First, the illustrations that accompany the text are great. The illustrator, Jonathan Powell, manages to capture the confusion that comes along with the whirlwind of changes youngsters experience while going through puberty. I had a good chuckle over a few of them because I remember feeling that confused when growing up and I’ve seen those looks on people’s faces in real life.

Attwood presents information for parent and child alike in simple but accurate terms allowing for the straightforward communication of information that helps to minimize anxiety generally associated with these aspects of growing up. Parents and youngsters both get a clear idea of what’s going and with this knowledge both are able to prepare for the changes of growing up.

This next section alone sold me on the book and prompted me to write this review. Attwood’s insight into how the mind of a youngster works is apparent in her discussion of how and why they have to begin bathing daily. She is very clear, you’ve got to bathe every day and it is not enough to get in the shower and stand there getting wet. You have to use soap. How many times have I had this same conversation with my own children! Attwood explains the process of daily bathing, focusing on specific areas of the body and explaining why those areas need special attention with soap. The fact that she recognizes the need to be this explicit about something as seemingly simple as bathing indicates that Attwood knows her audience well.

Finally Attwood addresses issues of sexuality with a neutral tone that allows parents to bring their own values and moral convictions to the conversation without having to work around anyone else’s agenda on the matter. Such sensitivity can be appreciated by a wide range of people  making the book a useful tool for pretty much anyone who is looking to prepare themselves and the youngsters in their lives for the rollercoaster ride of puberty into adulthood.

By Samantha Pierce

In sociology there is a theory, called the Sapir-Whorf thesis (also known as linguistic relativity) , which claims “people see and understand the world through the cultural lens of language.” (Macionis, 2011)* To put it another way, language creates reality. Since Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf first put forth their theories on the relationship between language and reality in the first half of the last century sociologists have come to the conclusion that language doesn’t determine reality in any strict sense. For my part I think our language reflects our reality rather than genuinely creates it. But we still act as if we believe that language creates reality.

Consider the terms used to describe people with developmental disabilities. First we had imbeciles, morons, idiots. All originated as clinical terms to describe the developmentally disabled. We now know them as throw away insults used by young and old alike. In the span of a few decades we have seen the term “retarded”, once a clinical descriptor for those with developmental delays, degenerate into an insult so grave that there is a movement to stamp out the use of the word. It’s called the euphemism treadmill where new terms are developed to replace old terms that have come to be seen as derogatory. Even the term “special needs” seems to be taking its turn on the euphemism treadmill for some.

All of this brings to me to the person, or people, first language movement. “People-first language is a form of linguistic prescriptivism in English, aiming to avoid perceived and subconscious dehumanization when discussing people with disabilities, as such forming an aspect of disability etiquette.” The idea is basically to name the person first and the descriptor of their condition second. In English we usually do things the other way round. Such tinkering with English sentence structure is seen by some as a good thing for the disabled. It is an effort to create a reality where the personhood of the disabled is valued and respected. In essence it is an attempt to apply the Sapir-Whorf thesis in its language creates reality form.

Advocates of person first language claim that we should embrace person first language “To ensure inclusion, freedom, and respect for all.” I agree with some of the sentiments expressed in the above linked article, such as,

“The real problem is never a person’s disability, but the attitudes of others! A change in our attitudes leads to changes in our actions. Attitudes drive actions.”

But I am more than a bit skeptical that acts of linguistic gymnastics will make any forward movement towards better treatment of and greater respect for the disabled. Unless we work to change attitudes about the disabled within our culture and within our society it’s not going to matter what clumsy, politically correct term is dreamed up next to gloss over the fact that the disabled are greatly devalued in our culture.

Person, or people, first language hinges on the idea that a person is a person first and their disability is secondary to their personhood. Now the problem with this kind of thinking is why anyone would think that identifying someone with their disability somehow denies their personhood. Another problem with person first language is that despite the fact that many of the disabled themselves reject the use of person first language and the reasoning behind it other, often nondisabled people, keep pushing for its use. In researching this article I found very few references among supporters of person first language to the opinions of the disabled about person first language (the two references were from Wikipedia and About.com.

