Irrational Neurodiversity Ideology Harms Children with Autism Disorders

The American Medical Association has a commentary titled  Can Parents of a Child with Autism Refuse Treatment for Him?  by Dr. Margaret Moon on its Virtual Mentor AMA Journal of Ethics site,  in which Dr. Moon discusses a clinical case where parents of a 6 year old boy was being treated for an earache confirmed to the attending physician that the behavior he displayed during the visit reflect his autism diagnosis two years earlier.  The doctor advised the parents of an opportunity for treatment  for the autism disorder but the parents refused. because his son's condition was an example of neurodiversity and was not pathologic.  Dr. Moon discusses the ethical implications of the parents refusal to provide available treatment for their son's autism disorder including the question whether  child protection agencies should be contacted by a doctor confronted with such a situation:

"When Dr. Pittman questioned Dayton’s parents about his behavior, they told her he had been diagnosed with autism at age 4. His development, they said, was delayed.

She asked what treatment Dayton’s parents had sought for him, and the answer shocked her. They were members of the autism self-advocacy movement and believed that Dayton’s condition was simply an example of neurodiversity and was not pathologic. They clearly adored their son, doting on him during the clinic visit and telling Dr. Pittman how they home-schooled him after the public school system failed to meet his social and educational needs. They accepted Dayton as he was and were determined to provide him with lifetime care.

Dr. Pittman viewed Dayton’s situation differently. She knew that with proper therapy and medication his condition could improve considerably—but only if treatment were begun as soon as possible. She worked at a nearby autism clinic, where Dayton could probably qualify for long-term treatment. When she mentioned this to Dayton’s parents, they wanted nothing to do with it. They were adamant in their belief that Dayton’s condition required no medical intervention.

Dr. Pittman had encountered many adult patients with culture-based opinions about their health problems that she found hard to understand, but this was the first time she’d disagreed so fundamentally with parents about a situation that she believed would harm their child by limiting his future opportunities. She fought the urge to reprimand them for what she considered their neglect of his debilitating developmental problem. Did their treatment constitute child endangerment, she wondered? Would she be justified in contacting a child protection agency?

Parents and doctors will have to wrestle with the ethical implications of a parent refusing treatment for a child's autism disorder. Personally I don't really see an issue.  A parent has no more right to refuse  available treatment for their child's autism disorder then they would to refuse treatment for their child's broken foot. To suggest otherwise is simply to express the belief that mental health disorders are not as important as physical health issues. That is in itself a form of discrimination against those with mental health disorders.

The parents in that clinical case commentary are responsible for what happens to their child and  they must  wear the blame for their refusal of available autism treatment for their child, treatment that could help their child live a better, fuller life. The parents refused treatment even though it was available and assistance was offered by the doctor.

Blame also rests squarely on the shoulders of those who have promoted the Neurodiversity ideology from Jim Sinclair to Ari Ne'eman and  the large media institutions like the CBC, CNN, and New York Magazine for promoting the Neurodiversity ideology which harms children with autism.  As applied to autism Neurodiversity is fundamentally irrational at its core.

Neurodiversity is irrational in that it accepts that a person can receive a medical diagnosis  called autism, embrace the  diagostic  label  "autism",  identify with "autism", and in the same breath    reject autism  as being a medical condition. Neurodiversity is pushed by some very high functioning people who have been diagnosed with  mental disorders listed in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. ND ideologues embrace the label of "autism" and yet reject the idea that autism is ... a medical disorder ... a mental  disorder. 

When my son Conor was first diagnosed I read some of the ND literature, particularly commentary by Jim Sinclair.   I was unsure whether to seek treatment for my son Conor or not.  I attended a parents support group meeting where the topic was raised and I expressed my reluctance to seek treatment for my son Conor. I was fortunate because at that meeting was a registered nurse with a child with an autism disorder named Dawn Bowie.  Dawn looked me square in the eye, pointed a finger at me and said "you listen mister, you get treatment for your son, if you can, as much as you can".

I am a lawyer, a big guy who has seen a few things and I am not afraid of confrontation.   Few people in my life have talked to me as Dawn Bowie did at that meeting about getting treatment for my son.   She got my attention and I listened. Conor is much better off because Dawn had the guts to tell me, very emphatically, to snap out of it and do what had to be done to help him, to get treatment.
  
The parents in the clinical case commented on by Dr. Moon did not apparently have a Dawn Bowie to read them the riot act.  Many will also be exposed to Neurodiversity ideology, not just through internet bloggers  but also through major media institutions that add a false air of legitimacy to this harmful ideology  pushed  by frequent big media interviews with very high functioning autistic persons who do not want to be cured.

Even the administration of US President Barack Obama has legitimized this harmful ideology by  promoting  a very high functioning young man with Aspergers named Ari Ne'eman to sit on influential health and autism committees. Mr. Ne'eman has told the world that "WE", meaning all children and adults with autism do not want to be cured.  He promotes the idea that autism and Aspergers are social conditions not medical conditions.

Neurodiversity harms children with autism by promoting the view that autism should not be treated and influencing the decisions of parents such as those in the case commentary to refuse available autism treatment for their son. It is sad to think of the development opportunity lost by the boy with autism in the case study commentary by Dr. Moon. It is time for organizations from the CBC, CNN, New York Magazine to the Obama administration to stop romanticizing autism and to stop promoting the anti-cure nonsense of the harmful and irrational Neurodiversity ideology. 

Autism disorders are exactly that medical disorders, mental disorders.  If treatment is is available parents of autistic children should seek effective, evidence based treatment from credible service providers for their children.  If it is not readily available they should consider doing what was done in many states and provinces, including New Brunswick, they should advocate and fight for government sponsored autism treatment for their children.

Do not subscribe to the Neurodiversity ideology.  Your child with an autism disorder will pay the price if you do.