Autism Vox

30 opinions for Statements to the IACC (and what happened on Monday)

• abfh
  May 14, 2008 at 8:54 am

  Kristina, I know you mean well, but please don’t EVER repeat those statistics about the “cost of caring for an autistic person over the course of his or her lifespan” and “the cost of autism to society.” Not only do they have the effect of making autistics look like a huge burden to the community, they are simply WRONG because they are based on half-truths and misleading cultural assumptions.

  Such statistics assume that all children on the autistic spectrum must receive expensive medications, behavioral therapies, etc., but in fact there are many who do not, and there is very little science to establish the best practices in raising and educating autistic children.

  In addition, calling special education a cost of autism is a biased statement because special education is really a cost of the school systems’ failure to understand and properly accommodate human diversity in a genuinely inclusive environment. This statistic is similar to adding up the cost of maintaining segregated schools a century ago and then calling it a cost of the Negro problem (which I believe the eugenicists did).

  And when we talk about lifetime costs, what about lifetime earnings? Is anyone seriously claiming that no autistic adults have jobs and pay taxes? That amount isn’t being factored into the cost statistics anywhere. You could make any minority group look like an expensive burden to society if you ignored their earnings. And to the extent that autistics earn less than others, which many of us do, this is in large part a cost of inadequate education and employment discrimination, rather than a cost of autism itself.

  I don’t dispute that there is a need for more community services and supports; indeed, there is a great need. However, citing cost statistics that make autistic people look like a burden to society, rather than contributing members of society, is not the ideal way to go about accomplishing that goal.

• Cliff
  May 14, 2008 at 9:11 am

  Well noted, abfh. And it is a little more complicated to be noted as a static value (plus, that value is never compared against that of raising a normal child by comparison. It’d be higher, to be sure, but I’m just simply sure how much higher). Of course, it’s still complicated, because those supports are necessary and there is a need to do that. And while I don’t like all the connotations of those figures (as you well noted), there is an ends and means question here; such figures tend to motivate people. I’d shy away from being an ends person, but it’s not a simple question.

  Cliff

• Cliff
  May 14, 2008 at 9:17 am

  Also just kind of a personal thing; you noted that Charlie “is severely delayed in his academic skills and cognitive ability”. I don’t want to sound assertive, but I’m just bouncing this off of my own experience as a non-verbal autistic. Academically impared? Absolutely. Communicationally impared? No doubt. Cognitively impared? Umm… I’d be careful with that one, given that one’s ability to think isn’t dependent on either, and we’re seeing both. And Charlie (from my short time having been with him) seems to be extremely observationally aware and attentive, and in such ways that I would actually assert that my instinct would be to note, actually, a higher than average cognitive ability. It just doesn’t translate so well into communication, and that’s what matters a lot times (especially with things like crossstops. As much as people tend to think so, these things are absolutely not self-evident).

  Cliff

• Cliff
  May 14, 2008 at 9:18 am

  Err… I suppose I should frame that as “formerly non-verbal autistic”. Or “having been non-verbal”. Since, as you know, I tend to talk, and sometimes too much!

  Cliff

• Kristina Chew, PhD
  May 14, 2008 at 9:44 am

  @abfh,
  I had some hesitations about using the “cost” notion. The IACC is about research and spending research dollars and it’s a reality that there are specific amounts of money that are needed to pay for services and supports. I think we have to talk about costs but, as you note, there must be a way to do this that does not imply the “burden” notion.

  As you know, I am hopeful of job prospects for my son but he is not going to be earning a high salary. I know there are many autistic individuals who will earn more than him, but it’s a reality. Having looked at the budget for my school district, special education for some autistic children requires more resources than for children who do not have the same needs.

  @Cliff, I always hesitate when using the word “severe.” As far as testing and academic skills, Charlie’s scores are far below his grade level and not equal to the level of understanding and cognition that we see with him in general. Even saying “non-verbal” and “minimally verbal”—I have hesitations there.

  It’s a bigger question of representation. I think it’s important to keep in mind the intended audience of the statement: A government-appointed committee of officials and heads of agencies, a few parents (some representations large autism organizations), scientists.

  Always much to learn.

• Cliff
  May 14, 2008 at 12:44 pm

  Good correction on “severe”, of course. And I understand the issue of representation.

  Personal story: as you know, I testified at the Nevada legislature in 2007 (about a year ago now). I also basically was involved in the design of the presentation in general; helping put together how this was going to be in terms of unified message. A lot of it had been done before I got there, mind you, but at least I had some veto power and a good deal of control over the emphases of two speeches.

