Money for nothing
Autism on tv. A regional broadcaster spent the better part of twenty minutes on "explaining" autism in real life. Emphasis on children and youth, alas. Why "alas"? Because attention for children with autism has been ongoing for decades now. It's the adult autists that have been left out and only quite recently got some focus of attention.
Far worse is parading a severely mentally challenged girl on a horse as a tipical example of autism. Diagnosed with PDD-NOS. Now I'm no psychiatrist, but the NOS (=not otherwise specified) says to me: there is so much other stuff going on, that we couldn't say for sure what kind of pervasive developmental disorder it is. I.e.: her mental handicap is so severe that it dominates other disorders. So why are we seeing her in this programme about autism?
It gets even fuzzier when the mother explains how much good animal contact does this girl. DUH! Animal contact has been shown to do every person good, (unless they have a severe allergy for them, I guess). Even recently a study held by a veterinarian college has proven significant health benefits for people who own a dog. With horses this beneficial relationship has also been long established, and used as a basis for some kind of treat(ment) for mentally challenged people.
The last stop is a small software testing company who explicitly employes men with autism because they make great software testers. Great. And...? How do these men fare in the rest of their lives? What impact does their autism have on their social life? No mention of this at all.
I think it is great that adults with autism are portrayed as good employees for certain jobs. But a place of work for that kind of job is much easier adapted to suit their needs, and therefor the needs of the job itself, than is the social environment. How do adults with autism function outside of work or study? No attention to that whatsoever. A chance missed, I feel. And dearly missed at that.
To get back to the title of this blog. When the mentally challenged girl on the horse is shown, three people accompany her: her mother, a health care specialist, and some guy who I guess is there for the horse. Two people who have to be payed for their services. The result of which is - as described by the mother - possibly a glowing face on the daughter. Great. I'm happy for everybody. Good to remember that there seems to be no problem in paying two people, with a third present who isn't on salary, just to create that smile and a somewhat improved state of mind for the handicapped person.
When the potential for improvement is exponentially higher - with autistic people with normal of higher intelligence - suddenly the possibility for some kind of payed guidance evaporates. I know, because I explicitly asked for it, several times actually, in relation to acquiring and keeping payed work. So for people with autism severy enough not to be able to fend for themselves, job wise, there is only help available up to a point, and never far enough to actually generate money instead of only costing much.
That sounds a bit like "money for nothing", doesn't it? I'm not putting the people down who do this wonderful work with the handicapped, nor deminishing the importance of having the handicapped have some kind of fun in their lives. But what is this autistically rigid thinking that when you are able to get to a meeting, answer questions (relatively) effectively, and can dress and groom yourself, you do not need any help? I know that with the right help I could have gotten a good job, and would probably have been able to keep it. Of course we will never know, because such help will never be offered. So aren't we spending "money for nothing" while economizing on "money for earning"? How does that contribute favorably to integrating people with autism into our society?