One can find any number of articles, papers, and blog posts (add this one to that number), some written by the disabled and some not, pointing out the fatal flaws and clumsiness of person first language. Dr. C Edwin Vaughan wrote in his article People-First Language: An Unholy Crusade,

I wonder if the proponents of people-first language believe that putting disabled people first on the printed page accomplishes anything in the real world? Does it alter attitudes, professional or otherwise, about disabilities? What is their evidence? The awkwardness of the preferred language calls attention to a person as having some type of "marred identity" (Goffman, 1963). But the misconceptions that diminish the lives of disabled people must still be countered directly.

In 1993 Kenneth Jernigan wrote, The Pitfalls of Political Correctness: Euphemisms Excoriated, which was published, and republished, in the Braille Monitor, a journal published by the Nation Federation of the blind. In his article he states,

As civilizations decline, they become increasingly concerned with form over substance, particularly with respect to language.

Euphemisms and the politically correct language which they exemplify are sometimes only prissy, sometimes ridiculous, and sometimes tiresome. Often, however, they are more than that. At their worst they obscure clear thinking and damage the very people and causes they claim to benefit.

The blind have had trouble with euphemisms for as long as anybody can remember, and late twentieth-century America is no exception. The form has changed (in fact, everything is very "politically correct"), but the old notions of inferiority and second-class status still remain. The euphemisms and the political correctness don't help. If anything, they make matters worse since they claim modern thought and new enlightenment.

Jernigan further went on to write in a resolution adopted by the National Federation of the Blind,

We believe that it is respectable to be blind, and although we have no particular pride in the fact of our blindness, neither do we have any shame in it. To the extent that euphemisms are used to convey any other concept or image, we deplore such use. We can make our own way in the world on equal terms with others, and we intend to do it.

In 1999 Joy Johnston wrote of the National Federation of the Blind’s response to person first language,

“That one sentiment alone provides the blind community with more empowerment than a thousand politically correct slogans could ever provide.”

In the same article we find,

What PC [political correctness] proponents fail to understand in their good-hearted mission is that changing the words a person speaks does not change the thoughts in their minds or the feelings in their heart. It's merely a surface solution that does not change the reality of what it is to be a female, a black man, or a disabled person in this society one iota.

Stop and consider the following: person with femaleness; person with maleness; person with blackness; person with deafness; person with blindness. All of these characteristics are an intrinsic part of an individual, you can’t separate them from the person. Person first language implies that personhood cannot coexist with disability. It stems from the erroneous assumption that acknowledging the important role that a disability plays in an individual’s life diminishes one’s personhood. What it communicates is the impression that one doesn’t really believe in the disabled individual’s personhood. The proliferation of person first language despite strong opposition to it from the disabled themselves certainly points to the devaluation of the disabled. Clearly “we” think “we” know what is better for “them” than they do never mind what they actually have to say for themselves.

I end this article with the able words of Jim Sinclair, an autistic self advocate,

Saying "person with autism" suggests that autism is something bad--so bad that it isn't even consistent with being a person. Nobody objects to using adjectives to refer to characteristics of a person that are considered positive or neutral. We talk about left-handed people, not "people with left-handedness," and about athletic or musical people, not about "people with athleticism" or "people with musicality." We might call someone a "blue-eyed person" or a "person with blue eyes," and nobody objects to either descriptor. It is only when someone has decided that the characteristic being referred to is negative that suddenly people want to separate it from the person. I know that autism is not a terrible thing, and that it does not make me any less a person. If other people have trouble remembering that autism doesn't make me any less a person, then that's their problem, not mine. Let them find a way to remind themselves that I'm a person, without trying to define an essential feature of my personhood as something bad. I am autistic because I accept and value myself the way I am.

Person first language it isn’t creating a better reality for the disabled. Rather, it is a reflection of the low value we place on the disabled. To use the old cliché, talk is cheap. What we need is action. You can start by listening to what the disabled have to say for themselves.

*Macionis, J. J. (2011). Society: the basics. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

DSM V proposed revisions

I will probably be taking an unpopular position. However, I want to calm some people who are legitimately upset as they are concerned about the well-being of their children, and the children of others, regarding the changes in the DSM-V as they pertain to autism. I do not see anyone getting undiagnosed. I do not see anyone getting services loosing those services. Hopefully I can sufficiently explain this to calm people.

There is a critical flaw in the study the NY Times article relied on. They were using 1993 data for the study. In 1993 there was only the DSM-III. Asperger's and PDD-NOS were not even in the DSM. So much more has been learned about autism in the last 19 years using such old data is absurd. 19 years ago they still were not too sure what they were looking for. This would have a huge impact on the data gathered. I am guessing it was all there, but the people recording data didn't know to look for it and therefore could not record it.