  In that context, I really did struggle a bit with how to be influential versus how to be effective. I knew well I could play right into a medical model, and essentially misrepresent a lot of the reality of my situation, but it would be effective, no doubt. I could also go for a more ideal strictly educational model, but we were talking about the first money that would ever come into the hands of autistic children from the Nevada legislature since, well, ever. And it was made clear to me, in no uncertain terms, that I was the state’s star witness (I’m still being told that, actually).

  So I eventually chose to go with a compromise; hit on the educational model, but exaggerate the effects of not having been educated at a certain point, and play to those who found that “language is everything” types, more than not. It did work, but I was absolutely stunned to find, in my name, an article under the AP that had seriously put me right back into the medical model. (I even apparently said “I wish I was cured, but I’m not”. Does that sound like me? No? Didn’t think so. I’m still to this day not sure how I “said”, and if I did how out-of-context it must have been).

  What I learned pretty much then is that I didn’t, at the end of the day, really need to represent autism like that. I could speak such as with the cleanest of consciousness and, at the end of the day, the importance of the reality would be clear to those who talked to me, even if some of the particulars changed. The framework you’d have to contradict, at the end of the day, is that it wasn’t necessary, and I don’t think anyone here is advocating for that.

  Oh, and again on cognitive; the thing is, it’s just not fair to say that someone is “cognating” something more or less when, by means of communication error, it never has entered the consciousness to be cognated. It reads like, “You’re cognitively impaired because you haven’t thought with the same cognitive level and understanding about pi gua kung fu. Never mind you’ve never been taught anything about pi gua kung fu, you’re just deficient mentally in that area.” So I always advocate to be extremely careful (moreso than using “non-verbal” or “minimally verbal”) in describing an autistic situation. It might apply if you were describing it like “he doesn’t cognate communicational processes as well”, but otherwise its just a bizarre, in my mind, usage.

  Cliff

• Mike
  May 14, 2008 at 1:07 pm

  I tend not to trust the government much these days based on the voluminous number of lies they’ve told or continue to tell. To gauge the future, one can look to the past for hints at how the gov will act:

  “Since 1960, more than 90 percent of state psychiatric hospital beds have been eliminated. In 1955, there were 559,000 individuals with serious brain disorders in state psychiatric hospitals. Today, there are less than 70,000. Based on the nation’s population increase between 1955 and 1996 from 166 million to 265 million, if there were the same number of patients per capita in the hospitals today as there were in 1955, their total number today would be 893,000.”

  In other words, the gov. which used to take care of the most vulnerable among us decided to dump these adults onto states and the states subsequently said “fend for yourselves” and hence today we have a homeless problem and an exploding prison population to show for this wanton disregard for human life. This is a Nazi like mentality that we the people should reject, but do we? No we don’t. We seem more interested in believing the lies about “WMD”s” and hijackers as a pretext to fighting wars for our true masters rather than taking care of business here at home where we face the real enemy, the enemy within. Until we as a nation can come to the realization that “good people” are not driving the bus and they do not have our best intentions in mind, then we will never experience the kind of change we need in Washington (all 3 branches) to bring common sense back to the crazy situation we find ourselves in.

  I guess what I’m saying is that the future is quite predictable. We’re in for a train wreak nobody would like to acknowledge. Everyone has their hands out as should be expected. What do you think will take precedence in the future? 1) Funding and fighting wars (Iran next) to ensure the safety of Israel in the Middle East for the next 100 years. 2) Funding social programs to reverse the neglect of the past. 3) Funding SSI which will be broke in 20 years unless we make drastic changed today. 4) Funding “global warming” to further destroy the middle class. I think it’s obvious. 1 and 4 will be funded, 2 and 3 will not. We will have a world of elites and working poor, and god help those who “the machine” deem to be “unproductive citizens”. Actions speak louder than words, and regardless of what the politicians say, the actions of the past will dictate the realities of tomorrow.

• Regan
  May 14, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  Good points have been raised that the perception should not be one of burden and deficiencies, but also potential and actual contributions as well; and that is a point to be emphasized.

  However if people are talking potential, even if not actual, cost projections for allocation and future budgets, they need numbers; and generally ones cited from analyzed data, which to some extent have been derived from collected per capita real costs. It doesn’t do the end recipient much good to downplay or underestimate those since from what I have seen in budget discussions the tendency is to try to go in the direction of less allocation, not more.

