Accommodating Autistics and Treating Autism: Can We Have Both?

Abstract

One of the central claims of the neurodiversity movement is that society should accommodate the needs of autistics, rather than try to treat autism. People have variously tried to reject this accommodation thesis as applicable to all autistics. One instance is Pier Jaarsma and Stellan Welin, who argue that the thesis should apply to some but not all autistics. They do so via separating autistics into high- and low-functioning, on the basis of IQ and social effectiveness or functionings. I reject their grounds for separating autistics. IQ is an irrelevant basis for separating autistics. Charitably rendering it as referring to more general capacities still leaves us mistaken about the roles they play in supporting the accommodation thesis. The appeal to social effectiveness or functionings relies on standards that are inapplicable to autistics, and which risks being deaf to the point of their claims. I then consider if their remaining argument concerning autistic culture may succeed independently of the line they draw. I argue that construing autistics' claims as beginning from culture mistakes their status, and may even detract from their aims. Via my discussion of Jaarsma and Welin, I hope to point to why the more general strategy of separating autistics, in response to the accommodation thesis, does not fully succeed. Finally, I sketch some directions for future discussions, arguing that we should instead shift our attention to consider another set of questions concerning the costs and extent of change required to accommodate all autistics.

Neurodiversity in (Not Only) Public Organizations: An Untapped Opportunity?

“…. [Eventually, d]ifficulties may prove [to] be so great and costly to overcome, that we eventually decide against it” (Lim, 2015, p. 571). This argument is based on the introductory duel of two principles: whether neurodiversity should be perceived as a disease or, conversely, only atypical neuronal development, which gives rise to different types and levels of sensing, thinking, and behaving—that is, it is not abnormal—and neurologically atypical individuals should have the right to be employed.…”

Disabilities Are Also Legitimately Medically Interesting Constraints on Legitimate Interests

“…My account helps to explain our discomfort in some cases, especially where the conflict is ongoing. For instance, while many people find the claims of Deaf or autistic activists compelling (that the respective traits are not disabilities), they nevertheless find it difficult to stop thinking of them as disabilities (Lim 2015). There is, then, a tension (if not outright conflict) in the attitudes we (must) hold about the same traitboth that it is a dysfunction that medicine can help to treat or eliminate, and that it is not a trait that medicine should concern itself with.…”

The ethics of complexity. Genetics and autism, a literature review

“…Jaarsma and Welin argue that people with "mild" autism or Asperger's syndrome have capabilities that will allow them to live a fulfilling life [Jaarsma and Welin, 2013]. However, Lim has challenged the idea of deciding on accommodation or cure based on IQ or on categorizing between high and low functioning, and argues that further research is needed as to what it would mean to accommodate all autistics [Lim, 2015]. Walsh argues that with Asperger syndrome, challenges and strengths of the phenotype are intrinsically linked, and that to avoid the former, society will miss out the latter [Walsh, 2010].…”

“…Walsh argues that with Asperger syndrome, challenges and strengths of the phenotype are intrinsically linked, and that to avoid the former, society will miss out the latter [Walsh, 2010]. But wellbeing of individuals is never completely context independent, and a fundamental reflection on the extent to which societal accommodation is possible is needed [Lim, 2015]. As Bumiller has stated: if parents have a choice between giving birth to a normal child and an autistic child who may suffer stigma for being different, then, under current social conditions, there is essentially no choice at all, even if these parents would not object to raising a child with autism as such [Bumiller, 2009].…”