Researchers Discover Happy Autism Parents

Earlier this week, the mainstream media reported on a study that showed higher rates of various neurological conditions, including schizophrenia, in parents of autistic children. The study focused on families in Sweden whose children were born between 1977 and 2003, and the sample included 1,227 autistic children and 30,693 non-autistic children. (Daniels et al., "Parental Psychiatric Disorders Associated with Autism Spectrum Disorders in the Offspring," Pediatrics, May 2008.)

The popular reporting on this study gave the misleading impression that large numbers of parents of autistic children had been diagnosed with some sort of psychiatric disorder. In fact, very few of the parents had any diagnosis at all. Schizophrenia, although it had a statistically significant association, was found in only 0.6% of the mothers and 0.7% of the fathers of autistic children, as compared to 0.2% of the parents in the control group.

There's a confounding historical factor to consider here: Prior to the modern use of DSM and ICD classifications for autism spectrum conditions, many autistic children were misdiagnosed as schizophrenic. In his book Unstrange Minds, Roy Richard Grinker describes the history of autism and child psychiatry, including the confusion between autism and schizophrenia (page 105):


During the 1960s and 1970s the only mention of autism in the American Psychiatric Association guidelines was the adjective "autistic" in the criteria for "Schizophrenia, Childhood Type." In other words, if you were going to use the official categories, a diagnosis of autism was, de facto, a diagnosis of schizophrenia.


Autistic children in Europe also were frequently misdiagnosed as schizophrenic. Because many of the parents in Daniels' study were growing up during this time period, it seems quite probable that some of those who received a schizophrenia diagnosis could in fact have been autistic. In other words, the study merely confirms the obvious: if you are autistic, your children have a higher likelihood of being autistic too. No surprise there.

What may surprise some folks, however, is that the study found very little depression among parents of autistic children. No association was found between depression and being a father of an autistic child. Although mothers of autistic children were more likely to be diagnosed with depression than mothers in the control group, the percentages were still very small (1.8% mothers of autistic children; 0.8% mothers of non-autistic children).

To put it another way: Contrary to the widespread stereotype of the suicidal, emotionally devastated autism parent, these families with autistic children were enjoying their lives just like other families. The fathers were no more likely to be depressed than any other fathers, and more than 98% of the mothers did not suffer from depression. These parents weren't wishing that their child would drown or fantasizing about driving off a bridge with their child. They were going through their everyday lives just like the rest of the world.

Some mainstream publications have been presenting a more reasonable view of the lives of families with autistic children. The Autism Hub's very own Kristina Chew is featured in an article in the May 2008 issue of Working Mother, which interviews mothers of special-needs children and shows a respectful attitude toward people with developmental disabilities. The article quotes a disability consultant, who himself has cerebral palsy, on the importance of parents taking pride in their children's positive attributes and making time to enjoy their lives. Kudos to both Kristina and Working Mother; it's good to see a more realistic and accepting perspective starting to take hold in society.

Autism Awareness Done Right

What if autism awareness, like other popular awareness events such as Black History Month, had to do with raising the public's appreciation of the culture and the social contributions of a minority group? What if publishers regularly printed articles by autistic journalists every April, seeking to make readers aware of the autistic community and to improve others' understanding of its concerns and perspectives?

The Advocate-Messenger, a local newspaper in Danville, Kentucky, has done just that by publishing a guest column by an autistic student intern, Lizzy Miller, who writes about her experiences and her view of autism awareness. Here's an excerpt from the column:


T.S. Eliot was right: April is the cruelest month.

So maybe the lilacs haven't bloomed yet, and maybe any dead land in the area has turned into mud by now, but the principle is the same: April is one of the most unintentionally cruel months of the 12.

It's Autism Awareness Month.

I, for one, am acutely aware of autism, and I don't need a special month to think about it, because I am autistic…

…I am one of the autistic adults who is proud to be fighting for the autism acceptance movement.

"Autism awareness" is not a laudable goal. Awareness is cheap. Anybody can put a puzzle piece magnet on his car and call himself "aware." Being aware and accepting of autistic people as people instead of puzzles takes more effort.


