The Problem with Autism Speaks

[DubaiSis]

And seriously, the world would be a worse place without autism? That seems to have made the leap from tolerance and acceptance to WANTING diseases. I guess the people around you can take all that happiness and leave the fully functioning healthy lives for the rest. If that's your gig.

[DrPhil]

Yes and I've had someone tell me conditions such as autism are merely differences that should be celebrated just as sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, gender, and aging are differences that should be celebrated.

Uh...that is such nonsense for so many reasons that explaining the nonsense could be its own thread. That is the newfound fragility of humans (especially in nations like the USA) and, as DubaiSis stated, pretending as though conditions such as autism are God's gift. We can love, appreciate, and empower people with conditions without REALLY believing "this is awesome and you're just like everyone else." There's this man with a condition who is successfully functional and running his own business partly because no one made excuses for him or treated him as though he is inadequate. But I'm sure no one is relishing over his condition as though his life is so awesome BECAUSE of his condition. No, his life is so awesome IN SPITE of his condition.

It also reminds me of that show on TLC where people are eternal "children" who don't change in size, brain function, or anything. This dumb woman had never sought help for her son's condition including never going to the doctor and asking "what's going on? Why is this happening?" She was just excited to have a perpetual child who needs her to wipe his ass (surely she has no life and no value outside of being needed in this context). That is extremely sickening and as far as I'm concerned her desire to see her son as just "different" borders on "child obsession" and "child abuse".

[33girl]

Originally Posted by pinksequins

A bit of a hijack to respond to Sen's post. Sen, I agree with your sentiment about donating to local charities. More than the accountability, I feel good when I can visit a place and see the results of my contribution (combined with others' of course) being put to use.

I think Greek orgs and their membership would be looked upon far more positively (not to mention the members would get a more positive benefit) if each chapter could gonback to choosing a local philanthropy they could do hands on work with. Bag the national philanthropies, which sometimes all the groups can do is contribute monetarily. To get the money, too often the groups either have annoying fundraisers or else an event that appears to onlookers more social than philanthropic.

[DrPhil]

The Delta chapters I am familiar with in different regions support local charities that are in line with our Five Point (Programmatic) Thrust.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I think Greek orgs and their membership would be looked upon far more positively (not to mention the members would get a more positive benefit) if each chapter could gonback to choosing a local philanthropy they could do hands on work with. Bag the national philanthropies, which sometimes all the groups can do is contribute monetarily. To get the money, too often the groups either have annoying fundraisers or else an event that appears to onlookers more social than philanthropic.

Yes. Maybe NPC groups should follow more of the Junior League model of focusing on helping specific causes within their communities, based on a general program. The NPHC alumnae chapters with which I'm familiar have a similar service structure.

Back to the original topic--using the OP's logic, one could say, "without schizophrenia we wouldn't have John Nash." While a limited number of people with a condition may thrive, it doesn't discount the people (and their families) who suffer due to this condition. Wanting to prevent it--or simply learn where it originates--doesn't discount those people.

[amIblue?]

At what point was it that sororities all started having national philanthropies? We had a local one when I was active, but I know some of the chapters on my campus did have national ones. Late 90s? Early 2000s?

[amanda6035]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

At what point was it that sororities all started having national philanthropies? We had a local one when I was active, but I know some of the chapters on my campus did have national ones. Late 90s? Early 2000s?

Whenever it became obvious that it was a marketing/recruitment tool that had that "name brand recognition". Nobody knew what "Choose Children" was and it was AWESOME. Let's be honest. Choose Children can't compete when you have orgs on campus that have philanthropies with other BIG names that are very nationally recognized by anyone who isn't living under a rock.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by amanda6035

Whenever it became obvious that it was a marketing/recruitment tool that had that "name brand recognition". Nobody knew "Choose Children" was and it was AWESOME. Let's be honest. Choose Children can't compete when you have orgs on campus that have philanthropies with other BIG names that are very nationally recognized by anyone who isn't living under a rock.

Now that you say that, I do recall feeling underwhelmed (as a rushee) by our philanthropy.

[clemsongirl]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

Now that you say that, I do recall feeling underwhelmed (as a rushee) by our philanthropy.

When I went through recruitment there was one group I was very unimpressed by during philanthropy round because I couldn't figure out what their philanthropy actually did to help people. My best friend refused to go to a COB event this group was holding for the same reason-she didn't feel she could accept a bid to a group whose philanthropy she couldn't support.

