coolblue Report post Posted January 7, 2009 BBC news is carrying a report on possible pre-natal screening for autism. Simon Baron-Cohen has sounded a cautionary note. Your comments are invited. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7736196.stm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bid Report post Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) Well, if anyone thinks I'm gifted at maths just because I'm autistic they'll be hugely disappointed! I do have great respect for SBC, and indeed I was diagnosed at his Cambridge clinic, but it does make me a wee bit cross to see autism-male-maths linked so exclusively again! I am autistic-female-arts oriented!! And there are lots of us out there, and probably a fair few autistic-male-arts oriented, too. Grump, maybe it's too early in the morning! And nothing about the moral implications of pre-natal testing, only the impact it might have on maths! Grump, grumble, grouch...off to read the Daily Wail online Bid Edited January 7, 2009 by bid Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheNeil Report post Posted January 7, 2009 TBH the fact that it would impact on maths wouldn't exactly be number one on my list of reasons to object to such a test. There are all sorts of moral implications with such a potential situation and at least SBC does make (brief) mention of eugenics. 'Engineering' of this kind (no matter how well intentioned) can't help society to develop - step one is a test for Autism so that it can be 'treated'/avoided. Step 2 is...what? A test for people with red hair? People who watch Dancing On Ice? This may be a slightly extreme distopian vision of the future but once this kind of path is taken, it'll eventually lead to the 'designer baby' that the media like to scare us with every few years: Clones with no genetic 'abnormalities' and therefore no diversity within the gene pool. Come the inevitable 'end of the world' flu pandemic (yawn) mankind will be wiped out as none of us will have the genetic diversity needed to beat it. And with that cheery note... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elouise Report post Posted January 7, 2009 How blunt an instrument would the test be? Could it distinquish between a person who has ASD and SLD's from one who has ASD an an exceptional intellectual potential? More research please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tally Report post Posted January 7, 2009 Bizarrely, his argument fails because he has tried to present autism positively. Too positively. I am not mathematically minded. I am not particularly artistically minded either. I don't have any special skills at all really. I don't support a pre-natal screening test for anything at all. Imagine if we could prevent all disabled people from being born with pre-natal screening. People who chose not to take the tests and have disabled children could be ostracised and prevented from accessing support. And what about people who acquire disabilities after birth as the result of illness or accident? Should they also be eradicated??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chris54 Report post Posted January 7, 2009 I find the whole idea of pre-natal screening for disabilities frightening. Maybe if there was some way of putting "right" genetic mistakes it would be OK but at the moment at least the only thing offered is a termination. When my wife was expecting our son because of her age she was encouraged to go for screening but turned it down as nether of us would have been able to sanction a termination. To me all life is sacred. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warrenpenalver Report post Posted January 7, 2009 And with that cheery note... Thanks!! I shall go lock up all my sharps and paracetamol for the next few days till the depression lifts :robbie: I can see why parental screening may be useful in some terminal genetic illneess but beyond that as has been said the moral implications are big. Even if they knew the "human geneome" 100% and knew what genes cause what, there would still be doubt as to if a child would be born with an ASD. Plenty of familie with an ASD child and other non ASD siblings to proove that. Also does being different warrant not having a right to be born?? Imagine lots of ASD people would be offended at the thought they would not exist just because of a prenatal check. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 7, 2009 Well, if anyone thinks I'm gifted at maths just because I'm autistic they'll be hugely disappointed! I do have great respect for SBC, and indeed I was diagnosed at his Cambridge clinic, but it does make me a wee bit cross to see autism-male-maths linked so exclusively again! I am autistic-female-arts oriented!! And there are lots of us out there, and probably a fair few autistic-male-arts oriented, too. Grump, maybe it's too early in the morning! And nothing about the moral implications of pre-natal testing, only the impact it might have on maths! Grump, grumble, grouch...off to read the Daily Wail online Bid Husband and father of both sons.....excellent at maths [accountant ] NT,elder DS also excellent at maths [gifted ] NT ,Ben needs support in maths but gifted in literacy [AS]....we are not having anymore ..