The column is very well written and is worth reading in its entirety. Three cheers for Lizzy Miller for being brave enough to put herself in the public view and to stand up for autistic pride, and another round of cheers for the Advocate-Messenger for recognizing its duty as a news organization to present a respectful view of minority communities and to refrain from the careless stereotyping that we have seen too often in the media.

Reporting Live from the Closet

One of the more frustrating aspects of the media's ignorant panic-mongering about autism over the past few years has been the reluctance of autistic journalists and media executives (who presumably exist in numbers reflecting the proportion of autistics in the general population) to speak out against the widespread bigotry. The drums of the autism war have been beating so loudly that most people who are at risk of being targeted have gone into full duck-and-cover mode, just hoping that the madness ends before they find themselves and their families in the line of fire.

To make myself clear, I do not intend any criticism of those who made the choice to stay quiet and pass as non-autistics to protect their careers and their civil rights. Staying in the closet is an entirely reasonable and prudent response to a sudden outpouring of genocidal hatred against a minority group which, until quite recently, was not even recognized as a separate and distinct group. As you might guess, I write my blog anonymously for the same reason.

Nonetheless, it is very frustrating, and I was both surprised and pleased when I saw an article by an autistic manager at CNN included as part of CNN's autism awareness coverage. She described her recent Asperger diagnosis at age 48, her lifelong difficulties in making small talk, her tendency toward sensory overload, the efforts she and her husband have made over the years to understand their differences and to keep their marriage happy, and the anxiety she endures as a result of society's judgmental expectations.

The article ends with this statement:


I could tell you so much more, but instead let me share one last insight. Don't pity me or try to cure or change me. If you could live in my head for just one day, you might weep at how much beauty I perceive in the world with my exquisite senses. I would not trade one small bit of that beauty, as overwhelming and powerful as it can be, for "normalcy."


Who is this CNN manager venturing forth onto the autism war's battlefield, making such a strong statement in defense of her humanity, her joy in life, and social acceptance of neurological diversity?

Nobody knows. She was too afraid to sign her name to the article.

A Change in the Air

It's almost spring, the crocuses are popping up all over (mine, which are in a north-facing spot, aren't quite in bloom yet), and the bitter cold air of winter finally seems to be gone.

Another very welcome change that I've noticed recently has been in the mainstream media's discussion of autism and neurodiversity. When journalists first noticed the neurodiversity movement a few years ago, they wrote a few articles presenting us and our views as a curiosity. Even when their tone was sympathetic, it was clear that they believed themselves to be dealing with a tiny fringe group of Internet activists, rather than witnessing a significant cultural change.

Now, even though they and most of their stories still are chock-full of ignorant stereotypes, mainstream journalists seem to be figuring out that the neurodiversity viewpoint is a lot more commonplace than they originally realized. Instead of just writing an occasional story explaining the concept of neurodiversity, as they once did, it looks like some of them are getting the message that curing autism is a controversial idea and that any story along those lines had better discuss the neurodiversity view as a matter of fairness and balance.

Take a look at this Newsweek article. The author obviously started out to write about the lack of scientific knowledge about autism and the widespread fear and ignorance among the public, but the story ends up discussing the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network and the belief that autism should be accepted as an intrinsic part of an individual. Although the author doesn't advocate the neurodiversity point of view herself, she apparently decided to mention the issue because she recognized that she couldn't present a complete discussion of autism in today's society without it.

I think we've just about reached the tipping point—that is, the point where we are seen as part of the mainstream, rather than a largely unknown group of outsiders. We've gotten here as a result of the hard work of many people in our community over the past several years, including Ari Ne'eman and Kristina Chew (who were interviewed in the article) and many bloggers and others who might not have had any direct contact with professional journalists but nevertheless have contributed—in a very meaningful way—to the change in social attitudes that we are beginning to see. Your efforts have made, and are continuing to make, a tremendous difference. Give yourselves a hearty Bravo! and then open the window and take a deep breath of that springtime air.

What a Difference a CEO Makes

Yesterday, an Associated Press article suggested, quite sensibly, that today's increased number of autism diagnoses is the result of cultural and diagnostic changes. The article pointed out that many behaviors now described as autistic would not have been categorized as such in the past:


(these) behaviors were just about as common 30 or 40 years ago. The recent explosion of cases appears to be mostly caused by a surge in special education services for autistic children, and by a corresponding shift in what doctors call autism.