I know that ADPi's requires a little explanation, since upon hearing the name Ronald McDonald people immediately think of McDonald's (and rightfully so), but I feel that the volunteering my chapter does has a direct impact on the families staying at the Ronald McDonald House in Greenville, SC. We send girls out there frequently in addition to the fundraising we do.

[naraht]

I know I'm not going to hit all of the points that everyone has made, but I'll give it a try.

My wife is on the board of the Asperger's Association of Greater Washington and knows the founder of the ASAN (Autism Self Advocacy Network). She has been to events protesting Autism Speaks.

1) Austism Speaks (AS) is completely uninterested in having anyone with any diagnosed Autism Spectrum Disorder on their board. To them Autism is *only* the situation that the founders have, being grandparents of a child who is unable to communicate at all. Those with Autism who are high Functioning are inconvenient for their concept of Autism being something that can be cured.

2) AS has invested money in to the high doubtful and now completely discredited concepts of Mercury in Vaccinations and has only recently stopped supporting Wakefield's "research".

3) AS's research into *prevention* of Autism includes continued belief in specific genetic markers (such as those for Tay Sachs) as well as tests in amniotic fluid, which only makes sense if you are willing to consider that bringing an autistic child into the world is so bad that aborting the child based on that is reasonable. Of course *that* assumes that the condition is so well defined that you can actually look for markers.

'Autism Speaks', but it sure as h*ll doesn't speak for me.

[DrPhil]

In that case, how can we trust any "warning signs" or predispositions for any condition?

There are people who do not have biological children because of warning signs and predispositions for certain conditions. There are also people who insist on having biological children despite (and sometimes as a result of) warning signs and predispositions for certain conditions. I am in favor of the former rather than the latter but people should do what works for whomever (the biological parents? The future offspring?). I'm also pro-choice so people need to figure out what they are willing to endure based on whatever information available.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

In that case, how can we trust any "warning signs" or predispositions for any condition?

There are people who do not have biological children because of warning signs and predispositions for certain conditions. There are also people who insist on having biological children despite (and sometimes as a result of) warning signs and predispositions for certain conditions. I am in favor of the former rather than the latter but people should do what works for whomever (the biological parents? The future offspring?). I'm also pro-choice so people need to figure out what they are willing to endure based on whatever information available.

Let's use Tay Sachs as an example. Genetically it is recessive and based on a single gene and kills by age 5 generally. In the Orthodox Jews in Israel, young people are tested assigned a number and a couple of is interested in each other can enter both of their numbers into a computer to see if they both carry the gene. That's with a single gene.

Breast cancer, you've got about 5 or 6 different genes which lead to higher risk, get any one or two and you've got a higher probability.

Autism and Homosexuality, OTOH get a *lot* grayer. You're looking at a *lot* more genes, less ability to eliminate environmental factors. And they aren't even close to having a blood test for it. It is entire possible that both of these are neither genetic or environmental, but rather a complex effect of what genes are expressed and which are shut down in the course of fetal development. So since in both cases, you have examples of identical twins raised together that end up with different results (gay/straight) or (Autism Spectrum/Neurotypical), what do they expect to be able to look for?

Also for Autism Speaks, what exactly is a cure? You're dealing with the basic wiring of the brain in how the brain processes input. Do I think that there are exercises that through repetition will help with processing input better, probably, but that that point you are at psychological treatment, not psychiatric and certainly not the pill/shot that would represent a cure to AS...

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by naraht

Homosexuality

Do you consider this a disease, disorder, or condition?

[33girl]

Too many posts to quote, but maybe the problem is that nowadays the word autism simply covers too much. I'm in my 40s and have always heard of people being autistic, but for the majority of my life it was only applied to those in the lower functioning end of the spectrum. Until it's ascertained how it occurs, perhaps it would be beneficial to have more names for gradations of the spectrum (like Asperger's).

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by naraht

Autism and Homosexuality, OTOH get a *lot* grayer. You're looking at a *lot* more genes, less ability to eliminate environmental factors. And they aren't even close to having a blood test for it. It is entire possible that both of these are neither genetic or environmental, but rather a complex effect of what genes are expressed and which are shut down in the course of fetal development. So since in both cases, you have examples of identical twins raised together that end up with different results (gay/straight) or (Autism Spectrum/Neurotypical), what do they expect to be able to look for?
.

Are you sincerely correlating homosexuality with autism?