Lately there has been a lot of controversy on-line due to comments made by autistic blogger Jonathan Mitchell, and counter comments made by people who oppose his views. Mitchell has stated that he believes autism to be a disease and a profoundly negative disability. He has advocated a cure, and is condemning in his attitude towards neurodiversity. Others who believe that autism is simply a different way of thinking rather than a disease have been quick to condemn him, accusing him of being a traitor to the autism community, and a negative influence on young people. Some people are asking if neurodiversity even exists.
But what is neurodiversity?
And what would the potential consequences of a cure for autism be? And should any one man`s personal view of an aspect of his own life really cause so much controversy? This first article will look at the concept of a cure, and what the potential consequences of this could be. And the second article in this series will examine the concept of neurodiversity itself.
Let me state that I do not want a cure for my autism, and do not want a cure to be sought. The following is hypothetical, exploring the idea of a cure for autism, and how this might impact on the autistic community.
People have been talking about a cure for autism for many years. Some believe it can be done through diet, some through electric shock “treatments”, and others believe there is not yet an effective method, but that there will be sooner or later. But does the autism community want a cure for autism? And if there was a cure, what might this mean for autistic people?
Cure for self, or cure for all?
Now here is the thing about a cure: I personally don’t feel that I would want one for reasons that will become apparent below. But I do know, as I am sure all autistic people do, how hard it can be living with autism. I see and embrace a lot of positives, but of course there are things about autism that are negative. On the one hand, if I had been born neuro-typical I would probably have a lot more personal friends than I do now, but on the other hand, I most likely wouldn’t be a writer.
But let’s imagine there is a hypothetical pill that would completely remove all traces of autism; I wouldn’t take it. Despite the negative aspects that I live with every day, I would have no desire to rid myself of autism. But I wouldn’t look down on, or insult somebody who decided to take this hypothetical pill. As long as they had the capacity to make an informed, educated decision, and a full briefing of any after effects, then I would not stand in their way. The point of this is that as long as that person didn’t turn to me, and try to force me to take the pill, we could happily co-exist.
I think when anybody talks about wanting a cure for their own autism then it is not my place to tell them that they are wrong. There is a huge difference between wanting to change something in yourself, and wanting to change it for everybody else. From what I understand Jonathan Mitchell was talking about wanting to cure his own autism, and not saying autism itself should be eradicated.
This might sound like a strange question, but actually stop and think about it for a minute. Even though some people do refer to autism as a disease, this might be perhaps wishful thinking on their part as diseases either can be cured, or have the potential to be curable. Autism is neurological. It is the way the brain works. Now how would you cure this? You are talking about changing brain activity, changing the way people feel, think and view the world. This might sound like I am attacking the very concept of a cure, but in reality I just don’t understand how it could feasibly be accomplished.
We know that brains can be manipulated to think and feel differently than they normally do; whether through drugs, or some other form of control. But this doesn’t actually cure anything. It takes nothing away. It just manipulates, and changes the brain. What would you be willing to put in to your body? How many chemicals, or how much electricity, to cure your autism?
I talked about being respectful to those who would want a cure for their own autism, and I stand by this, I just think that they have to be careful. The concept of a magic pill that could be taken, and would remove all traces of autism is obviously a fantasy. In reality when you start changing the way the brain functions you often run in to serious problems. Take ECT – some people will tell you it works, and it helped them or somebody they know. Other people can’t even remember how to write their own name after an ECT session. The reality is that there will most likely never be an injection or pill that completely changes the neurological activity in somebody`s brain permanently, from an autistic setting to a neuro-typical setting.
A so-called cure would most likely be something that dulled the autistic parts of the brain, and manipulated them in to behaving differently. This is not a cure. Using a substance to alter the way a person`s brain works isn’t healthy, and should be avoided.
Risk of a cure, continues here.
Potentially, if a cure were to be developed, what might some of the risks be both to the individuals who choose to take it, and to the autism community in general?
Whose hands would it be in? – If this were to be developed, who would have control of it? Doctors and medical staff? Pharmaceutical companies, or the Government? I think that this is an important point that often gets overlooked. But it is quite important when you actually think about it. Is this something people would have to save up for, and pay for privately at various clinics around the world? Could you be prescribed this cure at your local doctors?
Let’s say the doctors, and medical professionals were in charge of it, then depending on where you are in the world and how expensive it is, this might be free, or private treatment. Again, depending on the cost of the procedure, or the drugs involved, would medical professionals have the ability to deny somebody a cure if they felt autism wasn’t affecting their life significantly enough to justify the cost? And on the other side, would they be able to forcibly prescribe somebody who had perhaps been sectioned this cure, in the same way that people used to be prescribed ECT and lobotomies?
If a cure were to be developed by a pharmaceutical giant then it would be a very strange situation indeed; it is well known that those companies don’t invest in drugs or treatments that they don’t believe will be profitable. They have certain markets globally that they sell to, and the diseases, conditions, and illnesses that are prevalent in those countries are the ones that they put their time and money in to researching, and developing for.
The vast majority of autistic people don’t want a cure, so if a pharmaceutical company were to come up with something they could market as a cure for autism, would it even sell? It is not out of place to say that they operate solely on a profit based system – they are businesses. But if they were to be in control of this hypothetical cure would the minority who want it even be able to afford it?
Potentially, what I find the most unsettling is the concept that the government would either have control of this cure, or be able to exert influence over when, and how it was used. I can’t speak for the rest of the world, but I know that in the UK a lot of autistic people who are on benefits are already struggling; for example somebody might only be able to make one journey out of the house on their own to and from a certain place, and yet they can have their benefits taken off them because rules state that if somebody can travel independently at all they are not eligible for certain benefits.
Now maybe this is just my imagination running away with me, but imagine this: a cure for autism has been discovered. Some people take it, some people don’t, somebody chooses to remain autistic, and due to this they are unable to work, and continue to claim benefits. Would it be too much of a stretch of the imagination to say that at some point an ultimatum may be issued: if you take this cure you will no longer be autistic, and you won’t need to claim benefits.
I can imagine it being a subject of debate in politics as well as with people on the street “Those lazy autistic people, choosing to stay autistic and claim benefits …. “ Again, perhaps this is a bit presumptuous, and maybe it is based on a slightly cynical view of modern day society, but ask yourself, is it a plausible scenario? I for one think that it is. Of course, many autistic people can and do work, but for those who are unable to, would a cure be forced upon them?
Part 2 will look at the issue of ensuring that the person remained whole, should a cure be possible.
Comments on individual articles in this series are closed but we encourage readers to add their thoughts on the opening article to this series that can be found here.