Emily at Stoneleafunfounddoor has something to say about the classification of autism:
The DSM-IV diagnostic categories are an unholy mess, it's true: the criteria for autism are for infantile autism, or Kanner-type autism, or classical autism (Mozart, anyone? He's been so rumored). This makes for, um, confusion, since autism is also a spectrum disorder. Which means that there are degrees and kinds. My favorite quote on the subject: Stephen Shore, "When you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism." …Is Asperger's different from autism as defined in the DSM-IV? Sure. But we're talking about academic constructs. Clumsy ones. With confusing names, which is why you have … (stuff) like PDD-NOS (Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified). Which means, basically: some of column A, not enough of column B, and not your typical person neurologically.
Kids with greater impairments need more intervention. A person with some Asperger traits should not presume to speak for all people with autism, especially those who quite literally cannot speak for themselves. But don't be telling me that my kid's issues don't count: I think one of the big shames is that parents of kids w/Asperger's look at things like ABA and think, "Nah, my kid doesn't need that. That's for kids with REAL impairments." Asperger's, HFA, and PDD are real impairments. Not alternate ways of being: qualitative impairments in ability to attend to the world and learn from it. Doesn't mean I want a different kid … Doesn't mean I don't accept her as is: she is perfect, thank you very much. It means that there are very specific things she is going to need help with.
Each child is different. Each child has his or her own set of issues and needs. What may be good for Bobby may be useless for Emily’s daughter and vice versa. We choose the methods to help our kids from an all too limited and ineffective menu. One size does not fit all. We make the best of the options available to us.
Some self-described autistics have criticized our choices. In doing so, they seek to speak for my son without knowing him and loving him. They are both presumptuous and misguided.
Simply because someone shares a “clumsy, academic construct” of a classification with Bobby gives them no particular insight into what therapy is best for him. We who know Bobby best and love Bobby the most are in the best position to speak for him until such time as he can speak for himself.
Posted by Dwight Meredith at January 28, 2005 12:59 PM | TrackBack
DM, a well-nuanced position. I would, if I could, add a proviso that the parents are being proactive rather than obstructive (e.g., not like some religious parents who defy scientific benefits of blood transfusions, surgeries, or medication). But who is to judge "sufficiency" of the parents' proactivity?
Posted by: Peatey at January 28, 2005 02:25 PMThanks, Dwight! Probably the first time I've ever been called "wise" with a straight face. I know Lenny Schafer comes at this from the opposite direction: objections to what he calls the "pin the tail on the dorky" school of biography (Einstein was a late talker? Must've been autistic! e.g.). Obviously, I disagree, but we're both running into problems w/the promiscuous application of analogies....
Posted by: emily at January 29, 2005 10:41 AM