Autism has always been diagnosed by making judgments about a child's behavior; there are no blood or biologic tests. For decades, the diagnosis was given only to kids with severe language and social impairments and unusual, repetitious behaviors.


What caught my attention was not just the content of this story—the same observation about autism prevalence has been made many times before. Rather, it was that MSNBC.com was where I first saw the article posted. Yes, I'm talking about the erstwhile lair of Bob Wright, former NBC chief fired in February for blatantly abusing his corporate position to hype Autism Speaks, who never met an autistic person he didn't think should have been eugenically "prevented."

Not only was the story posted on that website, which is a considerable improvement in itself from the sort of autism reporting that appeared there last year, it was Sunday's featured article. Moreover, the page did not display the "silent epidemic" propaganda link that, until recently, infested all autism-related stories on the site.

I'm surmising that the new management at NBC is coming to the belated realization that if there are indeed two million autistic Americans, many of whom did not have any diagnosis as children and grew up to be wage-earning consumers who are integrated into mainstream society, it's not the smartest corporate strategy to offend this significant number of potential viewers (and their families) with bigoted stories characterizing them as a plague and a burden.

That should have been a matter of common sense (and basic human decency) from the beginning, but I'll give NBC my congratulations for finally getting it right.

Nuts to You, Reader's Digest

I'm probably showing my age here, but I can remember when, long ago and in a simpler world, Reader's Digest was a reputable magazine. It contained thought-provoking articles on current events and well-edited condensed versions of books with literary merit.

After a while, it started showing up on the supermarket checkout racks, right next to the National Enquirer, with specially printed just-for-the-supermarket covers that blared "LOSE WEIGHT NOW!" The articles and condensed books degenerated into sensationalistic crime and disaster stories.

The slow slide of Reader's Digest into tabloid trashdom hit new depths in April 2006 when the magazine started printing a regular column called "Normal or Nuts?" The column solicits and answers letters from readers who describe their quirky behaviors and ask if they might be autistic, obsessive-compulsive, or otherwise "nuts." In most cases, they are reassured that they are "normal."

Allegedly, the column is intended as harmless humor and simply points out that it is normal to have a few quirks. Yeah, right... I wonder if they would print a similar feature called "White or (any racial slur)" and describe it as a lighthearted look at racial diversity?

When I first saw this column, I thought there was a possibility that the management of Reader's Digest might be genuinely unaware of how offensive it is. After all, if one adds up all the people who fall into the socio-medical categories of mental illness, developmental disability, stroke and brain injury, etc., and all of their friends and family members who care about whether or not they are described in respectful terms, that's a pretty big chunk of the population. Why would any sensibly managed company make a deliberate decision to offend a large percentage of its potential customers?

Then it occurred to me that Reader's Digest probably intended to target its marketing efforts toward a different and more ignorant segment of the population. To put it another way, we're not the potential customers they have in mind. Those of us who regularly face prejudice and discrimination by reason of being seen as "nuts," as well as our friends and family members, are not at all likely to buy tabloid-style magazines promising that we'll have a perfect social life if only we can lose a little weight.

You see, we know better.

Journalistic Bias Syndrome

The Columbine Syndrome, a recent New York Times article by Judith Warner, addresses the prejudices shown by journalists and others in our society toward people with neurological differences. Not long ago, a news report on a particularly heinous rape-murder case gratuitously mentioned that the perpetrator had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and dysgraphia; Warner characterizes this reporting as "a sinister detail that piled on a broad insult to all the gruesome injuries, victimizing a whole new set of people."

Indeed, when neurological differences and psychological diagnoses are mentioned frequently in the context of criminal offenses, such reporting skews the general public's perceptions and leads many people to assume that there must be a causal relationship. Warner cites studies showing how widespread these prejudices have become:


This past May, the journal Psychiatric Services published the results of the first large-scale nationally representative survey of public attitudes about children's mental health. Eighty-one percent of respondents said they thought children with major depression would be dangerous to themselves or others; 33 percent said they believed children with A.D.H.D. were likely to be dangerous...

...Another study released in March found about one in five parents saying they would not want children with A.D.H.D. or depression as their neighbors, in their child's classroom or as their child's friends.

