Neurodiversity
Use it in psychiatry
Side Score: 1
Winning Side! |
Don't use it in psychiatry
Side Score: 1
|
|
|
|
You mean, the same scientific research that informs psychiatry and medicine? You're presenting a false dichotomy. Yes, people with autism are neurologically different: so are people with schizophrenia; bipolar disorder; psychosis; psychopathy; and a range of other psychiatric states. However, the very fact that conditions like schizophrenia, severe autism, bipolar disorder and psychopathy cause significant social and psychological problems for sufferers should be evidence enough that they are something requiring depending on severity either: Adaptation; medication; counselling; or some course of action intended to alleviate their negative social/psychological/moral effects for the sufferer and for those around the sufferer. While autism should not be "stigmatized" (in fact I don't think any condition should be, really), it does need to be studied and treated in order to improve the lives of sufferers and those who support them or are affected by their conditions. Every organic condition could be argued to be a result of genetic variation. But it's sort of like arguing that having six toes due to a genetic variation is as normative in human populations as having five toes. And it just isn't. Our understanding of what is a genetic anomaly is informed by the observation that there are a consistent set of genetic outcomes that are most common in the majority of the human population, and that variations that fall outside these are not normative. Whether they are considered pathologies or not depends on the normative standard and on a variety of other factors like ability to function autonomously in society within the social contract. For example, genetic anomalies can cause Down's Syndrome, which renders sufferers nearly always unable to function without a significant level of aid. Severe autism is similar. Side: Use it in psychiatry
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|