There's an extensive philosophical literature on disability. The social model of disability has a prime place, for both political and historical reasons, and is well worth researching. However there is also a body of criticism of that model, and recent work has moved to Nussbaum's articulation of a capacities approach, or the analysis of power and social interaction, after Hanna Arendt.

The interesting point here is how these models of disability can be put to work in the case of autism. An introductory analysis can be found at Patrick Dwyer's web site. see for example
What Is The Neurodiversity Paradigm?
The Social Model And Neurodiversity
The other articles thereabouts might be of interest.

Good topic.

I think Gage is an extreme case because it was overnight. But people still say the same of those who they haven't seen in over a year, friends that change and grow a lot.

This is getting into irrelevant details.

It seems to still be avoiding actually acknowledging that some individuals have a net negative life experience because of it and as a result might be something to treat or cure rather than accept. '

This is getting into irrelevant details. — Darkneos

Well, then, pass it by.

But it seems to me that what's missed is a structure within which to articulate the issue at hand. Looking for a cure is normative, it's based on the pretence that there is such a thing as 'normal", together with the misguided view that folk ought attempt to reach that standard. The Capacities approach changes the focus from social expectation to individual ability and desire. The language of Neurodiversity is in contrast about recognising and honouring the differences between minds.

At stake is the goal of whatever intervention one is considering. A "cure" looks for normalisation, whereas it may be preferable to maintain diversity while identifying and removing impediments to growth and happiness.

The argument is that a net negative life experience is caused by autism, and the conclusion is that curing the autism will result in a positive life experience. It's a rendering of the medical model of disability.

Again, missing the point.

Even in the links you referenced they were forced to acknowledge that to say that some differences are not to be accepted (if anything your position is the absurd one, we can't embrace every different.

Regardless of how philosophy tries to spin it there is a "normal" for human beings and not everything is just a matter of difference but illness at times. In the case of autism is depends how it manifests in the person. For some they would benefit from being released of the negatives, others have the positives and minor negatives.

The argument is that a net negative life experience is caused by autism, and the conclusion is that curing the autism will result in a positive life experience. It's a rendering of the medical model of disability. — Banno

This is just ignorance. There are plenty on the spectrum who have similar experiences to me and feel as I do and know without these handicaps our lives would improve.

But as I said you're missing the details here, well the important ones.

Ok, then, let's cut to the chase. You can't have a cure for something that is not an illness.

I and others would give anything to not be this way, but we learn to deal because there is nothing else. It's almost like trying to acknowledge that fact would make folks question themselves. — Darkneos

I think that sounds fair enough. It can be aggravating to have people tell us that we can be the best we can if we just love ourselves and 'find strength' in our differences.

Yes you can. Not really hitting it out of the park huh.

the problem is that people seem to forget this can manifest in many ways and while some have the good traits and minimal bad down have nothing but bad and struggle needlessly.

So it can be considered an illness based on how it manifests.

the problem is that people seem to forget this can manifest in many ways and while some have the good traits and minimal bad down have nothing but bad and struggle needlessly. — Darkneos

What are you calling good traits? Can you list a few? And the bad? Can you list a few of those? Just so I know what you mean.

There are autistic people who struggle a lot, and are extremely disabled, and yet would not choose to take the cure pill. There are, no doubt, autistic people who are not especially disabled, who nevertheless would take the cure pill, just to fit in better. I'm just making the point that there is no necessary connection between having a shitty time and wanting not to be autistic. I haven't done a survey, and it would be interesting and informative to do one (maybe someone has), but I'm pretty sure autistic people who don't want to be autistic are in a minority. But I could be wrong. I suspect you are doubly-marginalised unfortunately, being a minority of a minority.

Yes you can. Not really hitting it out of the park huh. — Darkneos

Well, sort of. You could maybe develop a medication or surgery or something that turn people from being autistic to neurotypical, but such a thing could only correctly be called a 'cure' by people like you who conceive of autism as a disease. Neurodivergence is generally not conceived that way, so 'cure' would be the wrong word. Unless you want to say that you could 'cure' bipedalism by hacking someone's leg off.

To be clear, if I had a pill that would stop you being autistic, I would give it to you. I have no problem at all with you disliking it and I hope you can find some way to stop being it. But I'm against such a pill being available to the general population. That would mean the end of autism. My son would be in the last generation. Parents would give it to their autistic children en masse.

If there is a cure, should parents of autistic children be forced to give it to their kids?

No! But it's an interesting question.

If there is a cure, should parents of autistic children be forced to give it to their kids?

I don't think there is an objective fact of the matter, but I think it would be rather cruel not to, particularly in a society where the cure was widely used.

I am not autistic. I am gay, visually impaired, old, and chronically depressed (like for 30 years). I'm happy to claim being gay and being old as "uniquely me". I would happily do without large visual deficiencies and chronic depression.

I am not a fan of transferring defects in development to "unique variations which should be celebrated". Severely hearing impaired people have developed a culture around sign language and their auditory isolation. That's great; more power to them! If someone doesn't want to avail themselves of an effective treatment for deafness (like a cochlear implant) that's OK by me, too--as long as deafness isn't set up as a norm which should not be treated, which doesn't have very significant implications.

I like being gay. It's a behavior and a condition which appears quite regularly in nature. Is homosexuality therefore normal and natural? predictable yes, normal... maybe not. Normal or not, it's a perfectly acceptable defect or variation, however one looks at it.

I'm also not a fan of ironing out all the wrinkles in human variability. Doing so might well eliminate musical prodigies, business geniuses, brilliant and productive writers, the rare very gifted inventor, etc, as well as eliminate problematic variations such as mental retardation, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and so on.

Were there therapies to resolve any number of significant conditions, maybe they should not be applied without informed consent to the subject). Autism, homosexuality, deafness, blindness, etc. are not advantages, but they aren't diseases, either. Major caution should be exercised in treating these conditions. Could I have given informed consent at age 6? No. 18? Maybe. 30? Either yes, or never.

I'm just making the point that there is no necessary connection between having a shitty time and wanting not to be autistic. — bert1

Except there is.

Well, sort of. You could maybe develop a medication or surgery or something that turn people from being autistic to neurotypical, but such a thing could only correctly be called a 'cure' by people like you who conceive of autism as a disease. Neurodivergence is generally not conceived that way, so 'cure' would be the wrong word. Unless you want to say that you could 'cure' bipedalism by hacking someone's leg off. — bert1

This is a bit of a strawman. Autism is very much an impediment to one’s life, trying to liken it to bipedalism is woefully wrong.

Not to mention the neurodivergence is kinda divided on the matter. I mean you have blind people who view blindness being cured as offensive. I think those who don’t view it as a disease are blind to the full scope of how it manifests. Like I said, I’m not the only one who feels like I do.

But I'm against such a pill being available to the general population. That would mean the end of autism. My son would be in the last generation. Parents would give it to their autistic children en masse. — bert1

You say that like it’s a bad thing. Also you could just not take it or give it. I’m sure there would be folks who would do the same, but they don’t get to speak for all and neither do you.

I'm also not a fan of ironing out all the wrinkles in human variability. Doing so might well eliminate musical prodigies, business geniuses, brilliant and productive writers, the rare very gifted inventor, etc, as well as eliminate problematic variations such as mental retardation, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and so on. — BC

This doesn’t seem like a bad thing. I think the world could use less geniuses, inventors, etc considering most of the issues today were caused by them. The world will also survive without writers or musical prodigies.

Though I’m not really seeing your point with the rest of your statement.

My point is should there be an option to cure it for people who have had it be nothing but trouble for them? — Darkneos

Yes.

Why would we not cure something that is only trouble, as if we should respect and protect the existence of trouble?

You're kidding right?

You're kidding right? — Darkneos

Not really. You presented the question starkly enough that the response seemed unavoidable. If it's nothing but trouble, like a broken leg, then why wouldn't you cure the fracture? This isn't to condemn those with broken legs, but it's not to humor those with broken legs either by suggesting broken legs are as good as unbroken ones.

I'm also very open to the idea that autism offers some advantages, even if it's just a certain pride in uniqueness, but I defer entirely to those in the know on that as to whether it is worth it for the individual to protect.

This is to say, if you tell me you've got a problem, real or perceived, and there is a cure, why would I intervene on that decision? By the same token, if you have what I think to be a problem, but you don't think it that way, why should I intervene there either.

I'm also very open to the idea that XYZ condition offers some advantages — Hanover

Take psychopathy. On the extreme end, you get arsonists, rapists, and bloody murderers who don't feel much. They are clearly a problem. Too bad we don't have effective treatment, let alone cure. On the mild end of psychopathy are highly effective slightly psychopathic executives who can make necessary decisions which affect other people's lives (like having to lay off 10,000 people on Christmas Eve to keep Waffle House International afloat) without losing their managerial effectiveness. Such people are not going to be popular, but if you sit at a desk where bucks stop, there are hard decisions you have to make to keep the company going, win the war, get the movie made, or for-essential-national-security-reasons keep the remaining Waffle Houses open.