It's deeply ironic that at a time when more than ever is known about children's mental health needs and more methods than ever exist to help kids with behavioral or emotional issues, the stigma attached to those problems won't budge. Instead, our brave new world of diagnosis and treatment has spurred new kinds of myth-making and prejudice.


Warner is quite right that, every time we get a new label to describe cognitive and behavioral differences, we just end up with a new prejudice. This is where we are today with the medicalization of human diversity: if a few psychologists get together and decide to call something a disorder, that instantly makes the most revolting bigotry OK in many people's minds. The concept of the autism spectrum has only been in the clinical parlance since 1994, but we have politicians like Hillary Clinton who see nothing wrong with the idea of wiping out the entire spectrum through eugenic abortion, just because of the label. Makes me wonder—how quick would Hillary change her tune if the psychs invented Pandering Syndrome and diagnosed her with it?

Then again, habitual pandering already fits into the criteria for sociopathy. Not that you'll ever see anyone with money and clout getting that diagnosis. That's all right, though, because sociopaths deserve equal rights and recognition of their ability to contribute to society, too. Just think, if the whole sociopath spectrum got wiped out tomorrow, we'd have a major shortage of politicians, CEOs, and lobbyists. I have the utmost respect for Hillary's neurodiversity. But I digress.

About a hundred years ago, when a murder or other serious crime was committed in the United States, most newspapers would gleefully report that the suspect was an immigrant, or a Jew, or a Catholic, or a "Negro," or anything other than the native-born white Protestant face of "normal" America.

Eventually, things changed for the better. Publishers implemented rules for non-biased reporting that instructed journalists not to mention race, religion, or other personal characteristics that were irrelevant to the story. That went a long way toward reducing society's prejudices against minority groups.

Nowadays, people who have been diagnosed with so-called mental disorders are fair game in many journalists' minds. Just as ethnic and religious minorities were stereotyped as having a natural inclination toward criminal behavior a century ago, neurological minorities have to contend with the same sort of ignorant attitudes today.

If you're interested in contributing to a worthy initiative to reduce such bigotry, you may want to consider donating to the Carter Center, as I do. In addition to the Center's better-known activities of monitoring elections and funding public health efforts in emerging democracies, it is also the home of the Rosalynn Carter Fellowships for Mental Health Journalism, a program that teaches journalists how they can improve the public's understanding of mental health issues and play a critical role in reducing stigma and discrimination.

Boycott Discover's Ignorant Ass

The lead article in the April 2007 issue of Discover Magazine is a truly godawful endorsement of autism quackery. I'm not writing a full review of it, as Interverbal already has provided a thorough critique, but here's a brief summary of why it stinks like a five-week-old dead fish:

The article begins with the tired old clichés of a suicidal autism mother and a cancer analogy. Then it claims that autism "can, in some and perhaps many cases, be successfully treated" and goes on to sing the praises of DAN! and the quack parade of Martha Herbert, Jill James and Amy Yasko. The author describes autism as a disorder caused by toxic exposure and says about one family's use of biomedical treatments, "Mercury chelation, in this particular child's case, was a near panacea." (Needless to say, the article never mentions that children have died from chelation or that it is widely used by quack alternative practitioners as a cure-all for everything from cancer to heart disease.) Verbiage such as "devastating derangements of autism," "trapped in a body that doesn't work," and "a mysteriously shuttered brain and body" appears prominently throughout the article.

Apparently the views of the author, Jill Neimark, regarding people with disabilities have not changed much since she interviewed Peter Singer several years ago and wrote that "he defends his points with powerful arguments."

Why boycott Discover for printing this article, you might ask, when ignorant garbage about autism shows up in the media all the time? Well, the short answer is that Discover is a geek magazine. Not just a magazine for sorta kinda semi-geeks, but a publication that has been read and enjoyed (until now) by large numbers of technology-loving, math-puzzle-solving, origins-of-the-universe-pondering AUTISTIC geeks.

To put it another way, Discover's dumbass management just took a big ugly chomp out of the hand that feeds them. And we can and should make them pay for it. Discover is one of the few products where the number of autistic buyers is significant enough so that we can wield some noticeable economic clout. What's more, it is a totally frivolous item that nobody really needs to buy, so there is no hardship involved in going without it.

