Thursday, December 11, 2008

When did the autism crisis start?

According to my dictionary (The New Penguin English Dictionary, 2000), a crisis is "a time of acute difficulty or danger, esp on a national or international scale."

The autism crisis was created by autism advocates. Thanks to autism advocacy, the existence of autistics is now widely regarded and treated as a devastating epidemic--as posing a great and immediate threat to families, communities, the economy, and society as we know it.

Crisis creation has been one of autism advocacy's greatest achievements. Public policy is based on this crisis model of autism, in which virtually all autistics are young children who must be saved from the abyss of autism right now in order to save the future of society itself. Because the heroic effort to save autistic children from autism has been and continues to be costly (in many ways), public policy also now often encompasses the ideal that autism should be prevented.

In this autism-advocacy-created autism crisis, older autistics exist only in the future, as a looming danger to the public good. Unless there is funding for unlimited ABA, autism advocates threaten that an unprecedented epidemic of autistic children will grow up autistic--which means doomed (in fact, rotten), and large, violent and destructive, and institutionalized and horribly expensive. The fact that older autistics, the vast majority of whom have not been in ABA programs starting early in life, have not already destroyed the economy is just proof that we don't actually exist.

So one question is, when did autism advocates start this autism crisis? Or in other words, how long has this autism crisis been going on? I'd like to know. In a quick look-round, the earliest declaration of an autism crisis I found comes from Cure Autism Now. CAN claimed there was an autism crisis starting in 2000, or more than eight years ago:

"Today, autism is a national crisis affecting over 400,000 families and costing the nation over 13 billion dollars a year. According to recent studies, as many as 2 in every 1000 children born today will be on the autistic spectrum."
In 2002, Lee Grossman, President and CEO of Autism Society of America, declared that "autism is an emergency, and it is a national health crisis."

In the UK, the Guardian declared an autism crisis in 2002, and described autistic children as a "timebomb building in UK schools."

A "Canadian autism crisis" was declared by Autism Society Canada in 2001, or more than seven years ago. ASC has not at any time declared an end to this autism crisis. Indeed, in 2005 and 2006 this autism crisis was "growing" and currently, according to an ASC advisor (who cites a TV program, "The View," as his source), autism is definitely still a crisis.

CAN's successor, Autism Speaks, currently disseminates the claim that autism is "a national public health crisis" on every Autism Speaks press release (this one is about new Autism Speaks board members, none of whom is identified as autistic: autistics, autistics everywhere, and not a single autistic on the board, or anywhere else in Autism Speaks' leadership).

So apart from asking when this autism-advocacy-created autism crisis started, seeing as it has continued for more than eight years, another question is, when will it end? Or will it end? After all, creating and perpetuating an autism crisis is a piece of cake. Autism advocates have successfully placed themselves above scrutiny and criticism, such that none of their false claims, no matter how contradictory or outlandish or extreme, never mind harmful to autistics, is ever questioned.

Testifying in the senate some time ago, I pointed out the obvious: autism advocates have been very successful in their perpetual autism crisis creation. So it is difficult to imagine any amount of resources and recognition that would satisfy autism advocates and their demand for a world as free of autism--of autistic people--as possible. It is unlikely that Canada or any other country has enough resources to meet the urgent and constant demands of autism advocates.

My wild guess is that so long as there are autism advocates, and so long as they dominate public policy and the public discourse about autism, there will continue to be an autism crisis. And this crisis--which is really an autism advocacy crisis--will continue to stand in the way of autistics having good outcomes.

Addendum: Many thanks to a reader who passed along some evidence that the autism crisis was first declared in 1999. See this, this, and this.

[Conflict of interest declaration: I'm affiliated with a research group which receives funding from Autism Speaks, among other funding sources.]

29 comments:

Alyric said...

Let me see if I'm connecting the dots in the right sequence. First you declare a crisis as a fund raiser, to scare people into allocating resources? Then you keep it going because ABA and such are really expensive treatment options but there's always the disaster looming of even more expensive institutionalisation if you don't treat them. Then the whole treatment thing becomes too expensive so the best strategy is not to have any more autistics at all. So let's work on the prenatal test and there's the likely end of the crisis.

This is making me feel sick.

jypsy said...

"Public policy is based on this crisis model of autism, in which virtually all autistics are young children....."

"After all, the overwhelming majority of people with autism are presently under 18."

sigh....

jonathan said...

