As the eve of the Oscars quickly arrived and simultaneously passed in a puff of star-filled smoke, we are merely left with images. The images of impeccably dressed men and women exuding sheer class and pulchritude will be soon forgotten. The talk will subside as people care less and less about which actress wore which gown and the like. These are frivolous topics that we should forget. Unfortunately, as time takes its course, people tend to also forget and cease to speak about more important issues and tragedies circulating in the media. One such story that has slipped through the cracks of the news is the story of the tragic death of Jett Travolta, son of John Travolta (see image right). The travesty was at the epicenter of hot controversy and debate in the realm of autism, as critics believe his death may have been preventable and possibly attributed to the religion notoriously known as Scientology. As a result, this week I resolved to indulge my opinion by commenting on a post titled “May He Rest in Peace.” This post can be found at "The Joy of Autism" and is written by a celebrated blogger in the field of autism, Estée Klar, who assumes an impressive following of a quarter of a million readers. As this post further triggered my curiosity with reference to treatment methods for children with autism, I also consider a second post, titled “New Medication Ineffective for Autistic Symptoms.” Lisa Jo Rudy, a professional writer, researcher, and consultant in the field of autism, posted this in her “Autism Blog.” Both posts effectively provoke questions and concerns relevant to developmental psychology and shed light on its relationship to the complex disorder known as autism. My responses can be seen either below, or directly at the blogs at which I commented on."May He Rest In Peace"
comment
In reading this post, I am truly enlightened by the ideas that you provoke in your readers. Like you, I agree that it is “dangerous to humanity” the way in which people identify autistics—normally to batter and criticize, and rarely to ruminate the endearing and astounding qualities they bring forth. It is human nature to conform to what is considered “normal” and yet the term normal is in itself obscure. Who has the right to decide what is normal? We once punished and humiliated those who wrote with their left hand, deeming it a sure sign of the devil. However, in contemporary times, whether you’re a “lefty” or a “righty” does not matter. It is unsettling to think that society could be so ignorant, but in many ways, we still are. We create our own perceptions of what is normal or “right”. I agree that there is nothing wrong with the flapping and flailing behavior commonly associated with autism. The fact that humans can flap and flail should mean that it should not be looked upon as weird or unusual. I also believe that as humans we have to learn to accept and we must criticize less. I applaud your focus on eliminating stigmatic labels.
I do wonder though, whether you truly consider autism activists in the wrong for questioning the nature of Jett Travolta’s untimely death. While I concur that doctors and psychiatrists are quick to diagnose and medicate children, this doesn’t necessarily mean that all treatments or medications are harmful. Says the New York Post: “According to the Church of Scientology, people with disabilities like autism are classified as "degraded" and capable of curing themselves by working harder on the church's teachings.” I’m not blessed to know anybody specifically with autism, and so I turn to you and wonder if you think it is possible for an autistic child to be “cured” through religious teachings. The article in the New York Post also mentions that the Travoltas continually “denied speculation that their son exhibited autistic symptoms” and a result failed to seek treatment or evaluation for their son, instead attributing his symptoms to Kawasaki syndrome. The Los Angeles Times however reports, “there is no link between Kawasaki and seizures. However it is reportedly common for sufferers of autism to have seizures if they are left untreated.” This brings me to my last concern. If Jett was indeed autistic, the Travoltas could have taken initiative to use their fame and notoriety to catalyze support and awareness for the cause. Perhaps choosing not to “label” their son as being autistic was not to their advantage. I simply wonder whether there is a fine line between not desiring to label and stigmatize, and causing potential harm to the person you so love and cherish. Could this have been avoided?
"New Medication Ineffective for Autistic Symptoms"
comment
Upon reading this brief and yet informative post concerning the nature of drug treatments available to those with Autism, I am very intrigued with one particular idea that you present. I too share your fascination with the ability of placebo subjects to exhibit improved behavioral symptoms. It is especially interesting given the nature of autism and the notion that, as you describe, “it’s unlikely that children with autism would fully understand the intent of the treatment.” Given the limited number of FDA- approved medications available in treating autism (see
image left), it would be detrimental to both the fields of science and autism to conduct studies analyzing the placebo effect as it pertains to the amelioration of autistic symptoms. From a social-psychological perspective there exists a theory known as the self-fulfilling prophecy wherein, “an originally false social belief leads to its fulfillment… When a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs, perceivers’ initially erroneous social beliefs cause targets to act in ways that objectively confirm those beliefs.” In lieu of this, I agree with you that the ability for autistic kids to improve their behavior can be directly attributed to how parents’ expectations may alter their perceptions of their child. I wonder then, if perhaps this can be considered a self-fulfilling prophecy, and if so, if that may be a potential treatment for autism. Is it possible that if a “parents’ expectations can color their vision of their children”, that in consequence the child could actually improve? Meaning, rather than the parents being the core of the placebo effect (as they are the ones that report their child’s improved behavior), is it possible that the child could actually improve as a result of the way their parent’s interact with them?On February 18th, The Salt Lake Tribune reported that a bill requiring insurance to cover the treatment of children with autism won the Senate’s tentative approval. The article states, “families are paying for insurance policies that refuse to cover autism treatment.” Although the bill finally won the Senate’s hesitant approval—that it took this long is very telling of how difficult it is to obtain and undergo treatment for autism, especially for those without the funds to do it. Furthermore, there are various approaches towards treatment, and says the NYTimes.com, parents are “Trying Anything and Everything for Autism.” It is evident that there remains some time before a clear answer is provided, but still the question lingers concerning the placebo effect and its implication towards the effective treatment of autism.
