Autism, Technology, And Choice: Another Slippery Slope

Recent television ads, sponsored by Autism Speaks, have been making the proclamation that "a child's chance of being diagnosed with autism is one in 136." There is great good in what they're doing, but there is also deception: It implies that of those 1 in 136 kids, all have 'something wrong' with them.

And that's just not necessarily so. Hidden in these statistics is the idea that all forms of autism are 'disorders'. It's a common belief -- a very common belief -- and, like many common beliefs, when investigated with a strongly discerning eye, tends to fall apart. Now, do not get the wrong message here: there are autists who are developmentally disabled. That's not what this is driving at. The driving idea here is an attempt to uncover the hidden belief that "normal" is a good in and of itself.

Once upon a time, the diagnostic rate of autism was something like 1 in 2,000 children. Now, the numbers for this diagnosis are increasing -- obviously, greatly so if a claim like Autism Speaks.org's can be made legitimately -- and there have been a number of attributions to this, one of the most common being "better diagnosis." And that's accurate. So where is this driving at? Amongst the spectra of autism disorders being diagnosed for now, are two which if there were more awareness of them -- and their criteria -- which would be somewhat troubling to the common public: High-Functioning Autism, and Asperger's Syndrome.

Studies have been done on these 'disabilities' -- such as are cited by this article. Included within it is a good synopsis of the dichotomy here -- and again a motive which is unacceptable to the libertarian in me.

The good:

This article considers whether Asperger Syndrome (AS) or high-functioning autism (HFA) necessarily lead to disability or whether AS/HFA simply lead to 'difference'. It concludes that the term 'difference' in relation to AS/HFA is a more neutral, value-free, and fairer description than terms such as 'impairment', 'deficiency' or 'disability'; that the term 'disability' only applies to the lower functioning cases of autism

The bad and ugly:

but that the term 'disability' may need to be retained for AS/HFA as long as the legal framework only provides financial and other support for individuals with a disability.

Your eyes are not deceiving you. This article just stated that 'HFA' and 'AS' "are not disabilities" -- and yet refuses to require that label change... because it might hurt the ability of those diagnosed with them to receive "financial and other support" -- wha? "Nope, you're fine -- you're a lil' different is all. But play dumb so we can get you free money"!? This is ethical -- how, exactly? ... Moving on.

There are those in the world whom view this as a clinch-pin issue for how we progress as a people. A few are autistic themselves. What is the issue, exactly? Cognitive Liberty But one needn't be an autist themselves to see that honesty on this issue is essential. There's actually a very appropriately named institute that is dedicated to this very topic: The Center for Cognitive Liberty. In their own words:

Our
guiding principles are privacy, autonomy and choice:

• Privacy: What and how you think should be private unless you choose to share
  it. The use of technologies such as brain imaging and scanning must
  remain consensual and any information so revealed should remain
  confidential. The right to privacy must be found to encompass the inner
  domain of thought.
  
  
• Autonomy: Self-determination over one’s own cognition is central to free will. Decisions concerning whether or how to change a person’s thought
  processes must remain the province of the individual as opposed to
  government or industry.
  
  
• Choice: The capabilities of the human mind should not be limited. So long
  as people do not directly harm others, governments should not criminally
  prohibit cognitive enhancement or the experience of any mental state.
  
  

As a culture, this is an area of 'social justice' where we are extremely weak -- and don't go thinking that this is a "liberal vs. conservative" weakness: both 'wings' are quite weak here. Liberals in the crusade to stamp out intolerance and the ongoing effort to 'sanitize' our thought processes in the form of "PC-ness" -- which, even though it is now pase to claim political correctness as your catch-all, to see an arch-liberal admit that, "Well, it's his right to be a redheaded stepchild of the KKK/Nazi movement, and I support him in a Voltaire-esque sort of way." Instead you have the cries for Don Imus's resignation, and the demand for a "stronger" apology from Jerry Lewis. But once again, don't think this endorses or condones the conservative tie to the religious moral standards. The entire movement to suppress homosexuality is all the proof one needs that cognitive liberty is not associated with conservatism.

But there's another angle to this; progressive or not, the autism/drug-haze/etc. "link" to the future is clear: as we who call ourselves "transhumanist" care to seek out what new mental states are "better" minds, it's important for us to communicate to the outside world that "better" in this case doesn't mean just what we see as better. It is a common luddite argument -- and a crass one at that -- that we who seek out mind-enhancing drugs and machines would "force our way on others." The only way to counter it is to remain powerfully -- perhaps even nauseatingly strong on cognitive liberty. That doesn't mean, necessarily, becoming tolerant and accepting of everyone -- by no means does it. Intolerance must be as acceptable as tolerance -- yes, it's a Catch-22 on it's face... but there is "an out." We are free to feel however we like about whatever we like -- but not to expect that others reflect our likes and dislikes: "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

But to put this in slightly different perspective with a more common -- and less drastic -- issue: consider depression. We have drug after drug to treat this 'malady', now; it seems like a new one comes out every day. And on its surface, this is a good thing: after all, who would want to be depressed? It sucks, doesn't it? Well, as an individual whom has 'suffered' from periodic bouts of depression: I 'want' to be depressed. Why? Because happiness leads to complacency; complacency is stagnation, and stagnation is death. Too often, however, when in that mood or state -- which can often last for months at a time -- I hear from others, "Are you okay?" -- as though there were something wrong with me, because I didn't feel like smiling that particular day. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where our culture is weak on cognitive liberty: Why must I, the individual whom is different, defend myself? Why is "Normal" the cultural value?

Take that and extrapolate it back to the efforts to "Cure" autism. Maybe some autists don't want to be cured -- or, more appropriately: maybe autism itself isn't something that needs 'curing'? Sure, some people have developmental issues -- and they do typically coincide with autism as a condition. And the option to be normal is a good thing. As is the option to be more, or less, intelligent. Because -- after all: What if "normal" is "bad"? How long a drive is it from "Autism needs to be cured" to "Autists must be cured" to "Bad moods must be cured"?