And this crisis--which is really an autism advocacy crisis--will continue to stand in the way of autistics having good outcomes.

Hi Michelle I am still waiting for you to propose something that will enable autistics to have good outcomes that is an alternative to the activities of the "autism advocates" you despise so much. If there is such a plan why doesn't a stickler for scientific rigor and someone so enthused about the peer review process publish those findings.

Even if Autism speaks does not have any members with autism on their board, they fund a certain laboratory that I can think of who employs a certain autistic person who I know of, in spite of the fact this autistic person has made it how clear they despise this organization which helps pay their salary and constantly berates them on the internet. So perhaps you could give AS credit for that.

Michelle Dawson said...

Many thanks to Mr Mitchell for reminding me--I'd forgotten to put my conflict of interest declaration on this post.

I'll get back to the rest of Mr Mitchell's comments later (not much time right now sorry). But in the meantime I need a source for Mr Mitchell's claim that I "despise" Autism Speaks. I need to know where I've written that.

There is no one I've criticized more harshly than Dr Mottron. That's on the public record--as is my "no holds barred" criticism of Morton Gernsbacher's work. And I've criticized the CIHR much more harshly and directly than I've criticized Autism Speaks.

So according to Mr Mitchell's world view, I must "despise" Dr Mottron, Dr Gernsbacher, and the CIHR.

Also, I need some evidence that I've written something inaccurate about Autism Speaks' actions or statements.

And I'll add that Mr Mithell is free to claim that I receive a salary from Autism Speaks. But this, like most of what Mr Mitchell writes about me, is totally false. I've learned to expect no less from autism advocates.

Back later with more.

jonathan said...

Also, I need some evidence that I've written something inaccurate about Autism Speaks' actions or statements.

You have written in the past that autism speaks wants to shorten the life of autistic people. Though I know you have written this it is on your TMOB comment board and I would have to search it to provide the link but i know you have written it. This statement is patently false. They want to help people who are disabled, who can't speak, can't make a living and prevent these tragedies from happening. You seem to think that autism advocates such as myself and harold doherty are responsible for this, but as usual you provide no evidence, though you hold such a high stock in strict scientific rigor and the peer review publication method.

I never said that you received a salary from autism speaks, only that they help pay your salary by providing funding to luc Keita and possibly other persons and things the Motron lab is involved with which frees up money for your activities there and helps pay your salary.

I am also curious about a lot of your statements about autism speaks epidemiology which I concede are probably accurate. Yet Robert Hedron of the MIND institute makes the same sort of claims and questionable epidemiology that AS does with the 1 in 10,000 figure 13 years ago. Unlocking autism came up with the 1.5 million persons figure before AS does. Stephen Edelson of ARI makes similar claims as does the autism society of america, yet you give them a free pass but only seem to write about autism speaks. I wonder why that is and it suggests to me that you despise autism speaks

jypsy said...

"You have written in the past that autism speaks wants to shorten the life of autistic people. Though I know you have written this it is on your TMOB comment board and I would have to search it to provide the link but i know you have written it."

Michelle has used the word "shorten" on only 2 occasions on TMOB (and one is actually "shortening") :
http://www.quicktopic.com/27/H/vJvhV4fDnBgw7/m7077
http://www.quicktopic.com/27/H/vJvhV4fDnBgw7/m8018

(Both times the adjective describes "URL")

jonathan said...

it seems jypsy that because of asperger's it is possible you only think in the most concrete terms and cannot understand that someone could read something and not quote something verbatim but just paraphase its meaning. I don't have your functioning level in general nor your sophisticated ability to search the TMOB board in particular and I don't feel inclined to slog through the board reviewing every post so i can prove to you that I am not lying. Michelle has said that autism speaks is interested in a less than long life for autistics though i don't remember the exact words. If I had your sophisticated method for searching the posts on TMOB I would certainly find it for you.

jypsy said...

Ok, lets think broadly.... Michelle has mentioned Autism Speaks a total of 88 times in the history of TMOB. Maybe you can narrow it down to what year your claim refers to?

What do you mean by "I don't have your functioning level in general"?

My "sophisticated method for searching" is called Eudora (http://www.eudora.com/ the old, old version)

jonathan said...

well jypsy, i can't get married and I can't raise kids, i can't hold a job as of late, so i am lower functioning than you.