[had decided before Ben ever had a dx. ....Ben is certainly not an autism maths link .....much more arts orientated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 7, 2009 Bizarrely, his argument fails because he has tried to present autism positively. Too positively. I am not mathematically minded. I am not particularly artistically minded either. I don't have any special skills at all really. I don't support a pre-natal screening test for anything at all. Imagine if we could prevent all disabled people from being born with pre-natal screening. People who chose not to take the tests and have disabled children could be ostracised and prevented from accessing support. And what about people who acquire disabilities after birth as the result of illness or accident? Should they also be eradicated??? Hi.I have been reading a bit about other forms of disability and about the experiences of parents in the last few weeks.It apppears that that the situation where parents who decide not to take up pre-natal screening and subsequently have a child with a disability and then face negative come back [if not ostracision ] is already with us .I have come across it in reading about the experiences of parents who have decided to have a child with down's syndrome. Karen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 7, 2009 Imagine lots of ASD people would be offended at the thought they would not exist just because of a prenatal check. Not just the asd people.... I feel very sad at some of the things Ben stuggles with.I can be frustrated with the struggle to support him.I do all I can to support Ben to make the best of his situation and life.However I could never imagine the idea we might not have had him because of pre-natal testing.I love him as much as our other [NT] son. It is quite shocking when I start to think about it. All of the things I wrote about Ben above also apply to J.I have felt sad at some of the things he has struggled with,I do all I can to support him and to help him make the best of his life and surprise surprise he can be frustating [being 13 ]. I am sure my OH finds me difficult and frustrating at times though I can't think why I am no less offended by the idea of Ben not existing than if it was any of us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Report post Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) How blunt an instrument would the test be? Could it distinquish between a person who has ASD and SLD's from one who has ASD an an exceptional intellectual potential? More research please. I am against most abortion and mostly against any forms of prenatal screening where termination is likely to be the end result. I don't like to think that society is gradually moving towards a position where all forms of "imperfection" are undesirable. Screening for ASD would be a major step down a murky moral path, in my opinion. And as Eloise says, it may not be a reliable test anyway; if it's difficult enough to assess the level of functioning of a two year old, for eample, how on earth will they be able to do it with any accuracy before the child is born? As for the Maths bit - I have a lot of respect for SBC but he's set the public perception of ASD back several years in my opinion, by making a stupid comment like this. I had to sing very loudly to drown out the radio when my daughter, (dx AS, low average at Maths, excellent at language, music and art) came into the room this morning. She was in a good mood and I didn't want it to be ruined! Now if they could come up with a reliable prenatal test for screening out the inclination to make war, that would be something! K x Edited January 7, 2009 by Kathryn Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sesley Report post Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) i read this in the The Guardian, i'll find the whole piece in the Guardian for you and you can read the link yourself.http://www.guardian.co.uk/science i am changing this i was a bit impulsive out of upset at reading this possibility of pre natal tests for autism, its a report in the Guardain thagt suggests that, it would be disasterous because of the potential loss of geneius's who are often on the spectrum of autism. if they did have a test, and a mother found with a possible gene ,would she be under pressure ,while she is so vunerable to abort, and in doing so abort a psssible rocket scientist,artist, anything that would be beneficial to the human race, because the thing about autism and these genisus is they are interested and obcessed in what they do, and would be the people to find the next renewable fuel or the the total cure for cancer. the other thing i find sad that anyone would want to have a test like this is for the people who are not geniuss but wonderful human beings so different and amazing and have a right to exist . Edited January 7, 2009 by sesley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 7, 2009 When Farmelo spoke to Baron-Cohen about the condition he said he was struck by two things. First, that autistic men often have foreign wives, "perhaps because the women were more tolerant of unusual behaviour in foreign men than in men from their own culture." Dirac was married to a Hungarian woman for 50 years. Baron-Cohen also said that autistic people are often extremely loyal. "When they believe that a friend has suffered an injustice, they are often so indignant that they will disrupt or abandon their almost invariable daily routines to rectify it," wrote Farmelo. Dirac demonstrated great loyalty to his friends the physicists Pyotr Kapitsa and Werner Heisenberg. There are also signs that Paul's father Charles was autistic and there was a history of depression and suicide in the Dirac family Often have foreign wives.......who are unusually tolerant of unusual behaviour.....extremely loyal......no