Our Lecturer Stewart Neilson in his opening introduction gave us a broad outline of the topics he would be covering in the following weeks, such as the history of madness, mental health, madness and creativity and service users’ perspectives and rights.
For me, the most meaningful aspect of his lecture was when he touched on the area of children with autism in the 1940’s compared to the 21st century. The big question being, are they really any better off with all of these interventions. Subsequently, having given this some thought over the week, I came across an article about Donald Grey Triplett who was the first boy diagnosed as autistic in the 1940’s by Baltimore Psychiatrist Leo Kanner. Here we see a typical example of how the Medical …show more content…
Are these interventions for the child’s benefit or societies. In contrast, children today would not be institutionalised at such a young age and generally reside at home with their families. Presently though, as a result of the economic recession, we have long waiting lists for diagnosis and early intervention. Those lucky enough to avail of a service early, receive fantastic help and support for both the child and wider family as a whole.
In addition, I am further reminded of a lecture given by Maria Dollard, who has a child with autism, when she asked ‘are we accommodating or trying to fix them’, when she discussed the intentions behind these interventions. Reading about Donald’s remarkable life, who had no such interventions. Instead, he was accepted and protected within his own community, I am left wondering was he better off without them.
Having analysed this topic further, I find that I am questioning more while at the same time ending up more confused. This is probably because as a parent, you want to do everything in your power to make your child’s life better, especially I feel more so if they have a disability. I would like to think that in the future all children with autism or any other impairment would be able to live within their community and reach their full potential whatever that might
For me, the most meaningful aspect of his lecture was when he touched on the area of children with autism in the 1940’s compared to the 21st century. The big question being, are they really any better off with all of these interventions. Subsequently, having given this some thought over the week, I came across an article about Donald Grey Triplett who was the first boy diagnosed as autistic in the 1940’s by Baltimore Psychiatrist Leo Kanner. Here we see a typical example of how the Medical …show more content…
Are these interventions for the child’s benefit or societies. In contrast, children today would not be institutionalised at such a young age and generally reside at home with their families. Presently though, as a result of the economic recession, we have long waiting lists for diagnosis and early intervention. Those lucky enough to avail of a service early, receive fantastic help and support for both the child and wider family as a whole.
In addition, I am further reminded of a lecture given by Maria Dollard, who has a child with autism, when she asked ‘are we accommodating or trying to fix them’, when she discussed the intentions behind these interventions. Reading about Donald’s remarkable life, who had no such interventions. Instead, he was accepted and protected within his own community, I am left wondering was he better off without them.
Having analysed this topic further, I find that I am questioning more while at the same time ending up more confused. This is probably because as a parent, you want to do everything in your power to make your child’s life better, especially I feel more so if they have a disability. I would like to think that in the future all children with autism or any other impairment would be able to live within their community and reach their full potential whatever that might