Actually I may have made a mistake, what I was thinking of may not have been on TMOB though if you look at michelle's blog post on autismcrisis.blogspot.com of June 13 2008 you will see that she refers to how autism speaks decides the ideally very short future of autistics. The term very short future seems to me to be implying that autism speaks wants to rid the world of autistics one way or another which certainly is not true. They want to help people function better and have better lives so they can speak, post on the internet, make a living, even get married and have kids the way you can.

I tried to search the TMOB board but it get getting hung up when I tried to find Michelle's comments which would have been posted at the same time as the blog post. Maybe the blog post was what i was thinking of rather than a post in the TMOB board and I apologize for that confusion, but i don't have the photographic memory that you apparently have and can't remember exactly where everything is that I read on the internet, but the point still stands as you can look at michelle's posting on this blog of June 13, 2008 and see the statement yourself.

jypsy said...

"i can't get married and I can't raise kids, i can't hold a job as of late, so i am lower functioning than you."

You can't or haven't? How do you know about raising kids if you haven't been put in that position? I haven't been employed since 1980 and I'll bet it was a less prestigious and lower paying job than your last one - after all, I don't have a degree. I think you've made a pretty big and pretty outrageous assumption. And I absolutely do NOT have a photographic memory, in fact the opposite is true, MS and seizures have dealt my memory a cruel blow. They have also caused me enormous issues with reading and writing - skills you excel at far beyond what I ever did.
You have just proven you don't have a clue about me so please, keep your speculations to yourself or qualify them with "it's my opinion that..." because you are miles from my reality.

Michelle Dawson said...

In response to Mr Mitchell... he repeats his false contention, for which he provides no evidence, that I "despise" Autism Speaks. See my comment above, for my response.

Mr Mitchell's further claims, about Autism Speaks paying me a salary (in any way), and about statements I've made, and now about jypsy, and so on, continue to be consistently unfounded (e.g., on this post, I clearly provide this source), false, and/or irrelevant.

Re peer review (see earlier message from Mr Mitchell), some of my formal work is listed here. Anyone who's interested can read it. I've also tested my claims and arguments through legal proceedings.

jypsy said...

"if you look at michelle's blog post on autismcrisis.blogspot.com of June 13 2008 you will see that she refers to how autism speaks decides the ideally very short future of autistics. The term very short future seems to me to be implying that autism speaks wants to rid the world of autistics one way or another which certainly is not true."

Let's look:
"Other autism advocacy organizations use this figure, but Autism Speaks is the current authority, the major private autism research funding body, a major influence on public spending, the biggest, most powerful autism advocacy organization of them all, representing and deciding the (ideally, according to Autism Speaks, very short) future of all autistic people."

For starters, I believe that should answer your question about Michelle addressing Autism Speaks and not also addressing MIND, Unlocking Autism, ARI etc.

Now, note that "(ideally, according to Autism Speaks, very short)" is hyperlinked to HERE where Suzanne Wright of Autism Speaks states "We’re now playing catch-up as we try to stem the tide and ultimately eradicate autism for the sake of future generations. If we continue our current trajectory, we’ll get there in my lifetime."

Eradicate autism in her lifetime says to you "help people function better and have better lives so they can speak, post on the internet, make a living, even get married and have kids the way you can."?? That isn't what it says to me and I'm thinking Michelle isn't hearing it that way either.

Roger said...

While I am still not quite clear on what you mean,by AS wanting to shorten the lives of autistics,I do think groups like AS are guilty of fear mongering,and possibly inflating the numbers.

I know you are not one of these who say autistic children should not receive any treatment,but perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly what sort of treatments you would endorse.

With all of her bitching about ABA,Michelle is eerily quiet about DAN! doctors,chelation,and hyperbaric oxygen.

I do however,want to back you up 100% about what you say about the real "really big lie"that there are not any older adult autistics out there,as some of the fear mongers say:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_anne_mce_060821_the_really_big_lie_a.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/dachel02272007.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/dachel09272007.html


Quote:When faced with the skyrocketing increase in autism from one in 10,000 children, to one in every 166, including one in every 80 males, in just twenty years, coupled with the knowledge that this happened at the very same time that the CDC dramatically increased the number of mercury-containing vaccines on the childhood immunization schedule, CDC officials had to be desperate.


While AS,unlike Ms.Dachel,doesn't say vaccines cause autism,the fact AS doesn't acknowledge there are autistics over the age of 30,helps to feed the myths of those who claim they do.

The reason "the overwhelming majority of the people with autism are presently under 18" is because of the diagnostic,and identification methods.

