Newsgroups: bit.listserv.autism
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:00:57 EST
              <AUTISM@SJUVM.BITNET>
From:         Lisa S Lewis <LISAS@PUCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Information about abuse

On Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:30:43 CST Jim Sinclair said:
>
>No, I don't think you need to feel guilty about getting intervention per
>se.  What you *should* be looking at is the appropriateness of the
>interventions you're getting.  The impression I've gotten from reading
>Donna's book and from speaking to her (and comparing a lot of notes about
>abusive parents) is that Donna is grateful to have had a "bad" mother
>because she believes that many of the interventions a "good" mother would
>have gotten for her would have made things worse.  Donna and I are both
>certain that many of the things promoted by Temple Grandin, for example,
>would have been disastrous for us.

Ok, that's reasonable.  Basically, the "interventions" I'm referring to are
a) a specialized school b)speech therapy and c)occupational therapy.  We haven'
t done anything beyond that as of yet (though we're still considering auditory
training to help with the extreme hearing sensitivity.)

>I think a better way to paraphrase
>what Donna is saying is that it was better for her to have a *neglectful*
>mother who didn't provide much intervention at all and let Donna get along
>as best she could on her own (what kind of parent would let even a non-
>disabled child sleep on the streets at the age of eight?!) than if she had
>had a mother who well-meaningly provided inappropriate interventions that
>would have interfered with Donna's ability to develop the survival skills
>she found for herself.  Probably the best message for parents to glean
>from this is to make sure the interventions they try aren't making things
>worse.

I guess what bothers us is that, while what you say makes a great deal of
sense, most of the parents and caregivers out there who read Donna's book
won't have someone like you "paraphrasing"

I'm not implying that everyone who reads Donna's book will decide that they
should be more abusive.  Certainly, it didn't make me feel like we should start
beating up on Sam!  But I still feel concerned that some parents out there,
who feel like they've tried everything to reach their children, will shrug
there shoulders and say, 'ok, being loving hasn't reached him, lets beat the
"$#%@" out of him the next time he .....'

>  There are some interventions
>that I think are inherently abusive (holding therapy, for instance), but

Another parent once explained holding therapy to me (I'd never heard of it).
Our son was always a big cuddler, and physical touch is something he loves.
What other kinds of therapies do you think are inherently abusive to autistic
children (or at least some)?

>>... misguided people could read into this the benefits of abusive
>>behavior towards autistic people. What a tragedy that would be.
>
>It's not just a hypothetical tragedy; it is and has been a very real part
>of the history of autism.  Things have been done to autistic people in the
>name of "therapy" that would be called "torture" if they were done to
>criminals or prisoners of war.  I think you'd have to go back to the

If that's true, and I'm sure it is though I don't know that much about it,
then I *do* think that Donna's remarks could do some harm to some children
out there.  Her book is so enlightening, but I just find this aspect troubling.

Do any other (non-autistic) readers agree with Serge and me about this?

>  Look at how many parents fought to keep their
>autistic children in Matt Israel's facility!
>
I must claim ignorance again. I don't know who Matt Israel is or where/what
his facility was. Jim, could you enlighten us?  (Or me, if this is well
known to everyone.)

>I've talked to her about it a couple of times.  Apparently she's even used
>me as another example in some of her interviews, telling people that
>autistics who grew up in abusive homes have been forced to learn skills
>that autistics from non-abusive families often don't learn (because they
>don't need them to survive), and that's why we can do so much more than
>"typical" autistic people are expected to be capable of.  I pointed out

>...I think the quality that
>separates survivors from non-survivors is the ability to find, or if
>necessary create, the things they need to survive if the environment
>doesn't provide for those needs.  Abusing children is certainly one way
>to bring out that quality in kids who have it (and to weed out kids who
>don't).  But there have to be better ways.
>
>JS

Well, that's just IT. There have to be better ways.  But I do think that
people might misinterpret what she has said.  Perhaps we're overreacting,
but since abuse *has* been so much a part of the history of autism, I think
our concerns are valid.

Lisa
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU