Should we even try to cure or find medicines to treat non-lethal medical conditions anymore? I ask this in the wake of the White House report this week on the “causes” of autism, and the response of so-called advocates to what was proposed.
First off, I trust absolutely nothing coming from President Trump, Robert Kennedy, Jr or Dr Oz when it comes to medical advice. Many of those that took to opinion pages of major newspapers, TV and radio talk shows, and social media outlets on Monday echoed those sentiments. But mixed in with those voices were those who firmly believe that autism is not something to be “cured”.
A guest essay in The New York Times by Maia Szalavitz–who says that she is on the autism spectrum–was one of the first I saw making that argument. She challenged the entire premise from the White House that autism is a pandemic, is “cataclysmic”, and that it negatively affects families. Szalavitz argues that autism should be considered a “disability” in only 10 to 27% of cases–mainly where communication or dealing with even the basic elements of life are nearly impossible. But anyone seen as being “high-functioning autistic” should not be targeted for medical treatment.
Szalavitz goes on to echo a growing line of argument that having autism should actually be seen as a “super power”–as some people with the condition are able to commit focus to tasks and topics that others with “normal brain function” would not be able to attain–and that should be “celebrated” by society rather than being seen as a disability. She also argues that “curing” or “treating” autism would rob the world of future artists, scientists, and mathematicians–as some of those folks exhibit autistic traits. Szalavitz ends her essay with the usual demand that society just learn to accommodate those with differing brain functions and to (of course) provide more money–not to examine the causes or potential cures for the condition–but rather for resources to serve those with autism in their current conditions.
Meanwhile, there is just as much opposition to finding the cause of autism. We had stories this week where the head of the Autism Society of Greater Wisconsin expressed concern that linking anything ingested by a mother during pregnancy will only “lead to guilt”. She goes on to say that “we will likely never be able to pinpoint the actual cause because there are so many potential factors”. This attitude of “just let them be autistic” is part of a growing trend where treatment for some conditions is being rejected on the grounds that it is somehow “unfair” to people with those afflictions–or that it might “rob them of their identity”.
Earlier this year, I commented on the reaction to the Winnebago County District Attorney’s Office program addressing low-level repeat criminal offenders from so-called “advocates for the homeless”. Members of those groups, and liberal members of the County Board, assailed the program because it required successful completion of drug and alcohol addiction treatment in order for the multitude of criminal charges against those in the program to be dismissed. “Forcing someone to go through addiction treatment is doomed to fail!!” the deputy DA was warned.
Involuntary commitments of the mentally ill are usually met with similar boisterous opposition. “This is a violation of a person’s rights!” and “Being removed from general society is a form of trauma inflicted upon these people!”are the usual responses. Suggesting that gender dysphoria in children be treated with anything other than puberty blockers and the eventual removal of sexual organs and breast tissues is met with almost immediate accusation of “transphobia”. When I was young, I remember there was actual scientific research on finding the “gay gene”, the part of a person’s DNA that might indicate his or her sexual preference. That has since been shut down, with liberals in academia creating the derisive term “heteronormative” to position the sexual preference needed to continue the existence of the species as not being the “norm”.
In a society where personal identity and victimhood are elevated above all other traits, having medical conditions can establish a certain “status” for some people. In preparing this My Two Cents I recalled a conversation with a fellow competitor in my group at a golf tournament this summer. In making small talk between shots, I asked the guy if he had any kids. He replied that he had two boys. “The older one is on the spectrum and the younger one has severe peanut allergies–so we always need to be careful what he eats.”
I didn’t ask for a personal health history on the kids–but it was clear that their medical conditions were the way that dad identified them. When I was a kid, my father likely would have answered, “I’ve got two kids, an 8-year old boy and a 5-year old girl.” If a parent shared more info than that, it likely would have been the grade they are in in school or which school they attend. Personal health was kept to oneself back then. (Not that there would have been anything to mention.)
If researchers were to develop drugs–or find the main causes of any of today’s non-lethal conditions–would parents choose to medicate their kids, or avoid the behaviors that could cause a condition in pregnancy? Would they be bombarded with demands from advocacy groups to “just let nature take its course”, or “let those kids be who they are”, or “not everyone needs to be ‘normal'”?
Just look at how celebrities that have turned to the new weight loss drugs have been treated in recent years. Lizzo, Adele, Jim Gaffigan and several others have undergone substantial weight losses and have publicly commented on how much better they feel. This has sparked outrage from the “body positivity” folks–who insist that being 100-pounds overweight is perfectly healthy, so long as you “feel good about yourself”. And when heavy people lose weight and say they feel healthier, that makes other heavy people “feel bad about themselves”.
As you may know if you listen to the show regularly, I volunteer time for a group that helps provide support services to families dealing with Alzheimer’s Disease and other forms of dementia. Researchers think they have pinpointed the cause of the condition–proteins that build up within the brain–and have developed a drug that slows (but does not reverse or completely stop) progression of the disease. It could buy patients and their families just a little more time with cognitive function and somewhat “normal” lives. Never will you hear me or anyone that has had a loved one deal with Alzheimer’s tell someone else not to take that drug because “people with dementia just have special abilities”, or that finding ways to fight off the effects of the disease would just make others that can’t be treated “feel worse”.
What will likely happen is that we will eventually have four types of people: Those who aren’t sick, those who are sick and are taking advantage of all medicines and procedures to not be sick, those beyond any hope of recovery, and those who will choose to be sick–because it makes them feel “special”.