Prior to the 1987 revision of the DSM,children simply were not diagnosed with autism,even if they were.Instead they were diagnosed with childhood schizophrenia, learning disabled(I was labeled as both.),or simply mentally retarded. There are very few of us,who went on to pursue proper diagnoses as adults.I did,you did,but I know of no one else with a diagnosis of PDD-NOS,or atypical autism who did.
That is one reason the official adult numbers are so low,

As recently as the 1970s,most doctors and psychiatrists had never heard of Asperger's.It was thought you had to be profoundly retarded, and nonverbal to be autistic.

I stuck with trying to get an evaluation,because I knew if I could prove my autism,I could eventually find a cause for all of the severe non-neurological medical problems I have had since I was a baby.But the autism was the key to doing this.

It now seems I may well have mitochondrial disease.Something I could not have proven,without proving the autism.

The fact that serious medical problems exist with autism,is something neither groups like AS,or most neurodiversity advocates are willing to admit.

The antivaccine people are,but they have the cause all wrong.

If I not physically very sick,I would never have gone after an autism diagnosis,and many autistics do not have comorbid health problems,or cannot equate the two as I did.

I don't know about you,Michelle,but it was extremely difficult for me,as an adult,to get the evaluation to prove I was autistic. I was able to get my mother to come along with me to back me up about my development,and all of the horrible stuff I did as a kid.

After the evaluation,they went from doubting I was autistic,to saying I had atypical autism so severe that I needed to be in an institution.

Michelle Dawson said...

In response to Roger, all children (autistic or otherwise) need a lot of assistance, services, education, and so on. Pretty much all adults, autistic or otherwise, need a lot of assistance, services, etc.

What I've written about Autism Speaks is easily available, out there in public. I don't see much point in responding to repeated claims that I've written things I haven't written.

I disagree that reporting accurately from primary sources and criticizing ABA-based autism interventions is "bitching about ABA." I wonder if Roger considers that my formal work is only "bitching about cognitive science and neuroscience."

Also, re my subject matter, I'm Canadian (which affects the issues I write informally about), and most of my informal writing is on the TMoB board where I write about all kinds of things.

This year, I've presented about the quality of autism intervention research. This presentation covered numerous interventions and treatments.

As I've written elsewhere in comments on this blog, autism advocates have been successful in demanding only the lowest standards of science and ethics for autistics. As a result, autism intervention research is of overwhelmingly poor quality (e.g., Ospina et al., 2008).

I promote the view that autistics deserve good experimental design; autistics deserve good quality autism intervention research guided by recognized standards of ethics.

In comments on this blog and elsewhere, I've often given examples of autism research that at least is going in the direction of good quality. Here are the examples again: Jesner et al. (2007; this is a systematic review); Tyrer et al. (2008; this is a multi-site RCT); Aldred et al. (2004) and the resulting, ongoing PACT (which is a large multi-site RCT).

I've posted about the difficulty of getting a diagnosis, from the viewpoint of a well-regarded autism advocate, here.

Michelle Dawson said...

By the way... referring to the topic of the original post, I am interested in any publicly-available information as to when exactly the autism crisis was first declared.

I couldn't find anything earlier than CAN's 2000 declaration, but my look-round was hasty. If anyone has better information, I would be very interested.

jypsy said...

You have my mail files beat, I have nothing earlier. My earliest reference is the Guardian's UK July 2002 reference.

Michelle Dawson said...

Thanks jypsy. Apart from looking at CAN's archives, I looked through NAAR's. NAAR started up earlier than CAN but, so far as I can tell, NAAR did not declare an autism crisis--at least, not before CAN did.

JJ said...

Excuse me for placing this comment inappropriately, perhaps I have a slower capacity, but Jonathan makes a fine point in his blog Autism's Gadfly about the conspicuous absence of autistics from the board of Autism Speaks.

Wait. There's this board Autism Speaks, and it has no autistics speaking from it?

A parallel. Now they're saying the reason the auto industry is in decline is that the fat cats speaking on the board of directors have never worked the factory floor. In other words, no real representation.

In other words, there is a disenfranchisement.

Apparently, all you need to get on the board of Autism Speaks is to know an autistic.

Oh, maybe there's money involved....profits?

laurentius rex said...

So it is the Jonathon and Michelle pantomime now, and we are still not enlightened except to realise that one persons truth is anothers delusion and you are both out of it from my perspective.

