This article - which I am not going to link to - annoyed me on so many levels. I wonder if the author's views were misrepresented, as scattered through the article are a few more measured comments that mention the difficulties faced by individuals and their families.
Saying that autism is not a disability implies that those with the diagnosis will need no help or support, yet as parents we know for sure that most do need help, especially when they are children. They need time, love, concern and expertise to help them to lead fulfilling lives as adults.
Often one or both of the parents may give up their careers to help their children, but if their children do not have disabilities then presumably the State would regard this as an indulgence and remove financial supports. Given that seems be the policy of the Conservative Party in the UK, I wonder is this article part of a softening up process to get public support for cutting financial aid to carers, which is under consideration according to today's papers.
Whether autism is disabling to the individual also depend on its severity and comorbid conditions that may include anxiety, OCD, ADHD, selective mutism, and many more.
I also feel that this article promotes the view that 'disability' is bad, so where does that leave people with physical and intellectual disabilities? Does that mean autistic people want to distance themselves from those with visible disabilities? Instead of embarrassment about the label 'disability', should we not actually be moving to a more tolerant society where all shades of human life are valued and respected?
It is highly likely that I have Asperger's Syndrome, like my son, and if anyone wants to say that I have a disability, that's fine with me.
Note: this was written during the drinking of one cup of coffee, so I may add to it - or possibly revise it - later!
Saying that autism is not a disability implies that those with the diagnosis will need no help or support, yet as parents we know for sure that most do need help, especially when they are children. They need time, love, concern and expertise to help them to lead fulfilling lives as adults.
Often one or both of the parents may give up their careers to help their children, but if their children do not have disabilities then presumably the State would regard this as an indulgence and remove financial supports. Given that seems be the policy of the Conservative Party in the UK, I wonder is this article part of a softening up process to get public support for cutting financial aid to carers, which is under consideration according to today's papers.
Whether autism is disabling to the individual also depend on its severity and comorbid conditions that may include anxiety, OCD, ADHD, selective mutism, and many more.
I also feel that this article promotes the view that 'disability' is bad, so where does that leave people with physical and intellectual disabilities? Does that mean autistic people want to distance themselves from those with visible disabilities? Instead of embarrassment about the label 'disability', should we not actually be moving to a more tolerant society where all shades of human life are valued and respected?
It is highly likely that I have Asperger's Syndrome, like my son, and if anyone wants to say that I have a disability, that's fine with me.
Note: this was written during the drinking of one cup of coffee, so I may add to it - or possibly revise it - later!