sweeping generalistions there then. Alongside those comments the ideas about maths abilities appear very logical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sesley Report post Posted January 7, 2009 i just highlighted the whole page,but the big point is what a terrible thing if it did come possible, so many wonderful people would not be born out of negative predujudice from medics others and her if it came true, it is time they highlighted autims in a more positive note in society that it is not a terrible diesease to be wiped out ,but a condition that can compliament the human race with the right support and investment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Report post Posted January 7, 2009 (Selsey - I made the article bold and cleared all the stuff at the end to make it easier to read). This was discussed again on the radio 4 pm programme this evening. There was a good interview with Charlotte Moore who has two autistic sons and a third who is NT. She wrote the book George and Sam. Kx Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MelowMeldrew Report post Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) We have been there already with this via the 'deaf gene' where the main thrust was fear of mothers once they know, aborting, the lesson learnt there, was the deaf managed to downgrade deafness as a 'serious disability' so making abortion a lot harder, because the government INSISTED via its IVF program deafness WAS a very serious life-long disablement, and the embryo must be discarded. I'm thinking this is not so easy with autism. The TV person stated it had advantage, and that was it would identify autism so help would come a lot sooner, that was a positive, or is it ? Because many in the deaf debates (Mostly hearing people), said well, you brought it on yourself, you didn't HAVE to have a deaf child, it got very heavy ! I wondered if that was a male or female view, we didn't really find out. I'm a male and never carried a child obviously (!) but I do understand the drive that is there once a woman knows she is carrying. Most of our issues is that autism is often not ID'd until all hell breaks loose mostly. However (!) the misdiagnosis of autisms with other issues must mean the genetic identification clearly id's the autistic, I don't see this happening, the degrees of autism are huge, from mild to profound disablement.. You can carry the deaf gene and still have children with no hearing issues. Most parents of deaf are hearing. Not all parents of autistics have a sense, they know someone in the family that ever displayed the trait..... I went back a 100 years in my family we found nothing. At present many consultants do NOT know how to ID properly, I ID'd my own son after they said he had hearing loss, and forced a consultant to assess, who proved me right. My GP hadn't a clue. This will lead to genetic Identifications being bandied all over the place and causing a lot of negativity. Parents wit a 'naughty child' claiming autism is the root cause......ID'ing the deaf gene also produced issues in that there were many of them, do we know how many different autistic genes there are ? or which are likely to produce the most disabled child as a result ? we don't, herein is the danger, many will assume they have the worst form and abort. Why take the chance ? etc... As a mere father (!) I have stood by my son since day one and his mum, no matter how tough it got, I love my son and will support him, I do not understand how a man can leave his child, but that is just me. I've never really felt, if I was asked by mum, should we carry on knowing he or she could be autistic ? I know it will never be up to me... ID'ing the autistic gene is one thing, but can they REMOVE it and still leave a viable child there ? THIS is the next stage that creates debates, once you KNOW a child has a disability (Let's forget the PC arguments for a minute), AND they offer to remove that disability and you can STILL carry that child, then what ? We asked deaf that question, unanimously as most parents were hearing, they said they would remove the deafness, everyone wants a perfect child..... Do you 'create' a disability because it 'May' produce a genius ? It's Pandora's box, we just get more questions to ponder... I suggest it is so much simpler, a woman carrying a child. I feel the male will always be pushed out of this, often we will never be consulted either way, or if we disagree, will ever be listened to... It's s shame, not all fathers don't want to know... Edited January 7, 2009 by MelowMeldrew Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coolblue Report post Posted January 7, 2009 Heard the SBC clip on PM too. Interested to hear him say that he wants to have the debate now, rather than leave it until we're all in a moral panic. (Well, he didn't say that, but we know what he means). What mystifies me is that he doesn't seem to have got his head round the fact that 'autism' - that is autistic symptoms - can be caused by lots of different things. Quite possibly a random interaction between several genes. So quite how he thinks we're going to get a pre-natal testing in five years I don't know. The whole business sounds like moral fascism to me. A group of people who have power decide what is normal and anyone who isn't 'normal' is therefore expendable. Where have we heard this before? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MelowMeldrew Report post Posted January 7, 2009 Heard the SBC clip on PM too. Interested to hear him say that he wants to have the debate now, rather than leave it until we're all in a moral panic. (Well, he didn't say that, but we know what he means). What mystifies me is that he doesn't seem to have got his head round the fact that 'autism' - that is autistic symptoms - can be caused by lots of different things. Quite possibly a random interaction between several genes. So quite how he thinks we're going to get a pre-natal testing in five years I don't know. The whole business sounds like moral fascism to me. A group of people who have power decide what is normal and anyone who isn't 'normal' is therefore expendable. Where have we heard this before? You should have read the deaf debates on this ! It was mooted Insurance companies will eventually decide if you have a disabled child or not, by insisting on genetic screening, and if you continue with a disabled child, they will not cover you, even mooted the NHS would offer tiered support and SS etc.. after all you don't HAVE to have one once it is ID'd genetically do you ? fascism indeed ! The government via clause 14 of the embryology bill was quite prepared to abort a disabled child, and use the law to do it NOW, how long before sheer finance forces that decision in the future ? Less care costs, less need for specialized schooling etc, medications... the accountants may win the day after all.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 7, 2009 Hi all. I have a question and wonder if anyone has any ideas please. I have been reading the other thread regarding possible pre-natal testing for ASD in the future. If they expect soon to be able to detect ASD pre-natally surely that means that they expect to identify the genetic links that ''cause '' ASD. Surely if they can do that pre-natally then they will be able to identify ASD via screening [blood test ???? ] so all of the current professional assessments and debates will no longer be needed.Surely that would come before pre-natal testing. I don't know if I believe they will find a purely genetic link personally....but it would make the long road to dx much more simple and less open to professional debate.Karen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 7, 2009 Hi all. I have a question and wonder if anyone has any ideas please. I have been reading the other thread regarding possible pre-natal testing for ASD in the future. If they expect soon to be able to detect ASD pre-natally surely that means that they expect to identify the genetic links that ''cause '' ASD. Surely if they can do that pre-natally then they will be able to identify ASD via screening [blood test ???? ] so all of the current professional assessments and debates will no longer be needed.Surely that would come before pre-natal testing. I don't know if I believe they will find a purely genetic link personally....but it would make the long road to dx much more simple and less open to professional debate.Karen. I was thinking along similar lines but hadn't got round to posting it yet... I can't work out how they think they can test in utero to detect autism when they haven't yet learnt how to reliably identify it in the autistic population generally(?) Mind you. I haven't read the article yet so should probably hold my tongue until I have! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bid Report post Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) Hi all. I have a question and wonder if anyone has any ideas please. I have been reading the other thread regarding possible pre-natal testing for ASD in the future. If they expect soon to be able to detect ASD pre-natally surely that means that they expect to identify the genetic links that ''cause '' ASD. Surely if they can do that pre-natally then they will be able to identify ASD via screening [blood test ???? ] so all of the current professional assessments and debates will no longer be needed.Surely that would come before pre-natal testing. I don't know if I believe they will find a purely genetic link personally....but it would make the long road to dx much more simple and less open to professional debate.Karen. I know of families who have been offered genetic counselling re. ASD, but I'm guessing this must be based on statistics/probablity rather than any actuality as they have still to identify the autism gene/s? Mind you, we were never offered it for baby#4 (already pregnant with baby#2 when got Dyspraxia dx, and then cleverly managed to be pregnant with baby#3 when got the AS and ADHD dx!). Slight digression...I had 'soft markers' for Downs with baby#4 at 20 week scan. I refused amnio because of the miscarriage risk, having lost a baby earlier the same year, but did opt for a detailed scan, not because we would have terminated but because I really wanted to know as soon as possible if the new baby did have Downs so that we could start to get things in motion and gather information, etc. Bid Edited January 7, 2009 by bid Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mumble Report post Posted January 7, 2009 I was thinking along similar lines but hadn't got round to posting it yet... I can't work out how they think they can test in utero to detect autism when they haven't yet learnt how to reliably identify it in the autistic population generally(?) Me three. Although if you listen to the Radio 4 today and PM programmes, SBC does not mention the 5 years - this is mentioned by the reporter and it's never made explicit where this magic number comes from. I don't know if SBC has said this elsewhere or not. The impression I got was that this was a 'what if' discussion that had been simplified and particular (interesting to the mass public) aspects taken up and blown up to be 'the' story. Academics are always having 'hmm, I wonder...' discussions without any time frame As far as I was aware, we don't even know what autism exactly is (if it is a one 'is') or the causes, so I think testing is likely to be someway off. The discussion on the PM programme of the difference between mass pre-natal testing and screening for high risk couples who opt for that (so essentially the genetic counselling we already have for many diseases/conditions) was particularly interesting and perhaps that's a debate to be had separately. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Report post Posted January 7, 2009 If you're wondering where the other thread on genetic testing for ASD has gone, and why more posts have suddenly appeared here, I've merged them both. Hope that doesn't cause too much confusion: I felt the discussions were too similar to warrant two separate threads. (Sorry Karen) Kathryn Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canopus Report post Posted January 7, 2009 Surely if they can do that pre-natally then they will be able to identify ASD via screening [blood test ???? ] so all of the current professional assessments and debates will no longer be needed. This is something I have been thinking about. How exactly have the autism genes been identified in the first place? Something tells me there is some ulterior motive behind it all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unaltronome Report post Posted January 8, 2009 Hi all. I have a question and wonder if anyone has any ideas please. I have been reading the other thread regarding possible pre-natal testing for ASD in the future. If they expect soon to be able to detect ASD pre-natally surely that means that they expect to identify the genetic links that ''cause '' ASD. Surely if they can do that pre-natally then they will be able to identify ASD via screening [blood test ???? ] so all of the current professional assessments and debates will no longer be needed.Surely that would come before pre-natal testing. I don't know if I believe they will find a purely genetic link personally....but it would make the long road to dx much more simple and less open to professional debate.Karen. SBC has been researching the 'correlation' of testosterone in the amniotic fluid and autism. Up until a year ago he stated that 20% of babies exposed to high levels of testosterone would show autistic traits by the age of 8 yrs. Since he was going to look at a amnio samples databank from Denmark. So if his research were to prove conclusive, the test would check specific levels ( I think he said 20 times higher than normal) of this hormone via amniocentisis. Now, that would be a relative cheap test, even if only applicable to 1 in 5! There is also a different camp that has been looking at 'unusual' head growth- really don't know how that lot is getting on. There are already a few genetic conditions that will also present with autistic symptoms, that can be tested (fragile X the best known). Deletions on chromosome 16 apparently account for 1% of autistic people. Other chromosomes that are strong candidates are 19 and 17. The technology is there but the chances are that a prenatal screen would only be applicable to a small portion of children on the ASD spectrum. However, I agree with prof. BC that a debate should take place as the most active investestors in searching for a prenatal test are also advocates of eradication of autism-I'll refrain from mentioning names. Personally, I would not have wanted my son eradicated! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coolblue Report post Posted January 8, 2009 The Autism Genome Consortium has mapped the genes associated with autistic spectrum disorders. Their findings were published in Nature Genetics 39, 319 - 328 (01 Mar 2007), doi: 10.1038/ng1985 Apologies for not posting a link, but it was ridiculously long. You can find a summary by going to http://www.nature.com/ng/index.html and searching for autism genome project in 'this journal'. They found a lot of genes implicated (around 20). This does not mean that 'autism' is caused by abnormalities in 20 genes. It means that autism is a heterogenous condition - it's an umbrella term for a set of symptoms that can be caused by a bunch of different causes (different in different people). The genetic findings have finally convinced (most) researchers that they are not looking for one gene or even one group of genes. As other posters have said, this makes 'autism' very difficult to diagnose. If it's difficult to diagnose then it's going to be difficult to identify which groups of people have similar genetic patterns. I can't see this happening in 5 years. 