• Cliff
  May 14, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  True. It’s a tricky situation. We should just be careful in making sure people know what these numbers mean, after all, in context.

  Cliff

• Kristina Chew, PhD
  May 14, 2008 at 5:17 pm

  @Cliff,

  I just wanted to single out this paragraph that you wrote:

  So I eventually chose to go with a compromise; hit on the educational model, but exaggerate the effects of not having been educated at a certain point, and play to those who found that “language is everything” types, more than not. It did work, but I was absolutely stunned to find, in my name, an article under the AP that had seriously put me right back into the medical model. (I even apparently said “I wish I was cured, but I’m not”. Does that sound like me? No? Didn’t think so. I’m still to this day not sure how I “said”, and if I did how out-of-context it must have been).

  Amazing!

  I try to stick to the educational model. Time and again, in talking about “Charlie’s needs,” I keep bumping into the representation problem. I could talk forever about him learning piano, loving to take subway rides, getting out of the bed this morning just because I asked him to (a first). And then, as a parent, the realities arise: He really could not tell us, not in words, if some sort of abuse occurred (that terrible story of the driver in Brookline). Sometimes when he’s mad “something” happens; so long as he is with those (like you and many here) who understand, it’s all right, but non-educated parties might interpret things very differently.

  With all, I emphasize (and I should have put this in the statement) that he is NEVER a burden, NOT a tragedy and that our life with an autistic son is NOT devastating. (Excuse the caps!) It’s different and there are perhaps more unknown variables—-but who can really be sure how any child will turn out? (I was asking myself this in the pool watching the other kids interacting with their parents—-one just never knows.)

  Context is key.

• Cliff
  May 14, 2008 at 5:34 pm

  Indeed, you are right. It is about establishing the context. Of course, just representing the context of present reality would give that to enough degree that people would understand what is and what is not regarding autism (as you have done a wonderful job here of doing).

  I was amazed by that misrepresentation, too. I’m told that such gross representations happen, but it was kind of embarrassing. In fact, you can find the assembly minutes which, when compared against my original speech, look pretty different, though they’re better than the news article (I did say that I wasn’t cured, not that I wanted to be!). I suppose the subtleties weren’t to be expected, but boy do I sound so grim in that, and so fatalistic. It sold well, and I suppose sometimes that’s what mattered, but I wish it could have been received more reasonably. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have attempted to use terms similar to those before me to maintain some level of consistency in the speeches. It apparently ameliorated all of the differences in my speech.

  Ever since that, I’ve always been very careful to define my terminology well outside of the normal expectations for “autism advocacy”, because the actual viewpoints get confused so easily, it’s amazing. And I kind of think, in retrospect, I could have given a lot less ground and have been as effective because a. people have that expectation of need for autism regardless and b. I always would have been clear how good learning certain skills was for me and that there are very real difficulties. In an ideal world, I would have loved to frame an argument based on the expectation and right for every individual to have access to a reasonable education, but that gets into some very tricky comparative measures that’s hard to simplify. It’s always an interesting minefield to navigate, to be sure.

  Cliff

• mayfly
  May 15, 2008 at 2:49 am

  In a 2004 paper Liptak, Stuart and Auinger wrote.

  Abstract Little is known about the use of medical services by children who have autism (ASD). Provide nationally representative data for health service utilization and expenditures of children with ASD. Cross-sectional survey using the Medical Expenditure Panel (MEPS), and National (Hospital) Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (N(H)AMCS). A total of 80 children with ASD were identified from N(H)AMCS (weighted sample size (wss) 186,281), and 31 (wss 340,158) from MEPS. They had more outpatient visits, physician visits, and medications prescribed than children in general. They spent more time during physician visits than other children. Annual expenses for children with autism spectrum disorder ($6,132) were more than for other children ($860). Children with ASD have a substantial burden of medical illness.

  The study didn’t mention any alternative medicine treatments.

  Note,much of the medical cost is covered by insurance. So it is a cost borne mainly by society and not individual families.

  The same goes for education. There are a great many studies on the effectiveness of ABA, and the great majority of them support its use.

  To not address the cost of autism is to bury one’s head in the sand. As the father of a low-functioning autistic child I want to be sure society is prepared to provide the services she needs.

  It seems to me that many want to dismiss the most vulnerable of society. What can be more dehumanizing than pretending someone does not exist?

• Cliff
  May 15, 2008 at 9:16 am

  It’s not as if people don’t understand they’re aren’t costs. In fact, it’s usually considered a soul-sucking experience to boot, and a hopeless cause. Actually contextualizing it within its actual realm of complicated existence is probably going to get better support in terms of services than a perceived lost cause.

  Cliff

• mayfly
  May 15, 2008 at 2:27 pm

  Hmm, who sees autistics who need services as lost causes?

• Regan
  May 15, 2008 at 2:38 pm

  “It’s not as if people don’t understand there aren’t costs. ”
  ——————————–
  Judging from some of the reaction from health insurance, it would almost seem the converse. Even though several papers do show that there are additional costs, get a stamp of “autism” and anything that could be construed as treatment often plain goes away as an exclusion. Steer clear of that 299 code or plan to get into a protracted battle for reimbursement.
  When that happened to us 9 years ago, I thought it was a breathtaking example of discrimination and a pretty clear statement that Eleanor was not going to benefit and not worth the coverage for the same services to which my typical daughter was entitled under the same plan.

• Cliff
  May 15, 2008 at 2:41 pm

  Notice the metaphors for autistics as “dead”, “captured”, “soulless” etc. That kind of notion is commonly considered in the “severe autism”. Those people simply have no need for autism services in the educational sense; they see things in terms of elimination and nothing else. If it’s considered like that, services aren’t important, because the individual will remain dysfunctional and useless until that goal is reached. The contrary reality of a complicated situation with really strong educational needs and not that kind of desperate thinking will promote an understanding that something really can, realistically, be done, and the supports then can come.

  Cliff

• Cliff
  May 15, 2008 at 2:46 pm

  “Judging from some of the reaction from health insurance, it would almost seem the converse. Even though several papers do show that there are additional costs, get a stamp of “autism” and anything that could be construed as treatment often plain goes away as an exclusion. Steer clear of that 299 code or plan to get into a protracted battle for reimbursement.
  When that happened to us 9 years ago, I thought it was a breathtaking example of discrimination and a pretty clear statement that Eleanor was not going to benefit and not worth the coverage for the same services to which my typical daughter was entitled under the same plan.”

  No, that’s quite the contrary; medical insurers are denying the costs because they are perceived, at best, as so expensive that they are impossible to accounted for (that, after all, implies an awareness of cost). To some degree, they see that there are costs and only costs, and as a desperate situation that nothing can be done except for vaguely throw money at it. It’s impossible to deny that there are costs; its that paying for them as a means of doing anything that is up in the air.

  Cliff

• Regan
  May 15, 2008 at 3:02 pm

  “It’s impossible to deny that there are costs; its that paying for them as a means of doing anything that is up in the air.”
  ——————————-
  I think the key phrase is “means of doing anything”.

• Kristina Chew, PhD
  May 15, 2008 at 3:32 pm

  One theme that’s arising here is the difference between how autism is talked about in socio-cultural discussions and how’s “defined” in the much more cut and dry language of insurance, benefits, the medical model — and then there’s the language used in legal cases, trials, documents, as we’re seeing in the current vaccine trial.

• mayfly
  May 15, 2008 at 4:02 pm

  But aren’t the great majority of those who see their children as captured, soulless, or dead seeking help for their children.

  Any objective evaluation of my daughter would conclude that she was dysfunctional. I don’t see the benefit of pretending she is not.

  She has every much right to be happy in her life as anyone else. It will be a test of society to take care of the most vulnerable. I

  It still seems you want to declare, “There is nothing wrong with your daughter!”
  An idea that comes form the mantra, “Autism is always postive!” and not from any love or concern for those who will depend on the kindness of society.

  If we declare autistics as fully functional, then why should we bother providing services? No they will need services commeasurate with their disabilities.

  I beleve your stance threatens the delivery of those services.

• abfh
  May 15, 2008 at 4:18 pm

  Mayfly, I don’t have any complaint about precise, well-documented cost statistics such as you mentioned in your comment. My objection is to overbroad generalizations such as “Every child on the autism spectrum will cost X amount of money in lifetime care.” There’s simply no factual basis for such a claim, given that the concept of autism hasn’t even existed for the full span of a human life, autism is still very poorly defined and researched, different autistic individuals have vastly different needs, and future social and technological changes are likely to alter today’s spending patterns significantly.

