Who Benefits from 'Autism Recovery'?

Sorry for the lack of posting during the past month. I was busy finishing up college. Having thankfully completed, I hope to start blogging more regularly over the summer, starting with this post on alleged "recovery" from autism.

So, the media is reporting that 10% of autistic children can "recover" from it. These are certainly interesting results with numerous implications. On the plus side, this may discredit those charlatans who promote biomedical treatments for "autism recovery." As most of us neurodiversity people have known all along, an autistic children need not be put on a restrictive diet or given potentially dangerous chemicals to show developmental gains. That's the good news.

The bad news is the continued emphasis on "normalizing" autistic children, particularly through behavioral therapy. "Recovery" is deemed in terms of appearing more like everyone else:

Among them was Leo, a boy in Washington, D.C., who once made no eye contact, who echoed words said to him and often spun around in circles — all classic autism symptoms. Now he is an articulate, social third-grader. His mother, Jayne Lytel, says his teachers call Leo a leader.

Read the unstated assumptions in this paragraph: Autistic people can't be articulate, social, or leaders.

Doubters say "either they really weren't autistic to begin with ... or they're still socially odd and obsessive, but they don't exactly meet criteria" for autism, she said.

Fein said the children in her study "really were" autistic and now they're "really not."

I tend to agree with the 'doubters,' though obviously I'm in no position to evaluate other people's diagnoses or un-diagnoses. I do notice, however, that most of the "recovered" children are still fairly young. How are we to know whether they will function "normally" (however you define that) socially or in other ways throughout their entire adolescence, never mind their entire lives? I don't think we can know that, and I am skeptical that re-diagnosing kids as "not at all autistic anymore" is at all beneficial to them. Some of these kids may very well grow up and experience autism-related disabilities. Only instead of receiving appropriate support, and having the comfort of knowing that it's okay for them to be different, they'll be operating under the assumption that they're "entirely normal" now. "Recovered" kids may well be expected to be more normal than normal kids, on the basis of continually "proving" their "recovery" to people who want to believe in such things.

Which brings me to the title question: who benefits from "autism recovery"? The answer does not seem to include "recovered" autistic kids. In fact, the only benefit which I can perceive is that being labeled as "recovered" will mean that the child is no longer subjected to the stigmatization and discrimination that comes along with an autism diagnosis. Other than that, I see few benefits to being proclaimed a "recovered" autistic. My partner was diagnosed with autism as a young child, though his family and doctors more or less abandoned the label a few years later. He was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome at the age of 20. I guess he wasn't exactly "recovered" after all. A lot of sufferinig might have been avoided had not the people around him fallen into the "autism recovery" paradigm. (Granted, this was in the '80s. Our newer understanding of autism ought to prevent us from making the same kinds of mistakes and stereotypical assumptions about autistic people.) In short, practicioners need to remember that autism is generally a lifelong condition which may present different disabilities at various points of the life cycle. Claiming a full "recovery" from autism isn't actually that useful to autistic people.

The main beneficiaries of "autism recovery," as far as I can tell is the parents and professionals who wish to exploit supposedly "recovered" children. Jenny McCarthy may be a particularly egregious example of this, but she's not alone. Even non-celebrity parents can get a book deal and/or speaking engagements by flaunting "recovery." And, of course, both charlatans and more respectable researchers can benefit from promoting the idea that recovery is possible. Even parents who do not literally capitalize on their child's "recovery" receive benefits from the relief of knowing that their kid is (supposedly) Normal, and therefore less embarrassing.

Are there children who once legitimately met the criteria for an autism spectrum condition who now no longer do under any reasonable definition?* Probably. But we shouldn't see that as the Holy Grail of autism, and we certainly shouldn't be in a rush to pronounce autistic kids "recovered." If a child grows up, is informed of his/her diagnostic history, and then wishes to renounce the label, that's his/her own choice. But pronouncing a child to be completely recovered at the age of "not" is not necessarily in his/her best interest. And publically flounting said child as a miraculous example of "recovery" most certainly is not in his/her best interest. I feel strong sympathy towards Evan McCarthy. He, and other autistic children whose parents flaunt their "recovery" so publically, may well be in for some difficulties later in life. And having families and professionals believe that they are "recovered" could be seriously damaging to them. Autistic people already experience entirely too much pressure to be "normal."