90% of the 'problems' caused by autistic symptoms stem from the lack of awareness in neurotypical people (it would be interesting to map neurotypicality!) and because the specific features of autistic symptoms are not being addressed sufficiently in the research. Most researchers are after the holy grail of finding 'the cause' for autism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 8, 2009 90% of the 'problems' caused by autistic symptoms stem from the lack of awareness in neurotypical people (it would be interesting to map neurotypicality!) and because the specific features of autistic symptoms are not being addressed sufficiently in the research. Most researchers are after the holy grail of finding 'the cause' for autism. Blimey, if their research said that my personal opinion is it's completely flawed! Social responses to all forms of disability do cause huge problems (it's that 'medical model of excellence' thing again), but it's dangerous territory to 'blame' social responses to that degree... Autism isn't a social 'problem' and responding to autistic people as if it is isn't going to be enabling in any way - it's just going to create an artificial reality in which they are 'comfortably numb'. L&P BD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 8, 2009 SBC has been researching the 'correlation' of testosterone in the amniotic fluid and autism. Up until a year ago he stated that 20% of babies exposed to high levels of testosterone would show autistic traits by the age of 8 yrs. Since he was going to look at a amnio samples databank from Denmark. So if his research were to prove conclusive, the test would check specific levels ( I think he said 20 times higher than normal) of this hormone via amniocentisis. Now, that would be a relative cheap test, even if only applicable to 1 in 5! There is also a different camp that has been looking at 'unusual' head growth- really don't know how that lot is getting on. There are already a few genetic conditions that will also present with autistic symptoms, that can be tested (fragile X the best known). Deletions on chromosome 16 apparently account for 1% of autistic people. Other chromosomes that are strong candidates are 19 and 17. The technology is there but the chances are that a prenatal screen would only be applicable to a small portion of children on the ASD spectrum. However, I agree with prof. BC that a debate should take place as the most active investestors in searching for a prenatal test are also advocates of eradication of autism-I'll refrain from mentioning names. Personally, I would not have wanted my son eradicated! It may be a relatively cheap test.However amniocentisis is not without risks.....it sounds like a big risk to take if 20 per cent of babies exposed to high levels of tsetosterone would show autistic traits by the age of 8 years.....and the other 80 per cent would not. Autistic traits is a very vague term anyway.If the defenition includes those members of the population who have some autistic traits but would not meet the criteria for an ASD dx then a significant proportion of the population would be included. I am not an advocate of pre-natal screening but that is a purely personal view.Even if I was then it sounds like I would find the above test too much of a risk.I just hope that if at some point the test is offered that people are given accurate information on which to make an informed choice.I think people can only make an informed choice with clear information about ASD ....which currently appears to be lacking even amongst professionals never mind society as a whole. I will get down off my box now. Karen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 8, 2009 However, I agree with prof. BC that a debate should take place as the most active investestors in searching for a prenatal test are also advocates of eradication of autism-I'll refrain from mentioning names. Personally, I would not have wanted my son eradicated! Absolutely agree on that! I think I could hazard a guess at the 'major investors' you're talking about, and if my suspicions are right it's even more horrifying that such an interest arises from a group who should be championing autistic people's rights... shudder L&P BD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MelowMeldrew Report post Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) I was talking to some deaf people recently, they said they are not happy these academics are justifying gene retentions on the basis of 'abilities' Whilst autism has produced higher functioning and often brilliant people, to pit that against the ability in children with other disabilities, to create a 'which disability is worth preserving', scenario, then is quite wrong, even with autism genius is more the exceptions than the rule. If deaf are to be compared 'like with like' the whole thing is wrong. They said "Have we got to prove we are better than others to survive ? How ?" Edited January 8, 2009 by MelowMeldrew Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cat Report post Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) I was talking to some deaf people recently, they said they are not happy these academics are justifying gene retentions on the basis of 'abilities' Whilst autism has produced higher functioning and often brilliant people, to pit that against the ability in children with other disabilities, to create a 'which disability is worth preserving', scenario, then is quite wrong, even with autism genius is more the exceptions than the rule. If deaf are to be compared 'like with like' the whole thing is wrong. They said "Have we got to prove we are better than others to survive ? How ?" Have to agree with this. I think that if this is the way that we are going then it is morally and ethically wrong. I am a firm believer that no matter how clever man 'thinks' he is and congratulates himself if or when he managed to wipe something out, nature has a way of coming up with something new which we need to defeat. Maybe it is trying to tell us something?Why do we all have to be perfect beings? Probably because not being perfect costs money. Cat Edited January 8, 2009 by Cat Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MelowMeldrew Report post Posted January 8, 2009 Have to agree with this. I think that if this is the way that we are going then it is morally and ethically wrong. I am a firm believer that no matter how clever man 'thinks' he is and congratulates himself if or when he managed to wipe something out, nature has a way of coming up with something new which we need to defeat. Maybe it is trying to tell us something?Why do we all have to be perfect beings? Probably because not being perfect costs money. Cat reminds me of a very old joke, God decided to create the perfect man for the perfect woman, when he introduced them, the woman decided they were incompatible. He was too boring.