Here are the addresses where we can write to Discover's editors and explain why we have no intention of renewing our subscriptions (or, for those who are occasional readers of the magazine, why we won't buy any more copies from the newsstands).


editorial@discover.com

90 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011


Let's kick some quack-loving bigot ass.

Sports, Prejudice, and Journalism

There's a post on Autism Vox about a television interview in which Jason McElwain, the autistic kid who got some undeserved fame last year for shooting a few baskets in a high school game, described himself as a hero. (NBC, natch. Hurry up and clean out your desk, Bob.)

At the end of the post, Kristina had this to say:


"Autistic Boy Drops 20 Points" the headlines read a year ago about J-Mac.

Have you heard any headlines saying "Mentally Retarded Student Drops 20 Points" or even "Schizophrenic Athlete Drops 20 Points"?

I hope we hear all of those, someday.


I'm sure I can't be the only one who winced upon reading that (and the original news coverage). Here's what it reminds me of: Old newspaper stories from about 50 years ago, when professional sports in the United States were starting to become racially integrated, with headlines like "Negro Hits Home Run."

Nowadays, under modern journalistic codes of ethics, news stories typically do not mention a person's race unless it is relevant to the story. Publishers understand that gratuitous discussion of race, national origin, and other divisive social categories is best avoided because it highlights differences and therefore tends to perpetuate prejudice. It's about time for the media to start showing the same respect toward neurological minority groups.

As for Jason McElwain and his misguided belief that he is a hero for raising awareness of "the disease" of autism—well, he's a clueless kid, and I'm sure he was only repeating what he was told by manipulative curebies who want to use him to further their agenda. Because he clearly doesn't know any better, I won't bash him. I do, however, have a bit of advice for him:

You think you're a hero, Jason? It might be a good idea to do some reading about Jackie Robinson and all that he endured—with great dignity—in integrating major league baseball. Dude, you're no Jackie Robinson.

Another Autistic Child Murdered

As reported by the Cincinnati Enquirer, three-year-old Marcus Fiesel's foster parents, Liz and David Carroll Jr., intentionally left the boy locked in a hot closet with no food or water for two days. They burned the body and then reported to police that Marcus, who was autistic, hyperactive, and prone to wandering, had gotten lost in a park. County Prosecutor Joe Deters and County Sheriff Simon Leis discussed the crime at a press conference.


"It really is one of the most heartless things I've ever seen," Deters said. "The bottom line is you wouldn't treat a dog like this."

Leis added, "In my 35 years involved in law enforcement, this is the worst I've seen."


The Carrolls have been arrested on charges of involuntary manslaughter and child endangering. More serious charges are expected as the investigation continues.

The news article also described the reaction of the community:


Many of those who helped search for Marcus held a candlelight vigil at the Carrolls' former residence Monday night.

Late into the night the crowd left, but left behind messages of sadness.

Candles, no longer lit, were placed in the shape of a heart and Marcus' initials, M and F.

Three bouquets of flowers and stuffed animals lay in front of the house.

Kandy Meadors, who lived down the street from the Carrolls' rental house and whose 11-year-old son occasionally played with the Carroll children, said it was hard to understand how parents could harm a child.

"I can't believe this. I just can't comprehend it," she said. "All mothers will cry over this, every mother on the street is crying."


In my view, this was an excellent job of reporting by staff writer Sharon Coolidge, who got it exactly right in describing this crime as what it was—the horrific murder of a helpless child. No sympathy whatsoever for the perpetrators. She doesn't even comment on Marcus' autism diagnosis (which was mentioned in earlier stories about his disappearance).

What a contrast between this thoughtful, responsible piece of journalism and the abysmal reporting we've seen on other murders of autistic children, where the parents, no matter how heinous their acts, were portrayed as long-suffering martyrs who loved the child but couldn't cope with the burden of the child's existence. What a contrast between this story and the revolting claim by Autism Speaks that all parents of autistic children think about killing them.

If only we had more decent, ethical reporting like this, stories about murdered autistic children would not have to be written so often.

