I recently went and watched Temple Grandin in the Engineering Building as an event that the Psychology club was hosting. Temple Grandin is a movie about an autistic woman who managed to overcome the typical limitations of her disorder and become a renowned scientist, specifically in the study of animal behavior. For those who do not know about autism it is a developmental disorder that is affecting roughly 1 out of every 100 children born in the US. This is a huge deal because the numbers used to be more like 1 out of every 10,000 less than 40 years ago. So how this is going to affect the educational system in our country and how we are going to care for these people as they age are big questions that I think are partially philosophical in nature. Do we as a country think that we should invest our money in helping the caregivers of these children, many of whom will never be able to independently function in society?
I personally think that we as a country should help the caregivers of individuals with autism, and more broadly the caregivers of any who are severely disabled, because if we do not it will come back to haunt us. When they closed down most of the mental institutions there became immediate problems like the lack of care these people were receiving and many ended up on the street as they had no one who could care for them. With the rising rates of the severely disabled we should no longer just ignore this issue and pretend that if we don’t look at it that it will just disappear. While those with autism are primarily still school aged that will soon change and we need to be ready to cope with the changes that will bring.
This is a topic that is very close to me, since my older brother is autistic (sort of the more mild, Rain Man-type autism). I think that your desire to see families receive help is admirable, but there are a couple of problems, the largest one being that "autism" covers such a huge span of conditions. It can range from the severely disabled to the more mild cases, like my brother. Would every case be treated the same? COULD every case be treated the same? Who would be the one who made that decision?
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I don't know your source, so I'll not get into the numbers (I don't know them myself), but I get the feeling that a lot of those diagnoses are for the more mild forms, like Asperger's Syndrome. AS is sort of the condition de jour nowadays, with a ton of kids getting false diagnoses just because they're brats that don't want to learn how to talk to people (I don't THINK I need to clarify my statements, but just in case: I am NOT saying that everyone with AS is a brat).
Autism is a HUGE deal, and you're right--the ethics of it is a staggering issue. We do need to start making preparations for how to deal with autistic adults.
Yes, Ross, a clarification was in order. As the ethics of people who suffer with severe autism is important so is the ethics of individuals that suffer a milder case such as Asperger's Syndrome. Don't worry, I know you didn't mean to belittle Asperger's at all. However, even though people with Asperger's may not need help with simple everyday things such as feeding themselves or merely taking care of themselves, suffering from Asperger's is truly a horrific feeling. It is difficult to have a simple conversation with someone, it is difficult to walk through a grocery store, and it is simply difficult to do normal everyday things. It is not a person 'acting out' but a person who has a serious mental disorder in which they cannot help, and it affects their lives.
ReplyDelete