Response to A Mother's Response

[Editor's note: This was posted elsewhere and is reprinted with permission from the author. It's a point-by-point response to Kit Weintraub's letter, which appears in blockquoted italics throughout.]

If you've never heard of autistics.org, this is probably not the best article to start with. For a bit of comparison, and easy navigation, I will also link to A Mother's Perspective and to The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists.

I try to take everything in context, so when I saw the autistics.org reply to A Mother's Letter, the first thing I did was I headed over there to read the letter. Then I re-read Michelle Dawson's essay on behaviourists. I have to say that I agree with autistic.org's take on the whole thing, so I'm putting my own ~~rant~~ response below.

Recently, ASAT learned of material posted on the Web written by Michelle Dawson. While it is not ASAT's usual policy to address every opinion on the Web that we find objectionable, fallacious, or dangerous, the level of animosity toward parents and professionals seeking Applied Behavior Analysis services for children is so high in this material, and the extent of misinformation regarding ABA seems, in our opinion, so misleading and harmful to families, that ASAT has elected to publish a response from someone on the "front lines:" a mother fighting for her children. Kit Weintraub, mother of Emily, 10, and Nicholas, 7, is a Board member of Families for Early Autism Treatment (FEAT), Wisconsin.

While I recognize that this is a letter, and not a debate, I find it highly offensive that they would choose to use such prejudicial, manipulative language. The assessment of autism as an invariably childstealing monster that you have to fight against is a good sign of where the letter is going.

My children have autism; they are not "autistics." What's the difference? The difference is that autism refers to a neurological disorder, hereditary in nature. Autism, according to the vast majority of medical experts today, causes severely abnormal development, and without appropriate treatment it can condemn those affected to a life of isolation and dependency. "Autistics" is a rather new politically-correct term that I find troubling; it is a label that attempts to define people with autism as members of an elite group of human beings who differ from the rest of us only in terms of their unique talents and their superior way of experiencing the world.

Um, no. People first language is not just the plight of the autistic, I know of no group afflicted with "person with blank" who actually advocates for this. Instead, I am always hearing "don't say this, say that, because that is what they prefer". From the poor dears themselves, the only word I've heard on the subject is that it goes against normal English conventions, it makes the person stand out more, not less, and it's plain silly. As for the second part of her statement, that "autistics" means somebody superior and special and elite, I don't believe I've ever heard anybody claim this. Yes, I'm Connie. I'm special, that's why I can't go on interviews, not because strange people scare me, but because I'm above all that. Uh-huh. Well. To be fair, I have heard a FEW people mention this, but I think they were joking. Does anybody out there actually think that autistics are vastly superior to neurotypicals?

Recently, I learned of self-proclaimed "high-functioning autistics" who are increasingly making themselves heard, claiming to be a voice for the autistic population.

I was self-proclaimed, now I've got a diagnosis. This makes me special.

These people imply that our children's autism is somehow one variation of human personality; that autism is not a disorder and therefore should not be treated with medication or scientifically based intensive behavioral intervention.

Now we hit a snag. First of all, Ms. Dawson's claim was that ABA therapy is not scientifically based, that most such treatments are not based in fact or science at all. I don't believe I read anything about scientifically based treatments. Secondly, many of the autistics I know willingly take medication because it is helpful to them. The difference, though, is that they take medication to help them be less obsessive or less aggressive or less nervous around people, they do NOT take medication (as far as I know) to hear less, to stop "stimming", or to be more social as a goal in and of itself. I could comment on the ethics of giving non-necessary medication to young children, but I won't.

"Autistics" (among whom they include our children) are who they are, and are not willing parties to changing their autism. Autism is the "very core of their being". Any attempt to bring "autistics" closer to the realm of normalcy is ethically wrong; it should be condemned.

Point one? No, I don't want to change myself, but I am willing to learn to live better in the world. Point two? Yes, that is a reasonably true statement, inasmuch as neurotypicallity is the core of your (I assume) being. Point three? Wrong. Dead wrong. The idea of normalcy as a goal unto itself is questioned... well, by many people. However, since I know you really mean "functioning", or would mean that if you thought really hard, I will say that nobody objects to this. Nobody in their right mind would object to helping people function.

Parents are depicted as selfish perfectionist control-freaks (shades of "refrigerator mothers!"), and professionals who have devoted their life to helping our children are painted as cold manipulative child-abusers.

Saying that the goal of making a child perfectly normal is misguided is NOT the same as calling you selfish, perfectionist, or a control-freak. I will leave no comment on the inane "refrigerator mothers" statement.

However, for the sake of my children and other children who have autism, I feel it is important to address the assertions she has chosen to broadcast on the Internet about "autistics." She herself claims to be autistic, but it is not clear who, if anyone, diagnosed her with the condition; she never explains the circumstances of her diagnosis. Is she autistic? She appears to be educated and highly verbal (although her endless, repetitive arguments do cry out for some serious editing).

You could ask her how she was diagnosed... if you really care. But what does it matter if she's autistic or not? Does that really mean her arguments are without merit? Can we please discuss the arguments without discussing the person who made them?

Moreover, while her continuous bashing of ABA and its practitioners is full of inconsistencies, leaps of logic, and personal attacks, one obvious reality that emerges from her meanderings is that she is not at all like my children, or any of the children I know who have autism.