What's kindness got to do with it

I've seen a number of news stories about autistic employees who work at McDonald's. The views expressed in a recent article in Brandweek (which is not getting an active link from me, but you can find it at brandweek.com/bw/news/spotlight/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003051771 if you really want to trudge through it) are typical of such stories:

"Not so long ago, these kids weren't expected to work anywhere or do anything. Most have trouble learning, completing tasks and engaging with other people socially... Amanda Fabio, then, is special. But so is the McDonald's in Medway, Mass., for its willingness to give her a chance."

Autistic workers are depicted as humble, hardworking peons who are so delighted to find a job within their limited mental capabilities that they are eternally grateful for the wonderful kindness of their employer in compassionately hiring them.

This stereotype doesn't reach the same level of blatant hate speech as when autistics are described as undesirable eccentrics, or as unstable sufferers prone to sudden acts of violence, or as potential serial killers. However, it is every bit as false, and it significantly increases discrimination against autistic applicants who seek anything other than low-level positions.

To put all of this into (relatively recent) historical perspective, the Asperger diagnosis did not exist 20 years ago. Almost all of us attended mainstream schools and were considered mentally healthy. Many of us earned college degrees. We got jobs, paid taxes, and were accepted as part of society, just like everyone else. It's only in the past decade that the Asperger stereotypes have spread like a toxic fungus all through our society, rewriting history with a vengeance, redefining millions of productive citizens worldwide as a tragic horde of misbegotten zombies.

Let's kick that garbage to the curb and get one thing clear: An autistic employee is not a cute little workplace mascot or a charity case. He or she is a rational human being who is exchanging labor for wages, like any other employee, and who is entitled to equal employment opportunity, reasonable accommodations (when necessary), and nondiscriminatory working conditions. That has nothing to do with kindness or compassion. It is, quite simply, a matter of basic human rights in a civilized society.

Apparently McDonald's understands that. It's unfortunate that there are so many employers and journalists who do not.

Murderous Thoughts

Autism Diva has a post about the memorial grove for Katie McCarron, who was killed by her mother in May. Katie, who loved to play outdoors, would have been four years old this summer.

Sadly, there are still many people who do not understand that irresponsible news articles, such as the one I mentioned in my previous post, can lead directly to actual murders by depicting parents who fantasize about killing an autistic child in a sympathetic light. I got a comment yesterday that defended the article as follows:

"In no way was the author of the article condoning the parent's impulsive thoughts, but rather she was illustrating the incredible depth of the frustration and pain that loved ones feel for their family member... It was a horrific event, and it hurt me to read it, knowing the intense emotional pain that the parent had to be experiencing in order to be driven to that point of desperate thinking."

What the author of that comment (and probably the author of the article, as well) doesn't get is that such "desperate thinking" is not a rare, isolated occurrence. It's part of a broad social pattern of devaluing the lives of autistics and people with disabilities. Although people who have strong feelings of emotional pain may indeed have a need to talk about their feelings, that doesn't justify shooting them off like the proverbial loose cannon, with no regard for their effects on society. If you are a parent who has thought about murdering your child, then you should be talking about those feelings with a therapist, a support group, and perhaps a minister or other member of the clergy. You may need to ask a psychiatrist for medication or consult with a lawyer or social worker about placing your child in someone else's custody for his protection. But for God's sake, don't give an interview telling the world that you think it would be easier for both you and your child if you killed him. Real people are dying because of attitudes like that.

And if you are a journalist writing about autism, be careful how you frame your story. You have an ethical responsibility to avoid inciting prejudice and violence against a minority group. A century ago, many journalists contributed to the lynch mob mentality by writing lurid stories about lynching that described the feelings of the participants. Don't write the modern-day equivalent of those stories.

Cleanup Needed in Aisle Two

A couple of recent news stories are bouncing around in my head at the moment. The first is a British study showing the prevalence of autism to be about 1 in 86. If this number is accurate on a global scale, it would mean that the world's autistic population is about 70 million.

The second story is about a neuroscientist at the University of Louisville, by the name of Manuel Casanova, who is claiming to have made a breakthrough discovery resulting in an incredible new treatment for autism (yeah right, how many times have we heard that one?) I don't give active links to crap like that, but you can find the full article at wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5146301 if you're feeling inclined to read something incredible, in the literal sense of the word. Here's an excerpt that begins by describing autistic brain structure:

More cells and smaller cells, making up tiny brain strands, or minicolumns. These minicolumns take in information, process it and respond to it.

