| A SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ASD To understand the history of autism under a sociological perspective, we can adopt 1) the moral, 2) the medical and 3) the social construct models. Traditionally, the moral model has badly judged the poor and people with disabilities, blaming them, or their parents for inflicting their limitations upon themselves, which resulted from exhibiting some kind of improper behavior. This model has also affected the autistic population and their families (called "refrigerator mothers" by psychoanalitical scholars). Recommended by Bettelheim, simultaneous psychodynamic therapies for mothers and their children, often in combination with "parentectomy” (placement of the young autistic child in a residential institution), were recommended “to work on their unconcious conflicts that prevented them from creating proper bonding”. The medical model derives from a belief of clinicians and researchers that the cure of autism should be the goal in mind. Medical interventions would be the main intervention of this model. A social construct model would recognize that people with autism perceive the world in a different fashion. Istead of "fixing" the problem, there is a need to look for adaptations. Division TEACCH from the University of North Carolina is pioneering this approach. As they state it, clinicians and educators should generate conditions that are conductive for individuals with ASDs to become integral members of society. This requires that WE adjust the environment to THEIR needs, maximizing their ability to be independent and self-realized individuals. Temple Grandin is an example of an adult with autism who was fortunate to be given the opportunity to obtain higher education and work in a creative profession. She states that if she were given the choice of being born again as a non-autistic person, she would refuse, because she likes being who she is. Although, she admits that her social skills are atypical, and were acquired by imitation rather than usual developmental process. Many interventions have appeared during the past decades in the attempt to help individuals with the autistic spectrum disorder with their processes of learning. Not all approaches have carefully looked at teaching the child while still protecting his/her human rights, though. As commented by professionals such as Sacks, Rimland (from ARI) and Shopler (from TEACCH), over the centuries the social treatment of autism and related developmental disorders has cycled from infanticide and inhuman abuse to institutional neglect; from benign neglect to special education and community intervention. Today’s abundance on alternatives are a challenging factor for parents, teachers, and clinicians who are responsible for selecting treatments. Shopler warns against interventions that appear in the form of a rushed and not-well-documented practice or “miracle cure”. Often, these interventions become fashionable because of |
 |
 |
| media reports of apparent or isolated success. These generally come at the expense of both parents who are ready to do anything, or pay any price for their child’s benefit, and of the child whose use of time should be prioritized. Children are often exposed to practices that range from uncomfortable, in the best case scenario, to damaging in the worst. As an example of this is the “facilitated communication”, that a few years ago was touted as a “cure” for autism, only to be discredited by research, after disrupting and financially draining many families. The most recent example of a “miracle cure” may be the hoopla over Secretin, a hormone developed to push gastric enzymes through the pancreas during diagnostic testing for gastrointestinal problems. In January of 1998, Dr. Karoly from the University of Maryland published a case report in the Journal of the Association for Academic Minority Physicians. He reported anecdotal data on three autistic children who had dramatically improved in language and behavior after receiving a single infusion of Secretin. News of this report rapidly spread through TV and the Internet. It lead thousands of parents to seek this untested substance, sometimes exposing their children to up to 15 once-a-month treatments of a substance with unknown side-effects. Federal funds have been forwarded to test this drug. While it is important to follow-up on this study, which was based on a single treatment, and presently is unable to demonstrate whether there are long-term positive or negative results, one needs to acknowledge that there are parents who have made efforts to get this treatment at any cost, under poorly supervised medical practices, even before the medicine is recognized as a safe drug for children with ASDs. |
| The ability to select among many choices allows exploration of a variety of the combined interventions that could work for each particular child. Providing teachers and clinicians with updated information on practices that are proven as beneficial is one of the challenging elements of working with this population. Many people in the field use a combination of approaches. An attempt to categorize each intervention may be somewhat artificial. It might nevertheless help non-clinical workers understand the parameters under which some clinical decisions are made. |
 |
 |
 |