Two can play this game. Your continuous bashing of Michelle Dawson and all autistics who disagree with you is full of inconsistencies (is she autistic? or does she have signs of autism, like repetitive arguments?), leaps of logic (because she can type well, she must be highly verbal; because she's well-educated, she can't be autistic), and personal attacks (I might note that this entire letter is a personal attack instead of a well-reasoned critique of her arguments).

Yes, I know, autism is a spectrum disorder, but Dawson, while clearly more lacking in insight and empathy than my own two children, is just as clearly not impaired in her ability to communicate verbally. Dawson appears to be so vastly different than most people I know with autism, that she cannot and should not pretend to understand what it's like to be them, much less have the audacity to speak for them

And you are even less like your children than she is. You cannot understand what it is like to be them, and by your own logic, should not speak for them.

But let me address what is perhaps one of the most harmful subtexts of her essay: The fact that my children have an abnormality of development does not mean that I do not love my children for who they are, as she so continuously implies.

I see nothing in her article that says that parents do not love their children. What it says is that parents do not always make the right choices, even when they make their choices out of love.

Thankfully, for Emily, we discovered medication that helped improve her behaviors, (something that undoubtedly Dawson would also find morally reprehensible)

I do not know what Ms. Dawson thinks or believes on the subject of medication. I also do not know what you mean by "improve her behaviors", so I am unable to adaquately comment. If you mean "stopped her from doing something harmless that she enjoyed", then yes, I would think it is wrong. If you mean "stopped her from harming herself, or made sensory issues easier to tolerate, or allowed her to accept some changes", then I doubt anybody would see this as a bad thing.

Incidentally, she loves her therapists and her program and we have never used aversives of any kind with her or my son

That's good. I'm happy for you. That does not in any way mean that other people do the same. Some people are still, unfortunately, being effectively punished for who they are. How does your good choice in not using aversives mitigate all the bad decisions other people have made?

He is still quirky, and while it doesn't bother me personally, it does set him apart, and it will cause him further challenges and hurt as he grows older. If I could wave a magic wand I would take away his quirkiness, because it is something that keeps him from fully belonging in his group of friends.

Has HE said he wants to get rid of this? Why not work on *gasp* helping people be less intolerant of others? Why should he modify nonharmful behaviours for the convenience of others? Many people accept the proposition that gay people should not be forced to be straight, though it causes problems with intolerant people; virtually everyone now understands that it is all right to be a lefty, though that causes problems with bad classroom design - where is there a difference? We are not talking about serious problems like being unable to communicate at all, or harming oneself, we are talking about "quirkyness".

Michelle Dawson and her supporters, I suspect, would most likely say that I have abused my children.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself. Please do not attempt to speak for other people. And please, stick to the issue... IS HER ARTICLE ON ABA INCORRECT?

I imagine, by this logic, one could say that when I took them to the doctor during those first years of their lives for their well-baby check-ups I was guilty then as well of violating their rights, and when I bought and administered the medicine for their various childhood illnesses, that was ethically unforgivable as well, since they were unable to consent to treatment.

Now you question my intelligence, and hers. While you may not see a difference between what is medically necessary and what is not, I do, and I assume most educated readers do as well.

would never sit in judgment of the parents of a child with Asperger's, should they encourage their child to speak and socialize in ways that do not isolate him or provoke teasing from his peers.

Really? Because I would. Not a day goes by that I am not thankful to my parents for not forcing me to be something I'm not, nor to do something I didn't want and didn't have to do. I know of a few people whose parents seem to have done that, are any of you happy for it? My parents DID force me to take speech lessons so I wouldn't be completely incomprehensible, and I view that as a necessary change. However, "speaking and socializing in ways that do not provoke teasing"? Do you tell your daughter to dress a certain way so she doesn't provoke rapists? The problem is not with the teased, it's with the teaser, and again, I am fully grateful that the few times my parents knew what was going on at school, they made a big deal to the person who caused the problem, and never attempted to pin the blame on me. I am not the cause of anybody else's bad behaviour.

find Dawson's assertions damaging and dangerous to children. Anyone who mounts a public campaign to deny medically necessary and clinically appropriate treatment to children with autism is harming those children

Medically necessary? Nobody has spoken about that except you. Everybody I know is in favor of helping autistics, and everyone, support themselves. Nobody is in favor of denying medically necessary treatment. However, I do wonder why you list ABA under medically necessary treatment when it's not. On the contrary, people have been seriously harmed and killed in many forms of autism "treatment", especially including ABA. This is not a myth, nor an exaggeration, unfortunately, it is solid, verifiable fact, and the sad truth is that few laws exist to protect against the very conditions (aversives, restraints, poor policing) that lead to injuries and death. Furthermore, the attitude that all differences should be wiped out is harmful, at the very least to your child who cannot help but be "quirky" and feel that the blame is on him instead of those who would torment him.

And at the end they post a link to the original article. Question. Here, and at autistics.org, the links were posted at the top, so that if you wish you can read the original, make your own decision about the content, and then read the response. But there, the link was posted at the bottom, so you have to read the letter first. Is this just my personal prejudice talking when I say that's a deliberately poor set-up, or is this acceptable procedure?