As someone who is around autism all day every day, and does diagnostic work, I don't think there needs to be fear about the proposed changes to the DSM coming out in 2013. I need to stay on top of all this, and intimately understand all the details and nuances. It is my job. I work with the DSM-IV and I am also familiar with the expected changes in the DSM-V. The proposed changes came out 2 years ago, and were last tweaked a year ago. The only recent change that ignited a firestorm was there was an article in the NY Times January 19, 2012.

Autism, Asperger's, and PDD-NOS are all really the same thing. With recognizing that, and understanding it in an everyday clinical sense from professionals, the APA is combining the three into one diagnosis of "Autism Spectrum Disorder". This makes complete and total sense, and I support it 100%. The only question then is does the new diagnostic criteria make sense and work.

Part of the problem is that a lot of people do not understand the criteria as they are now, including a lot of professionals. The autism spectrum is not a scale of mild to severe, with the diagnosis you receive depending on the severity of symptoms. Spectrum represents a diversity in individual manifestation of symptoms.

The specific diagnosis depends on how you fit specific diagnostic criteria, and nothing else. The specific diagnosis also does not represent access to services. I know people with an autism diagnosis that do not qualify for services. I know people with an Asperger's diagnosis who qualify for lots of services. I know people with a PDD-NOS diagnosis who will never live independently, and fight for survival at the most basic level. It does not make any of these people more or less autistic. Despite the prevalent use of the term, there is also no such thing as mild autism. Symptom manifestation may allow for easier success in some areas of life and society, but the symptoms are still there, and still an impediment to successful functioning.

I like the new proposed criteria as they are currently proposed for ASD in the DSM-V. As the firestorm seems to focus on "Section B" of the criteria, dealing with "restricted repetitive patterns of behavior" I will focus my comments there. Under the new standards two out of four would need to be met, while under current criteria one out of four need to be met. The thing is, it is NOT the same four criteria. I think the new criteria are more accurate, better defined, and may be more inclusive than what we have now.

One of the additions to the criteria, which is in this section, is sensory issues. EVERY clinician I know of looks at sensory issues when diagnosing, and has for many years. EVERY person I know of who is on the spectrum has sensory issues. That is one out of the four criteria needed. I think the other three criteria in the new section B are more inclusive and better defined than the current four criteria that you need one of. This will make it EASIER to be diagnosed with this section of the diagnostic criteria, not harder.

Most people have not taken the time to look at the new criteria, or know where to look if they wanted to. Pasted below is the link to the new proposed criteria on the APA's DSM web page. Look for yourself. I'll gladly answer questions about what different things mean, and explain whatever anyone wants explained. It is my opinion there is no need to panic, as natural a response as that is. We are dealing with people we love, and are afraid bad things will happen because of the proposed change. I don't think it will be a problem.

Every client I have ever had, and every ASD person I have known at a "real" level, will meet these criteria. I today would not recommend diagnosis for someone who did not meet these criteria. The only difference is my supporting documentation would be placed on a different line because the formatting is different. It would not change the pre-diagnostic write-up or the eligibility.

DSM V proposed revisions

Paul Meier is a professional autism consultant working with autistic children, teens, and adults in the Central New York area. In addition to being a professional Paul is autistic himself, and a parent of an autistic teen. For more information about Paul or his services check out his web page at http://www.cnyautism.com/ or he also can be reached at pmeierasd@yahoo.com and 315-559-8242.

First, measure your board so that your holes are even on both sides and ends of your platform.

Once measured, position your drill straight above your marked spots and drill 4 holes into each corner.  We measured about 2 inches away from each side for support reasons as well as to keep the wood from splinting.

Once you have your four holes drilled, staple your carpet square to the top of your swing.  Since our builders used a bathmat, the carpet piece did not fit entirely around the piece of board.  If you want to cover the board entirely, you will need to cut circles out over where your holes are and staple the carpet underneath.

Cut the rope into two pieces (ours were 11 feet each) and loop through the holes on each end lengthwise.  Use a lighter or matches to seal the ends of the rope after knotting tightly.  We doubled our knots for extra stability and thickness.

Install the eye screws first to a secure beam.  This swing was installed in a basement and the eye screws were screwed into the support beams on the ceiling.

Once you determine that your swing has been installed successfully, and you've tested it for strength, enjoy!

by Jeremy Pierce, Ph.D.

There's a relatively new movement in the communities of people who deal regularly with autism and related conditions that's assigned themselves the term "neurodiversity" as a shorthand reference to their commitment to affirming atypical neurological conditions as equally legitimate. This movement shuns the terms 'normal' and 'abnormal' and instead prefers to speak of those who are neurotypical and those who are not. The neurodiversity movement seeks to identify various traits common with autism as neither better nor worse but simply different.

This movement should be praised for its recognition that respecting people with autism requires taking into account how differently they take in information, process it, use it, and produce various responses. They rightly emphasize that an atypical neurological state need not be thought of as a disease that needs a medical cure or treatment or a disability that requires taking the person to be deficient. They recommend supporting a person for who they are rather than trying to "fix" them to conform to the standards everyone else has. Some autism advocates on the autistic spectrum insist that they wouldn't want to be made "normal" if a "cure" were ever found. They like being the way they are.

There's something obviously right about most of that. The more I read stuff from this movement, however, the more disturbed I get that there's something they're just not seeing, and the good in what I just wrote is blinding a lot of well-meaning people to a serious philosophical error lying behind much of what the neurodiversity movement produces. Consider this story by Karen Kaplan of the Los Angeles Times. She is right to point out that, just because autistic people do badly on certain standardized tests, it doesn't mean they're cognitively deficient. It may well be that the reason a certain person scores low on a certain test is because the test is relying on typical patterns of language use, and someone with autism may be using a different pattern of language use. The underlying cognitive ability being tested for may be stronger than the test shows. That's all correct. But in her rush to make this point, Kaplan completely ignores the fact that the reason someone is scoring low on the test is because of a genuine deficiency in the kind of language use that most people are much better able to engage in. That means there is a lack of ability that comes with autism, even if its manifestation will be different from person to person.

Again, Kaplan speaks of those who emphasize "training kids with autism to behave like typical kids instead of allowing them to make the most of their differently wired brains." That's especially helpful, because allowing autistic people to make the most of their differently-operating brain is certainly the right goal. But that's perfectly compatible with taking their differently-wired brain to be operating at a deficient level with respect to certain cognitive skills, even if it's also operating at a higher level with regard to other cognitive skills. Some in the neurodiversity movement are willing to recognize that differences between neurotypicals and autistic people involve autism conveying certain strengths and weaknesses. But the language of "not better or worse but just different" disallows any such recognition and smacks of crude relativism, whereby we cannot recognize any difference as being better or worse. When taken to its logical implication, we'd have to say that someone who is not intelligent enough to read is not less smart in any respect than the norm, just different. I submit that such a statement is nonsense. There's a particular cognitive ability that allows for reading that most people have, and someone who doesn't have that ability (assuming they genuinely don't) is lacking a cognitive skill. Why can't we just accept that?

Similarly, there is a seeming refusal to recognize any medical condition that can be spoken of in terms of being made worse off. In some respects this strikes me as a general problem among disability communities that stems from crudely relativistic thinking. The deaf community is largely unsupportive of cochlear implants, because it gives children the ability to hear, and they take their lack of hearing not to be a genuine disability. There's nothing wrong with not hearing, so why should they support giving deaf children the ability to hear the way most people can?

If we really took this line of reasoning seriously, we'd have to apply it to other conditions that virtually no one wants to see as perfectly normal. For example, one could argue that pedophilia is just a different way of being, and we should respect it. After all, it's caused by a brain condition, and all brain conditions are equally good. In terms of the arguments I see from the neurodiversity movement, I see no way to say the things they say while avoiding such a conclusion. There are plenty of ways to distinguish between the two cases, but I don't see how those are available given the extreme sorts of statements that I regularly see among neurodiversity advocates.

People who have serious cognitive deficiencies often have serious problems seeing their own intrinsic worth. It's important to affirm that. It's important to help them see that their very existence is not wrong in the sense that we should blame them for being the way they are. It's important to help them see that their preferences may seem weird to others but that in many cases perfectly all right for them to have them. But some voices advocating for neurodiversity want us to say that someone with autism is not messed up in any sense. The fact is that we're all messed up. We're all distorted. We're all flawed. No one is the way we ought to be. Autism is one way to have various deficiencies, one that also happens in many cases to have plenty of strengths above the level typical of most people. To say that we can never evaluate being less good at something or more good at something with such value-laden language would be to overreact to a genuine problem in how many people look at people with disabilities.

