined by the DSM, then we CAN be cured by anything that means we do not fit the criteria any more."

It's a pretty sure bet that many previously diagnosed as aspies or auties would no longer fit the latest DSM diagnostic criteria after learning to cope either.
Would you consider them as cured?

Good question, and I don't know.

But if those above the criteria could be brought below it, that would be good right?

 

[Nitro]

Good question, and I don't know.

But if those above the criteria could be brought below it, that would be good right?

I don't believe so.
It's my understanding that autism determined my brain structure,not just what was written in a book about mental disorders.
What I got out of reading DSM IV and skimming III and 5 is that it is basically a fiscal guide,not a true diagnostic handbook.

 

[Gracey]

Loosely speaking, the very short course of CBT I've recently worked through that focused on anxiety only was given a conclusion by the therapist in a letter/report to my GP.

The conclusion was that I no longer fit the criteria for Clinical Depression...

.(..hang on a second, the CBT was for anxiety right? Or did I misunderstand?)

So, according to an official, professional opinion, I'm 'cured' of clinical depression? I no longer fit the criteria.

And yet I still feel like crap.

 

[Mathalamus]

I don't believe so.
It's my understanding that autism determined my brain structure,not just what was written in a book about mental disorders.
What I got out of reading DSM IV and skimming III and 5 is that it is basically a fiscal guide,not a true diagnostic handbook.

Loosely speaking, the very short course of CBT I've recently worked through that focused on anxiety only was given a conclusion by the therapist in a letter/report to my GP.

The conclusion was that I no longer fit the criteria for Clinical Depression...

.(..hang on a second, the CBT was for anxiety right? Or did I misunderstand?)

So, according to an official, professional opinion, I'm 'cured' of clinical depression? I no longer fit the criteria.

And yet I still feel like crap.

those "cures" are actually just moving the goalposts, and not actually defined as cures. a cure is meant your own autism, or any other mental illness is fixed, so that it goes away, and never comes back.

 

[Crossbreed]

I accept that autism is a valid neurology. What I don't understand is the inclination to assume that once one has been so diagnosed that they are exempt from independent disease or injury.

We can get viral, bacterial and fungal infections. Are we disallowed to consider them as separable conditions once they occur in an autistic individual? Is autism to be considered an innate prophylactic to CNS injury or mental illness? Or are we as susceptible to them as any NT? (And, given our sensitivities, possibly even more so?)

If and when we exhibit an unprecedented condition (with regard to our family history), we can only assume the presence of a novel, external insult or, at least, impetus. Even if we like that condition (like savantism or giftedness).

Are you an Aspie? Do you come from a line of Aspies? If yes, it is (likely) hereditary [read: neuro-diversity].¹ If no, something peculiar happened to (just) you in your life to make you that way [read: not hereditary/neuro-diversity].

Are you a regressive autie? Do you come from a line of regressive auties? If yes, it is (likely) hereditary [read: neuro-diversity].² If no, something peculiar happened to (just) you in your life to make you that way [read: not hereditary/neuro-diversity].

The same question can be asked anywhere along the spectrum.

¹This is commonly the case.
²This is not commonly the case. The separable regressive component has been new.

 

[Nitro]

those "cures" are actually just moving the goalposts, and not actually defined as cures. a cure is meant your own autism, or any other mental illness is fixed, so that it goes away, and never comes back.

Go back and read again,I never stated that they were cured,I was just asking Full Steam a question.

 

[pjcnet]

Good question, and I don't know.

But if those above the criteria could be brought below it, that would be good right?

If someone on the autistic spectrum later doesn't fit the criteria for a diagnosis due to coping strategies where the person is often then emulating an NT, then I challenge the way autism is diagnosed in the first place because that person is in my opinion still most definitely autistic and they're certainly not "cured". If other treatments also allow an autistic person to no longer meet the current diagnosis criteria the same thing is true, in my opinion the negative diagnosis is incorrect as the person is still autistic, and again later stating that they're "cured" is also a false lie. Our brains are wired differently, so how can anything apart from changing genes possibly "cure" us? Autism is a life time condition and without changes to our genetic makeup there is no "cure", they should stop using this word and associating it with current treatments.

This thread and a few other threads such as this one has made me lose a huge amount of confidence in the way autism is currently diagnosed as in my opinion many adults with autism, especially women who are often better at hiding their traits won't be diagnosed as being autistic even when they most certainly are autistic. They will then often be treated like an NT without any compassion if they for instance suffer from a "melt down" and they will wrongfully miss out on the right support if it's needed, this can also cause further confusion and stress to the person who is holding back unwanted autistic traits while believing that they're not autistic. I also believe that emulating being NT is inefficient compared to actually being an NT and it therefore puts more strain on the person in general. Autistic people that are excellent at emulating NTs are therefore in my opinion more likely to become mentally exhausted and later suffer from anxiety, depression and/or other conditions that will be diagnosed as mental health conditions, then non diagnosed people on the autistic spectrum are more likely to receive the wrong type of support and will probably even be put on what are in my opinion harmful antidepressants and/or antipsychotics (sadly far too many people in general are given this "quick fix" including both diagnosed and non diagnosed autistic people).