Take psychopathy. On the extreme end, you get arsonists, rapists, and bloody murderers who don't feel much. — BC

But I see the question to the individual to be a subjective inquiry, in terms of what he prefers as opposed to what society prefers.

If I think my ethnic nose more an annoyance than a point of pride, and we have a cure for such things, it's my call to make, no apologies.

If through diligence and commitment to our cause we once and for all eradicate the unsightly noses of the world with perfect button noses (think Peter Cottentail), the world might suffer from lack of diversity, but I impose martyrdom on no one, and do not require anyone suffer for the greater good by being keeper of the nose.

But should you want to keep your elephantitic honker as is, let your freak flag wave proudly in the sneeze.

Not really. You presented the question starkly enough that the response seemed unavoidable. If it's nothing but trouble, like a broken leg, then why wouldn't you cure the fracture? This isn't to condemn those with broken legs, but it's not to humor those with broken legs either by suggesting broken legs are as good as unbroken ones.

I'm also very open to the idea that autism offers some advantages, even if it's just a certain pride in uniqueness, but I defer entirely to those in the know on that as to whether it is worth it for the individual to protect.

This is to say, if you tell me you've got a problem, real or perceived, and there is a cure, why would I intervene on that decision? By the same token, if you have what I think to be a problem, but you don't think it that way, why should I intervene there either. — Hanover

The response was treating trouble like some kind of human or solid entity, it had nothing to do with the question.

The rest isn't relevant to the question.

If we had the capability for you to change, I wouldn't be against allowing it. I have autism and I wouldn't change given the choice, but I have things I would change if I could. Autism can be a negative for some, and it isn't for others, but that applies to most characteristics. I think the backlash you get is partly due to your usage of terms like "cure" and how you express your disdain for autism rather than making it clear that you hate "your autism" for personal reasons. I wouldn't be able to listen to you talk about autism without becoming sick of it pretty quickly.

However, I do sympathise with how people will address what you could do, rather than acknowledging your difficulties. There is a prevalent mentality of toxic pragmatism, where unless your situation is accepted as completely unavoidable, all focus will be put on your failure to handle things better. Autism can make one's life much more difficult, and it's cruel to downplay that difficulty by emphasising possible solutions. The intention is to be helpful, but the effect is that it can make it seem like you're being blamed for your misfortune and that nobody is appreciating the hardships you've faced.

:up:

We have forgotten the root meaning of disease. In the good old days folk went to the doctor with a "complaint", for which they sought a "remedy".
I'd suggest that it is something of a fundamental freedom that anyone who has a complaint about their condition, or is un-easy or dis-eased in their relation to themselves, has the right to seek a remedy.

Which does not entail that anyone else is obliged to provide them with satisfaction on that score, even if they have the means.

However, in matters neurological, it can be the case that a cure, while solving the immediate problem, leaves the patient with a sense of incompleteness. It is as if without what one feels as an impediment or a difficulty, one feels somehow incomplete. I seem to recollect Andrew Oliver Sachs recounting such a case in relation to ticks.

So the right to seek a remedy, and the equal right to reject one, and beware of getting what you want.

How is the cause of autism described? I think depression can be linked to hippocampus size and communications with other brain parts. Perhaps drugs or brain stimulation can improve brain function in major depression which is a disease. If there are brain scan hallmarks for autism maybe a therapy could help address it as well if brain manipulations like that become a possible therapy. If the condition burdens a person than I see no reason not to call it a disease. Maybe not high priority as Parkinson's or cancer but still should be studied to find treatment.

I had a late diagnosis of autism a few years ago at 42/43.

I had a lot of problems before then but from my experience a lot of them were caused by other people.

Autistic people are at a high risk of bullying and one survey found that 90% of the ASD people polled were bullied in school and it was often constant bullying and that happened to me.

My family was also dysfunctional and I was bullied outside of school as a well. And work organisations rarely cater for people on the spectrum and there is very little effort to shape society to help autistic people in the same way there have been laws and provisions for disabled people and for racial and sex equality. (This is gradually changing)

So I don't know how it is possible to claim society is not the cause for a significant amount of autistic peoples distress. We also have one of the lowest life expectancies as a group and I myself became suicidal as a teen but it is not just caused by disease processes.

I think one benefit of managing illness, disability and difference is it can improve other peoples lives in ingenious ways with unforeseen consequences. I don't want to live in a monocultural society of well functioning drones. In alleviating distress and symptoms I believe we should try a multifaceted set of exhaustive approaches including medications which I am on myself, societal adjustments, therapies and anything else. Drama, literature. Meetings between neurotypicals and cognitively diverse groups.