But on one level, I can't blame the neurodiversity movement (and the more general relativistic outlook among other disability communities). After all, their view follows fairly easily from a particular version of secularized naturalistic thinking. Different neurological conditions stem from natural variation, and there's no other level of explanation but natural variation. There's no God who designed human beings to have certain capabilities. There are no natural purposes according to which organisms have a nature, and certain capacities are part of what a well-functioning member of their species will be able to do. There's no notion of well-functioning if your worldview doesn't allow for higher-level explanations about purposes and design, other than perhaps simply asking whether a particular organism fits into the way most members of its species are or whether it fits the patterns members of its species typically desire for themselves. There's nothing objective about what a healthy member of that species or a well-functioning member of that species would be like. There is no way we can have a notion of the way we ought to be if there's no ground for what it would be to be the way we ought to be. But such a conclusion seems to me to be so obviously false that perhaps we should just question the metaphysical underpinning of the neurodiversity movement, rather than giving in to that metaphysical picture's logical implications.

-------------------------------------

About the author: Jeremy Pierce holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Syracuse University and is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Le Moyne College. He is the father of five children, two of whom are autistic. He blogs at Parableman, Evangel, and Prosblogion.

Another article in our series of things NTs say about Autistics. Tikatia Morris is the marketing director at NeuroDiversity Consulting LLC. Learn more here and check out the intro to the series as well as our article on discipline.

"But he's so smart!"

"Are you sure she isn't just faking it?" 

"He doesn't look autistic."

"Aspergers...that's just a little socially awkward."

By: Tikatia Morris

In 2008, radio show host, Michael Savage had this to say about autism:
 
"fraud, a racket. ... I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot." 

Here is how one adult with autism described how it feels when a person doesn't believe in the diagnosis:

"As if living your whole life incapable of being normal no matter how much effort you put in isn't bad enough, there are people that try to convince you that the condition you're diagnosed with doesn't exist and that you're just a social failure."

Autism is, by definition, a spectrum disorder. Individuals with autism have strengths and weaknesses, just the same as their neurotypical counterparts. Some individuals have excellent verbal skills, are sociable, and enjoy being around other people regularly. This does not invalidate their diagnosis. This simply means that they have those skills as a strength.  

The DSM-IV  lists 5 separate diagnoses under the umbrella of Autism Spectrum Disorders. These are:  Autistic Disorder, Asperger's Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (including Atypical Autism), Rett's Disorder, and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder. Each includes it's own specific diagnostic criteria and each, while under the umbrella of Autism Spectrum Disorder, is unique unto itself as well. Since there are 5 differing disorders under this one umbrella, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that each disorder differs from the others not only in diagnostic criteria, but also in severity of symptoms; hence the term Autism Spectrum Disorder.

As a parent, I've often encountered comments like those quoted above from not only neurotypical strangers, friends, and family, but also from professionals such as my son's teachers. When he "perfoms" well in a school setting (mostly due to his overall anxiety from being around that many people) I find myself having to prove his diagnosis to the professionals within that school. They often end up trying to remove services claiming that he doesn't need them even when he's obviously (to me anyway) performing so well because those services are in place.

In our personal world, we've come against opposition from friends, and family members alike. The frustration that ensues as a parent having to prove my son's diagnosis is immeasurable, and I'm sure that my son, were he able to explain it, would say that he is not faking his interpretations of his surroundings, nor is he simply misbehaving for the sake of attention or because he's just being a putz, as Savage claims about those on the spectrum.    

Even parents of autistics can fall prey to disbelief. As Jim Sinclair point out in his essay, “Don’t Mourn for Us”, parents begin on a path of either love and support or rejection the moment of their child’s diagnosis. Sinclair makes the distinction that the source of parents’ grief at an autism diagnosis has, “NOTHING to do with autism, it regards the inability to have the ‘expected relationship’ with their child." When parents continue to misplace this grief onto their child, avowing to wipe this ‘abomination’ off of the face of the earth, they are also stating that their, “greatest wish is that one day [autistics] will cease to be, and strangers you can love will move in behind our faces."  