• Regan
  May 15, 2008 at 4:25 pm

  Mayfly,
  I suspect our daughters are more similar than not, but even though I agree with you that there is a need to have best practices, necessary medical supports, supported housing and employment, removal of discrimination based on diagnosis, etc., etc., etc.
  One thing that I would take exception with is that to contemplate and request those somehow requires me or implies as natural to think of Eleanor or portray her publicly as captured, kidnapped, souless or dead. If she had Down’s syndrome or many other things, it would not be the first thing that would spring to mind and would not, I believe, be needed to make the case for those needed functions and services.

• mayfly
  May 15, 2008 at 5:36 pm

  Regan. I never saw my daughter as soulless or dead, but captured yes. She is now so much more aware than the imprisonment analogy no longer fits.

  For many to say my daughter’s problems stem from her autism is offensive.

  But such people always stipulated they were supportive of services.

  But now it has been declared offensive to mention the requirement for those services.

  I seek help for my child due to her disorder. However, when I relate to her in life, I just see a child of whom I am very proud.

• Cliff
  May 15, 2008 at 5:59 pm

  “But aren’t the great majority of those who see their children as captured, soulless, or dead seeking help for their children.”

  No, no, no. Not really at all. They’re looking to replace their children, generally speaking. Helping them with their behaviors is irrelevant when the person isn’t there. Quite honestly, I haven’t found one person in such a mindset who isn’t in mourning, and once you’re there you’re looking essentially in vain for something that isn’t. And in looking for a culprit like vaccines, these people are essentially seeking vengeance and no more.

  And you’re putting words in my mouth. I have hardly said “autism is always positive!” (asides from the fact that, technically speaking, that’s not a mantra I’ve heard, nor for that matter, unless there is a whole other religious cult I have yet to hear of, is that qualification for a mantra. The technical side of me is annoyed by such things.) And I’ve never said, ever, that services shouldn’t be provided. I’ve argued quite extensively that not doing so would actually be essentially denying a human being the right to a basic, appropriate education, which is actually some pretty strong language in context. But if we look at it as an essential negative without showing the complexities of the situation, we’re effectively playing into a mindset which cries for vengeance or is essentially in a stage of mourning. That’s certainly not going to help the individual. Looking at the complexities, seeing the good and helping improve the not-so-good, is a way to real make change for inclusion into a societal context. That’s the way that any such improvement is conducted, and for it to be considered otherwise is highly prejudicial (though I hate to say that; it’s such a loaded term, and yet the truth is hard to ignore).

  Now, maybe you’re right. Maybe we should essentially lie about the situation, pretend to be the ultimate victims, and even take the agency and autonomy away from autistic individuals. Nothing says this better than the situation we’re in now. It’s not easy to simply say this is better, as this still represents autism’s situation as a essentially a bitter lot of individuals with essentially dead children looking for vengeance again, but it might get more than the real representation of autistic people. I don’t think so; I think that if we look and say that there are really some good things here and that there is real, tangible room for improvement and that this isn’t a lost cause in any way, people will actually pay attention and act. In private discussions I’ve had with others not familiar to autism, a question like “aren’t severely autistic individuals lost forever?” comes up consistently. Not just occasionally, consistently. It stems from such a mindset of “it’s so much cost we’ll never pay for it, and there’s really no expectation of improvement”. It’s a mindset that dominates current “autism advocacy”, and at this point I think it’s actually holding any such funding down, major time. That’s the one thing I was so clear about in my testimony the first time that I did right, and it was really the reason people of all stripes went out of their way to help us. Quite honestly, people with money to help will not throw their money at lost causes, and right now I’m seeing a presentation of a lost cause.

  Cliff

• Kristina Chew, PhD
  May 16, 2008 at 2:15 am

  I need to respond more fully but very briefly: I try to write now about autism and Charlie with the thought that he might be reading it, maybe not now, but one day.

  That changes things a lot.

• mayfly
  May 16, 2008 at 6:40 am

  Cliff, mantra may be a term from a religious tradition, buy it can be applied to secular situations as well.

  People are seeking to replace their children? By doing what? If you mean by seeking a cure, nearly all are motivated by trying to help their children. They are worried about their children’s future. They often fall victim to doctor’s assuring them that science has not caught up with the avant garde therapies on offer. In a great many of these partnerships, the doctor truly believes in what he is doing. It’s a combination which always leads to money wasted on treatments which in no way help the child, and far too often treatments which put the child at unnecessary risk.