Yes indeed I have yet to see Michelle prove herself in any form autistic advocacy but the denigration of ABA and for goodness sake that is pretty mainstream these days.

Thing is though I can't even get ABA literature at a certain University because of the anti bias, and surely that is not right?

Jonathon, you might not realise it saturated in your own misery but I have met people more miserable than you, and it is nothing to do with any percieved funtioning level or positioning in some false heirarchy of impairments.

I am blessed with some degree of painful physical impairment cos that gives me the right to say "What the hell are you all moaning about"

It is a no win argument and if everybody got real and looked beyond autism into the various arguments and disputes and more than that commonalities in the wider disability community you would all realise what crap you spout.

Michelle you don't know what advocacy is, because you have denied it and misjudged your own role, and let Harold and t'others win because you are so negative, and do not know how to engage and take forward, you are so isolated and the fact that you have the adulation of "the usual suspects" impresses me none I would rather be hated than adulated if truth is on my side.

I fight and have done so for a long time, and I don't suck up to anybody.

Michelle is certainly not "saint Joan"

Canada is not the world, and Harold Doherty is simply nobody.

Iceland with a population less than that of Birmingham has had more world impact than Canada in recent times.

Yeah there is a world outside of Autism and I know that we have to engage in all these worlds to survive and prosper and to achieve justice.

So you bloggers you usual suspects condemn, burn my effigy, yeah do what you will, cos I am still doing what I will.

Clay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clay said...

Larry wrote:

"the fact that you have the adulation of "the usual suspects" impresses me none"

I guess you're referring to me there, so just to let you know,
my defense of Michelle has nothing to do with "adoring" her, or thinking she's always right.

So you know, I intend to speak up Whenever I see you tear someone else down for the purpose of building yourself up. That's all you're about, Larry, and I hope that anyone reading this will recall the many times they've seen you do this in the past, and will remember this when they see you do it in the future.

"I would rather be hated than adulated if truth is on my side."

Sounds noble. You should have them put that on your headstone. Then, when anyone reads it there, they won't know it's BS. ;-)

Michelle Dawson said...

Many thanks to a reader who passed along some evidence that the autism crisis was first declared in 1999. See this, this, and this. I've added a note to the original post.

In response to JJ, Mr Mitchell has written that Autism Speaks not having an autistic in their leadership is comparable to a situation where "the NAACP has not put a member of the KKK on the board."

In response to Mr Rex, as I've written before (see the comments here):

"Name-calling, the dissemination of false information, personal attacks, etc., aren't criticism and aren't useful or interesting (however informative they are about those who carry on this way). In fact I find them boring, irrelevant and mostly pointless to respond to."

KeithABA said...

"The autism crisis was created by autism advocates. Thanks to autism advocacy, the existence of autistics is now widely regarded and treated as a devastating epidemic--as posing a great and immediate threat to families, communities, the economy, and society as we know it."

That is such a misrepresentation it is rediculous. There are always going to be positive and negative aspects to any public campaign. Instead of focusing on the positive aspects, you choose to denounce an attempt get attention to a serious issue.

You completely neglect that people are attempting to help in any way they can. Terms like "crisis," get attention, and thats why they are chosen. Not to convey that people with autism are a danger to society.

Alyric's comments are sickening as well, why not change your name to Conspiracy Theorist.

There have been some good critiques of ABA, but many of them are terrible. I will continue to encourage the critics, come to one of my parenting seminars, contact FEAT of Louisville for more info, the seminars are free. Log 40 hours of direct observation at an ABA center such as Quest Kids, The Kennedy Kreeger Institute, or The May Center. See a child's progress across time (several month's to years) not just one session.

How can the critics make accusations without ever seeing therapists in action. And no, youtube clips don't count. Neither do the clips of Lovaas back in the 70's.

Go spend some time working with autistic children with severe self injurious behavior and talk to their parents about it. Maybe to them, it is a crisis.

Michelle Dawson said...

According to Keith ABA, it's not only good, but necessary and admirable, to spread a lot of false information about autistics--including that we are a threat to others, that we're doomed and belong in institutions unless we've been in ABA programs starting early in life, and that most autistics don't even exist.

And it's just as necessary and admirable, according to Keith ABA, to base public policy on this false, harmful (as harmful to autistics as it would be to anyone else) information.

Like Keith ABA's promotion of his own services, and use of anecdotes, this is enlightening about the standards of science and ethics behaviour analysts, and autism advocates, have imposed on autistics.