The ultimate solution to make people on the higher functioning end of the autistic spectrum a lot happier would be not to force them to conform to an NT society and instead accept them as their true selves, but unfortunately that's not likely to happen any time soon. I can therefore only hope for breakthroughs in research that leads to a complete overhaul in the way autism is diagnosed for the better, especially in adults and perhaps even genetic testing could be the answer if it's proven to be 100% reliable in future. If genetic testing is established as a definite and accepted way to diagnose autism around the world, I wonder how many people who didn't meet the criteria before will be later proven to have autism? I suspect there would be a huge amount, although they'd probably try to cover this up as much as possible.

Finally I wonder how many autistic people are actually working in autism research as highly respected experts, NOT just as guinea pigs / test subjects? If you wanted to work as a drug misuse recovery councillor, by far the best qualification is being a ex user yourself and in many ways being on the higher end of the autistic spectrum is by far the best qualification for someone who leads research into autism including diagnosis, treatments and even so called "cures". I however strongly suspect that virtually all "experts" in the field are NTs who can never truly be experts in autism when they will never experience first hand what it is truly like to be autistic. This in my opinion is one of the first things that needs to change.

 

[Mr Allen]

Cure fir Autism/AS? Won't happen.

 

[WereBear]

I think a more useful line of thought would be what separates the HFAs from the LFAs.

If you could help someone low functioning become more high functioning, that would do everyone a lot more good.

I searched long and hard for the right diagnostician, and fortunately my mother was still alive to be interviewed about my developmental years. Because I had been treated for anxiety by a good therapist who had some experience with autism for a couple of years at that point, and she was helpful... but she never even considered Asperger's.

Which means someone who was not as qualified at my diagnostician, and who might have had no one to interview who was familiar with my childhood... and I wouldn't have been diagnosed at all. We all have various degrees of being able to pass as NT, and various degrees of fallout from doing so, depending on how long and hard we do it.

So did some of us miss the co-morbid conditions? OR, which is the theory I lean towards, are we suffering from co-morbid conditions because we were misunderstood and mistreated during our developmental years?

Such an upbringing creates anxiety, depression, OCD and the like in NTs, does it not? Maybe our higher rate of such challenges are because we were challenged more.

 

[Full Steam]

I think a more useful line of thought would be what separates the HFAs from the LFAs.

If you could help someone low functioning become more high functioning, that would do everyone a lot more good.

I searched long and hard for the right diagnostician, and fortunately my mother was still alive to be interviewed about my developmental years. Because I had been treated for anxiety by a good therapist who had some experience with autism for a couple of years at that point, and she was helpful... but she never even considered Asperger's.

Which means someone who was not as qualified at my diagnostician, and who might have had no one to interview who was familiar with my childhood... and I wouldn't have been diagnosed at all. We all have various degrees of being able to pass as NT, and various degrees of fallout from doing so, depending on how long and hard we do it.

So did some of us miss the co-morbid conditions? OR, which is the theory I lean towards, are we suffering from co-morbid conditions because we were misunderstood and mistreated during our developmental years?

Such an upbringing creates anxiety, depression, OCD and the like in NTs, does it not? Maybe our higher rate of such challenges are because we were challenged more.

Yes, I think that's the crux of it, and the problem with the word "cure".

Cure is binary, on or off, black or white, cured or not cured.

Autism is a spectrum.

You can't merge analogue and digital in that way, without chopping up the analogue or massively duplicating the binary.

We can draw a line on the spectrum and help people move over it, but to destroy the spectrum is to destroy the individual as well.

 

[Full Steam]

I knew I was missing something wrong with the cure thing, and that's it.

The problem is the nature of the word focusses attention and work down mistaken pathway.

 

[OlLiE]

i guess curing a young child would be easier to accept,
when you are older like me, it feels like someone says that my identity and personality are an illness and needs to be cured, i've become who i am partly because of it, why should i want to be fixed

 

[WereBear]

I knew I was missing something wrong with the cure thing, and that's it.

The problem is the nature of the word focusses attention and work down mistaken pathway.

The words we use shape our thinking, and even what is possible.

 

[WildCat]

I don't know what the controversy is over something that's not going to happen in this lifetime. If you want to "cure" ASD, start with "curing" yourself first. Oh, and I'm not cured or relieved of anything if anyone's wondering, I've simply found workarounds and have adapted to the best of my ability like anyone else.

How that curing stuff works...well, don't ask me, start with the parents and individuals on the spectrum first. It's not that hard is it?