When parents finally come to terms with their child's diagnosis, and accept that child for who he or she is, there is still yet another level in our disbelief pyramid. There are then the parents within each group of diagnosis who may have the tendency to belittle another child's diagnosis simply because that child may present the disorder differently from their own child. For example a parent whose child is nonverbal may scoff at a child who is capable of speech that they don't have "real" autism. Parents of children who have these milder versions of autism may feel that they don't fit in with the parents of neurotypical kids, but that they also don't have the support of other parents within the autism community.

A major issue regarding autism is a lack of understanding and education, both on the parent and caregiver parts as well as on that of the neurotypical community at large. The changes proposed in the DSM-V may to help alleviate some of the skepticism and misunderstanding of autism spectrum disorders. The proposal is such that those five separate diagnoses will become one single diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder with three distinct levels of severity. There is still a lot of debate within the autism community as to whether this proposition will end with positive results or negative.  

Here is the first in the series of Things NTs Say About Autistics. Sanchia Callender is the Services Director of NeuroDiversity Conulting LLC. Learn more here and also check out the intro to the series.

“He's just spoiled...”

‎"Are you sure he doesn't just need a little more discipline?"

‎"All that kid needs is a good (choose one) spanking, talking to, slap on the bottom, hard whack, time in the corner etc......"

Sanchia A. Callender

A key feature of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) is the impairment of social skills; for these children simple social behavioral norms are mysterious and sometimes pointless endeavors. In addition to social skill impairments children with ASD often have difficulties communicating in a manner that makes sense to anyone but themselves without careful examination; add to this some stereotypical behaviors and movements and the tendency to be preoccupied with particular topics or activities and you have the perfect storm for challenging behaviors. Matson, Neal, Fodstad, and Hess (2010) define challenging behaviors as “intense and persistent culturally abnormal behaviors which are disruptive and destructive in nature (p.165).” Aggression, self-injury, property destruction, and non-compliance and stereotypies (stimming) are the most common “challenging behaviors” associated with ASD (Matson et al., 2010).

Challenging behaviors are often one of the biggest hindrances for children with ASD and the most common source of stress for parents and caregivers (Matson et al., 2010; Leone and Wiltz, 2006). Parents and caregivers of children with ASD report higher levels of stress than parents of children with other disabilities. Emotional burnout is common in this population and often results in decreased positive interactions and avoidance of social situations (Matson et al., 2010; Leone and Wiltz, 2006). Missed opportunities to participate in activities that would promote social learning through positive peer interactions can lead to increases in the challenging behavior that led to the initial avoidance.

Another difficult aspect of challenging behaviors in children with ASD is the functionality of these behaviors in meeting the child’s needs. As bizarre, problematic, embarrassing, and dangerous as some of these behaviors may seem they are at some level meeting a need for the child. It is important to understand the function of a behavior before modification can be considered. Even in situations with dangerous or injurious behavior understanding the antecedents or functions of the behavior are just as important to a child’s safety as stopping the behavior.

In the midst of a behavioral outburst, especially one taking place in a very public place, it is difficult to focus on understanding the function of the behavior and addressing it in a manner that stops the unwanted negative behavior and promotes more productive appropriate means of communicating. Many parents and caregivers often find themselves dealing with unwanted comments and negative assessments of their parenting skills. This makes an already stressful, uncomfortable situation even more difficult. Since it is likely that even with the most extensive well thought out public education initiatives could not curtail this unwanted and unnecessary commentary it just needs to be ignored until the pill for stupid hits the market. As a parent your focus and responsibility is to maintain your and your child’s mental, emotional, and physical wellbeing.

While there are many interventions that can be used to decrease or prevent challenging behaviors over time parents and caregivers will likely always have some behavioral issue they are dealing with. It is important to remember that parents and care givers need to extend the understanding to others that they would like for themselves and their families. It is important to be mindful of your child’s limitations and tolerance levels and to the best of your ability avoid placing them in situations they do not yet have the capability to navigate. For example if your child with an ASD has a history of breaking glass objects you should probably not take them to a friend’s home who collects expensive glassware. Having a child with ASD is kind of like telling a dirty joke; you have to know your audience and expect that even in the most receptive of crowds there will always be a few who just don’t get it.

References

Leone, L. L. S. & Wiltz, J. (2006). The impact of behaviour problems on caregiver stress in young people with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50(3), 172-183.

Matson, J. L., Neal, D., Fodstad, J. C., & Hess, J. (2010). The relation of social behaviours and challenging behaviours in infants and toddlers with autism spectrum disorders. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13(3), 164-169.