I still don't know why autism advocates, including behaviour analysts, are unwilling or unable to make their demands for funding for services--whatever those services may be--accurately (with respect to the existing science), ethically, and respectfully.

KeithABA said...

What I said:
"Terms like "crisis," get attention, and thats why they are chosen. Not to convey that people with autism are a danger to society."

What Michelle extracted from my statement:
"According to Keith ABA, it's not only good, but necessary and admirable, to spread a lot of false information about autistics--including that we are a threat to others, that we're doomed and belong in institutions unless we've been in ABA programs starting early in life, and that most autistics don't even exist."

I don't know how you extract that from my statement? Unless you are going to link where I said any of this, I don't think it's fair to post it.

Are you going to post public polling data that indicate a large percentage of people think autistic's are dangerous to society and belong in institutions? Because I haven't seen those data.

What about the data on the number of Autistic adults that reside in group homes, with their family, on their own, or in a residential facility? I don't see those data either....

Michelle Dawson said...

Keith ABA took the position, in response to my original post, that autism advocates "are attempting to help in any way they can," and therefore, accurate reporting of their documented (I provided sources; they aren't by far the only ones, but they are a place to start) actions and statements is "such a misrepresentation it is rediculous."

That is, according to Keith ABA, proposed and actual legislation, the jurisprudence, statements and reports by political and other autism advocacy leaders (who dominate public policy decisions about autistics), etc., are all things I made up. And what autism advocates say and do, in deciding the future of all autistics, is good for autistics, according to Keith ABA.

This is what I responded to. And part of my original post was about how autism advocates have placed themselves above scrutiny and critism. Keith ABA has confirmed this.

Re FEAT (forgot to respond to this), in Canada, FEAT (Canada's most powerful and influential autism advocacy organization) has promoted the view, as quoted in Canada's most important newspaper, that autistics who do not receive unlimited ABA-based interventions starting early in life must not only be institutionalized, we must be kept in restraints and have our teeth pulled.

I did provide a (different) source linking to this statement in my original post.

According to Keith ABA, this is autism advocates helping autistics, and to say otherwise is a ridiculous misrepresentation. I disagree.

KeithABA said...

FEAT did not promote the view that Autistic individual's who did not get services should be institutionalized, and have their teeth pulled.

The exact words from that statement were, "Without treatment, kids like this are usually institutionalized by the time they're adolescents. They're living in restraints, living in diapers. They have to have their teeth removed because they bite."

If you don't think this has happened, you need to go spend some time at residential facilities. I have worked at one for 4 years. Do you have any experience working at one? Have you visited any residential facilities?

The problem with the statement was the use of the word, "Usually." There are no data that indicate what percentage of individual's diagnosed with Autism go on to live life in facilities, at group homes, or on their own. If the word, "usually," was replaced with the word, "sometimes," the statement would be far more accurrate.

Michelle Dawson said...

I find it interesting that Keith ABA defends FEAT's position (widely supported by autism advocates in Canada) that many or most autistics (those of us who have not received ABA-based interventions starting early in life) belong in institutions, need to be kept in restraints, and must have our teeth pulled.

I agree that this is reality. Thanks to the success of autism advocacy, I've been presumed to require institutionalization, and restraints (though not, yet, my teeth pulled), due to being autistic. Thanks to the success of autism advocacy, I've been presumed to be a threat to others, due to being autistic.

Outside of the world of autism advocacy, numerous organizations, including those consisting of individuals who have a lot of experience in being institutionalized (see People First groups), take the position that no person, no matter what their disability, belongs in an institution, much less requires being mistreated in one. These organizations have worked very hard to shut down institutions and to give those presumed to belong in institutions much better choices.

Whereas FEAT, and autism advcoates in general, have taken the position that most autistics just naturally belong in institutions (see original post for numerous sources) and must be mistreated there.

See the statement from an ethicist about teeth-pulling, that I quote in one of the sources Keith ABA hasn't read, here. And a recent coroner's jury has concluded that restraints are grossly harmful, potentially fatal, and should be used if at all in an extremely brief and limited way--at least, in the population defined as being mentally ill.

Meanwhile, autism advocates take the position that not only do autistics belong in institutions (does Keith ABA believe that we put ourselves in institutions?), we must live in restraints, and have our teeth pulled.

Daniel Tosh said...

lets hope i never meet the writer of this cus i would enjoy hurting him at the worst