Posted on 07/21/2008 11:23:49 AM PDT by camerakid400
I have read post #395. And? Yes, he could have said this far more academically or professorially; but I don’t necessarily disagree with the thrust of his argument.
Which part...that in "99% of cases" the child is "a brat who hasn't been told to cut out the act" or that they are all idiots "who shouldn't sit there crying and screaming"?
I have seen way too many children never given proper discipline as children, grow into spoiled, crying, screaming, unhappy children.
My worst case example is a once little boy whose parents were new adherents to a middle-east religion. That little boy was a delight when he came to my home for a visit, curious about items he saw in my home. However, when it was time for him to leave, he didn't want to, and he began to scream, kick, and carry on. His mother, a UC Berkeley Grad, tried to do the Ahimsa thing of "talking" to him. He got even more hysterical. His parents were also anti-spanking. No discipline. Just "words". Long story short, within the year, the boy had grown into a very unhappy child. So, the parents were told that maybe he was just add/adh. Now the drugs began. The boy was 4-1/2. And because he now had a "special" label, no one dare set him straight. He had a "special" condition. About a year after this, the boy was given the label "autistic".
Now, he's in his 20s, his liver is damaged; he is violent to his mother and family. He's on about 14 drugs, including drugs to counteract the drugs which conflict. And, at taxpayer expense he will be in Assisted Living for the rest of his life. Throughout the years, the original problem of not curbing his childhood behaviors had morphed.
Did he have a "real" condition? Who would know? The parents let the boy, as a child, do whatever he wanted. Given their "beliefs" that to spank or "punish/correct" the child's toddler behavior was akin to committing "violence". And in their case, being of the belief set they were, doing anything to curb a male of any age behavior, was "wrong".
On the less worse scale; sometimes it is important for a parent to work non-verbally in correcting a child's errant behavior. I seldom spanked my children; but they each sure knew what a good thwacking was. Since they refused to comply with my verbal requests, I moved to "speak" with them on non-verbal levels. The fact that they were so young and full of errant behaviors also means, I picked my battles. I didn't overcorrect them.
Some parents do not correct at all, or believe they should only have to correct "once" and that the child will just "get the lesson".
Correction, regular & routine OBVIOUSLY does not work with genuinely autistic children. It is then abusive.
It's really obvious to determine what is connecting with a child and what is not.
Once the label goes on the child, all usual effective methods of disciplining a child are "hampered". The child is being watched closely by the state. And so are the parents.
If the child is given drugs, then not only is bad behavior re-enforced, but there is actual physical damage being accrued the child. By the time, the child has been in this mode for several years, by then the parents are at a complete loss in correcting the child, or reversing the behavior of their child, as the child is receiving constant, regular reinforcements that their errant "behaviors" are "okay" and not their "fault".
Let me put this another way. It was only when my second child was born that I realized how spoiled the first-born was. It took a while to reverse the trend I, the parent, had set to motion in my first child. Some of it was now hard-wired; and I learned to live with my parental "error". Fortunately, it was nothing very serious.
I read what Michael Savage said; and yes, he was angry when he said it. I can relate to that anger. I've seen way too many parents of "brats" - children who have been benignly neglected in being raised.
Do I understand the parents of non-genuine autism? Yes. They bought into a bill of goods, and are seeing their child not be their child; but rather a ward of a special interest group; and the whole family, and all taxpayers are being held hostage to the group.
It's usually those who've been wrongly sued who hate the legal profession the most. They learn, once in, you are trapped.
Of course it can work on them, and my grandson is proof of that. Like I said before, not all autistic children are "brats," as Savage likes to call them. It all depends on their level of cognitive development or impairment. Inotherwords, whether or not discipline would have an effect is highly dependent upon the degree and severity of the child's condition and symptoms.
Why accepting that a certain condition can have a range of symptoms and levels of severity is such a mystery to some is beyond me. There are certainly levels of mental retardation, multiple sclerosis, and other physical or neurological disorders, are there not?
Obviously we have differing opinions on this subject, but I do thank you for discussing it with me in a civil tone, Alia.
I know an autistic child who is a very active child while around his grandparents and totally uncontrolled while with his mother.
Not all children labelled autistic are genuinely autistic. You assert your grandson is, and so I accept this from you. Not even the experts can tell you what the "divining" line is; all they have, to date, is litmus tests. Unfortunately, many times those litmus tests are so inclusive and worded in such ways as to draw as many people into the category of "autism" as choose to be.
Why accepting that a certain condition can have a range of symptoms and levels of severity is such a mystery to some is beyond me. There are certainly levels of mental retardation, multiple sclerosis, and other physical or neurological disorders, are there not?
Because there's no scientific, credible, substantial proof for or for not the "autism" label. A genuinely autistic child is the real deal, it's obvious.
And there's no mistaking a retarded child, regardless of varying levels.
I much prefer some of the other standards once used in diagnosing children. For example, aphasia. Means: does not converse, in a nutshell. "The child exhibits aphasia, at the time of this study." This means, a) the child was not inclined to communicate during the test period, or b) the child has exhibited aphasia, for the 4th straight period meeting. The child may require assistance with language skill development after physicalities are ruled out".
The above is far more scientific and correc than simply ... "autism spectrum" which is a catch-all. And the observation may be true for the child at age 4, but may not be true for the child one year later, age 5. The child may self-correct. However, once the child is given the label, no matter what natural good might have accrued the child, the industry instead is given a pat on the back for having "saved" a child. When, the fact of that is neither necessarily true, nor fair. It is then, end sum, an unfair gratitude to the institute, when in fact the "breakthru" was due simply to the child getting older and being inclined to becoming "not aphasic".
The worst part about the general "overlabel", is that once so-labelled, no matter how the child may or may not overcome the "spectrum", the child will always be "autistic" as far as the state is concerned, including all legal groups should the child become adult and be involved in some form of litigation. For or against the adult child.
Yes, I keen for genuinely autistic children, any child with a disability or a disability to overcome.
But the overapplication of label will and has muddied the waters for those who are genuinely autistic. Bad behaviors and temporary conditions are provided as evidence of "autism", and <===THAT=== is what is entirely unfair to those who are genuinely autistic.
I can spot a genuinely "spectrumed" child. They do stand out. It's obvious. But by the same token, I can also spot a "spectrummed" child who has been mis-given the label of "aut/spectrum" by observing the parents behaviors and their "over" acceptance of their child's condition and behaviors.
Parents of genuinely afflicted children know their child is afflicted, don't worry about what others think of it, and continue to give great care and attention to their child. I've not found the same level of care and attention towards the child of not-genuine autism. "Oh, and by the way, my child is add/adh, that's why he popped your kid on the noggin", or screamed out in class, etc.
Children with other specific afflictions can also exhibit behaviors like these, but the parents don't even waste a moment trying to "explain" their child's condition to we the onlooker", they move into proven techniques to help their child self-correct (if possible).
Let’s see how many Weinerbots here try to justify this moron’s latest lunatic rant?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.