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 8, 2009 I was talking to some deaf people recently, they said they are not happy these academics are justifying gene retentions on the basis of 'abilities' Whilst autism has produced higher functioning and often brilliant people, to pit that against the ability in children with other disabilities, to create a 'which disability is worth preserving', scenario, then is quite wrong, even with autism genius is more the exceptions than the rule. If deaf are to be compared 'like with like' the whole thing is wrong. They said "Have we got to prove we are better than others to survive ? How ?" Oh very yes! On your joke. God made the perfect man and introduced him to the perfect woman. She said 'Hello, baddad, what are you doing here?' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mumble Report post Posted January 8, 2009 Another 'what if'... Can we say for certain that the exceptional mathematicians (etc.) referred to would not have been exceptional if they were not autistic? There are plenty of exceptional mathematicians throughout history who would not have any diagnosis but it is the ones with a slight 'angle' (excuse the pun) to them that take our/popular culture's interest. Take for instance John Nash - fascinating mathematician but how much of the population would be interested in him solely for his advances in game theory - not many. But add that slightly 'mad' element in and hey presto, an oscar winning film. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coolblue Report post Posted January 8, 2009 Blimey, if their research said that my personal opinion is it's completely flawed! Social responses to all forms of disability do cause huge problems (it's that 'medical model of excellence' thing again), but it's dangerous territory to 'blame' social responses to that degree... Autism isn't a social 'problem' and responding to autistic people as if it is isn't going to be enabling in any way - it's just going to create an artificial reality in which they are 'comfortably numb'. L&P BD I didn't actually say their research said that, baddad. Nor did I say it was 'social responses' to autism which were the problem, but the 'lack of awareness' of neurotypical people. My son has many sensory and cognitive problems which he finds frustrating and difficult, but he could cope with life much, much better if people treated him in a civilised manner and were aware of his problems. I was redressing the balance caused by the implication that autism was a 'problem'. I don't expect human nature to change overnight - I was simply questioning the assumption that anyone could say what was normal or abnormal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 8, 2009 Oh very yes! On your joke. God made the perfect man and introduced him to the perfect woman. She said 'Hello, baddad, what are you doing here?' Didn't know we had been introduced............. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 8, 2009 I didn't actually say their research said that, baddad. Nor did I say it was 'social responses' to autism which were the problem, but the 'lack of awareness' of neurotypical people. My son has many sensory and cognitive problems which he finds frustrating and difficult, but he could cope with life much, much better if people treated him in a civilised manner and were aware of his problems. I was redressing the balance caused by the implication that autism was a 'problem'. I don't expect human nature to change overnight - I was simply questioning the assumption that anyone could say what was normal or abnormal. oops! sorry - I did read it in a bit of a rush That said, I still think the 90% things a bit of an overstatement, but as I said originally do agree that social response/lack of awareness does create many, many additional problems. L&P BD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mumble Report post Posted January 8, 2009 NAS Media Response Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted January 8, 2009 The NAS's reply is a luke-warm sack of sh*te. Autistic people don't need to be talented or brainy to have right to life and to have value. Whether someone is to be born or not should not be a function of society's evaluation of their utility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flibs Report post Posted January 8, 2009 Why is A.S.D potrayed as something people would not want , for me it is like saying well I will have a child with a certain personanility ....we can't choose that . My opinion is A.S.D is not a negative thing at all just a label given to some peoples personaility .....when i mention to people my son has aspergers they say "Oh i bet he is good at maths " to which I usually reply he is not ###### rainmain ..........Ig havign aspergers is what my son is then yeah bring it on because I would not have it any other way or want it any other way Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