  Such parent’s do not see their children as lost causes. They aren’t doing nothing, they are doing too much. They firmly believe they are doing good.

  These same people also pursue more traditional therapies such as OT, speech, ABA etc to help their children. It is not an either/or thing.

  They believe their child would be better off without autism. Some may even think an autistic’s life is not worth living, but very few believe their own children’s lives are not worth living. They seek a better life for their children through elimination of the disorder.

  There are exceptions which end in the discovery of murder/suicide. These are rare events.

  There are also those, again miniscule in number, who kill their autistic children. Katie McCarron’s mother did not kill her because she thought her child’s life was not worth living, she killed her because she was too selfish to love a child with autism. There are a few people one can label as evil. Karen McCarron’s mother is one.

  After Katie’s death many people wrote about how that event proved all those who seek a cure as evil.

  My daughter would be better off without her autism. However her worth and my love for her are in no way lessened by her disability. For many this is a concept so foreign to them they cannot believe it even exists. Makes me wonder if such people can only love the perfect.

  “And in looking for a culprit like vaccines, these people are essentially seeking vengeance and no more.” Vengeance against whom? I personally believe if pharmaceuticals and the USG did not have such deep pockets, the vaccine hypothesis would have bee tossed in the rubbage can long ago. But I want to understand what you mean by vegeance.

  Especially in the following

  “But if we look at it as an essential negative without showing the complexities of the situation, we’re effectively playing into a mindset which cries for vengeance or is essentially in a stage of mourning.”
  ——————————–
  There are studies which look at average monetary costs of autism to parents and society. Certainly there are outliers the use of which either overstates or minimizes such costs. if Kristina’s post was on a study which multiplied the maximum cost against the entire autistic population, then I have indeed misrepresented your views. But do keep in mind high-functioning autistics often need more help than one might expect given their abilities.

  “Now, maybe you’re right. Maybe we should essentially lie about the situation, pretend to be the ultimate victims, and even take the agency and autonomy away from autistic individuals.”

  Whoah, where did that come from. If you are not dysfunctional, then you should not represent yourself as being so. If a person is dysfunctional they should not be represented as being so. I cannot even fathom where I talked about taking away agency and autonomy from autistics.

  The problem lies in developing a policy which deals with the wonderfully capable and those who will be completely dependent on society’s kindness. I’m more interested in the latter, I believe you are more interested in the former.

  “take the agency and autonomy away from autistic individuals.”

  If my daughter does not improve on her 18th birthday, my wife and I will need to file a petition to declare her incompetent. That prospect saddens me because I feel I will be taking away her agency and autonomy. Your statement shows a lack of understanding of raising low-functioning child. Their may also the task of setting up a conservatorship for her.

  The needs of the low-functioning are not complicated by a large skillset. Certainly no one is completely devoid of skills nor incapable of learning new ones. I don’t think I argued that such skills should not be developed. I argued that one should not overstate a child’s capability.

  Low-functioning children improve at a rate much slower than their high-functioning cohorts. “lost forever no”, but dependent on the kindness of society for much of their life yes.

  But I am worried that you are right and society is not capable of such altruism.

• passionlessDrone
  May 16, 2008 at 9:08 am

  Hi Mayfly -

  Very eloquently written. Nicely done.

  - pD

• Joseph
  May 16, 2008 at 10:45 am

  After Katie’s death many people wrote about how that event proved all those who seek a cure as evil.

  mayfly, you are misrepresenting people by saying this. I’d like to ask you to source the statement.

• Kristina Chew, PhD
  May 16, 2008 at 11:36 am

  One unspoken issue here is whether or not we’re talking about autism as something that is just part of a person (as I think it is) or something that can be separate and taken away. We’ve been able to teach and otherwise help Charlie so he can talk, manage his behaviors much better, and much more—-but I think that, even if he could talk clearly in paragraphs, he’d still think and “be” the same way. As he’s grown older, I’ve found this to be more and more the case.

• mayfly
  May 16, 2008 at 11:59 pm

  Joseph how about Autism Diva

  WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2006
  “If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.”

  which is a misquote of Voltaire
  “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

  Hmmm

  I Corinthians 1:23
  but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.

Have an opinion? Leave a comment:

• Use this area to discover new blogs and content in the b5media network.
• Beauty & Style
• Business
• Entertainment
• Health & Wellness
• Lifestyles
• Music
• Sports
• Team Blogs
• Technology
• Travel & Culture

• Social Web
• E-mail