But the increased amount of cells works to increase other abilities -- like mathematics.

Armed with this knowledge, Dr. Casanova is ready to begin working on wiping out autism entirely. "Knowing the pathology, what is wrong with the brains of autistic individuals, opens the door to potential strategies that may actually even lead to a cure."

Dr. Casanova's first step: developing a brain stimulator to bulk-up the brain strands. And he feels so strongly about the potential that he's ready to pay for it with his own money.

Yes, that's the actual wording. "Wiping out." As if 70 million human beings were some sort of noxious infestation. Hey, let's drop a nucular bomb on them thar minicolumns, Bubba. Red-blooded normal folks don't need no wimpy mathematicians doin' no fancy figgerin' nohow.

I'm not actually worried that the next generation of autistics might get their brain architecture restructured into gleaming normality with the amazing handy-dandy brain stimulator. My common sense quack-o-meter tells me it's about as much of a cure for autism as horse manure. What's got me pissed off is that more helpless autistic children are going to be victims of yet another quack cure, zapped with the latest Frankensteinian device as if their brains were no more valuable than those of lab rats. More parents will be fleeced out of their savings with bogus science and phony promises. And more news articles will describe autistic people as vermin to be exterminated.

You want to do some brain wiping, Dr. Manuel Casanova? This is what I have for you: A virtual mop and bucket to clean up the grimy residue of your humanity, along with some virtual disinfectant to wipe out your genocidal bigotry.

Edit, July 19, 2006: Dr. Casanova has left a comment on the Autism Vox blog concerning this story, in which he asserts that he was misquoted (but doesn't actually deny making the "wiping out" statement). Whether or not he said it, my main point stands: Altering the natural structure of millions of children's brains—to make them conform to the expectations of a society that values football players more than mathematicians—is a despicable goal.

Second edit, July 30, 2006: Dr. Casanova also posted on Aspies for Freedom and wrote that he never said he was getting ready to wipe out autism. I've written more about that in a new post, My Publicist Ate My Homework.

A Devastating Cliche

One thing I've noticed about blogging, and about writing in general, is how very easy it is to use lazy clichés instead of giving one's words thoughtful consideration. Bloggers do it sometimes. Students do it in their writing assignments. Even professional journalists do it, despite their well-intentioned efforts to avoid it.

Often it's harmless and funny, as in this list of journalistic clichés. Every once in a while it gets nasty, such as when racial stereotypes find their way into crime stories. But usually it's not devastating—unless the subject happens to be autism.

Why is the word "devastating" so often used to describe autism in news stories and fundraising materials? How did it become an essential part of what Estée Klar-Wolfond calls The Economy of Pity? Well, to start with, a devastating epidemic attracts a lot more attention and donations than a natural genetic variation.

And wherever there's hype about a tragic incurable disorder, you can be sure that a mangy horde of quack cure peddlers must be very close by, adding their yips and yelps to the din of the calamity howlers.

That's where the well-intentioned but careless journalists come in. They blithely lap up the calamity howlers' sensational press releases and reflexively churn out tear-jerking tales of devastated parents struggling to cope with their afflicted children. And the result of such a media onslaught can indeed be devastating to families, as one mother describes:

"The day after I 'accepted' Ben's diagnosis...I grew to hate him, in some ways. Everything that I saw as indicative of his 'autistic tendencies' I attempted to rid him of by superior intellect. I'm not kidding when I say the day before I loved everything about this little buddha. The day of, it's like I went on a religious crusade."

After seeing so many stories of tragedy and despair, some parents begin to respond to interviews about their child's diagnosis by saying that they are "devastated," simply because the word has become so closely associated with autism in the popular consciousness that it's the first word that comes to mind. Other parents see these interviews and react in the same way, and the ugly cycle continues.

It's a classic example of mass hysteria.

Now let's put all this talk of devastating genetic disease in its proper perspective. I recently watched a TV show about a tattoo artist. One of the artist's clients asked her to put a tattoo of his baby girl on his shoulder. The baby had Tay-Sachs disease and was not expected to live much longer. The father wanted her picture on a tattoo so that he would have something to remember her by.

That's devastating.