Chicago Tribune Healthcare Article 1/21

[Diapers4Me]

I was surprised to see a photo of a father changing his 6 year old autistic son's diaper on page 3 of the Chicago Tribune today. I would think that this was a bit of an invasion in the poor kids privacy! Especially as it didn't lend anything to the story which had to do with the cost of healthcare--they didn't say anything in the article about medicare paying for diapers or anything. Poor kid!

[AutieAB]

I was surprised to see a photo of a father changing his 6 year old autistic son's diaper on page 3 of the Chicago Tribune today. I would think that this was a bit of an invasion in the poor kids privacy! Especially as it didn't lend anything to the story which had to do with the cost of healthcare--they didn't say anything in the article about medicare paying for diapers or anything. Poor kid!

I can't find the article online but I agree; very disturbing but not all that unusual I'm afraid

<Autism advocacy hat on>

Unfortunately lots of kids with developmental disabilities are abused in similar ways because a minority of parents fall into the trap of thinking that because their autistic kiddie doesn't have the ability to express his/her disquiet about the situation or maybe not even be aware that the situation is wrong, that they don't have to worry about violation of privacy.

As to why the newspaper used the picture when you said it was of no value to the story, well it's a classic and misused stereotype that autie kids are late potty trained. Some are but just as many (myself included) are on the throne early. So that's one reason. Another is that autism is seen by the media as being a fate worse than death (for the parents mostly). The picture was no doubt placed there to evoke an "oh that poor father/child" type of reaction, which it probably did from most readers.

If I were in Chicago I'd be complaining bitterly to the relevant authorities there about this. The way I see it, there was a failure in at least three places to respect this boy's privacy:

• The father should never have allowed the photographer to take that picture while his son was in a dignity-compromising position.
• The journalist should not have used it in the story.
• The editor should not allow pictures in their paper which compromise individual privacy.

Just because a child has a disability which reduces or removes their ability to sense their own dignity doesn't mean that they don't have a right to it anyway.

AutisticAB

[chwukkie]

I was surprised to see a photo of a father changing his 6 year old autistic son's diaper on page 3 of the Chicago Tribune today. I would think that this was a bit of an invasion in the poor kids privacy! Especially as it didn't lend anything to the story which had to do with the cost of healthcare--they didn't say anything in the article about medicare paying for diapers or anything. Poor kid!

[chwukkie]

I remember seeing an article years ago in a National Geographic about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. There were some pictures of older kids in diapers, some maybe 10 or so. One pic was of a boy being changed by his mom. The pictures in the Chicago Tribune aren't anything new.

[Red Barchetta]

That is nuts! - Invade this kids privacy, possibly extremely publicly humiliated the kid. - AND to top it all off, the photo added NOTHING to the story! - So no one got any gain at all from using that picture, so WHY - WHAT WAS THE POINT!

[jenniebear]

Very Well Said AutiAB!

It is so difficult to make steps forward when institutions like the Chicago Tribune put that sort of picture in the publics eye!

[Tuxedo Oryx]

Another is that autism is seen by the media as being a fate worse than death (for the parents mostly). The picture was no doubt placed there to evoke an "oh that poor father/child" type of reaction, which it probably did from most readers.

I am also appalled by how autism is demonized. It reminds me of cases where parents/caregivers murder autistic children, and get charged with lighter sentences than with NT victims. There are even curebie organizations that question whether an autistic person is human.

[Red Barchetta]

There are even curebie organizations that question whether an autistic person is human.

Unbelievable! - What kind of a question is that!?!?!?!?

Gees - and I always THOUGHT there were no stupid questions, just stupid answers!

[AutieAB]

I am also appalled by how autism is demonized. It reminds me of cases where parents/caregivers murder autistic children, and get charged with lighter sentences than with NT victims. There are even curebie organizations that question whether an autistic person is human.

Exactly. Autism awareness organisations my a*se. Celebrate difference: Don't Cure Autism Now!

Unbelievable! - What kind of a question is that!?!?!?!?

Gees - and I always THOUGHT there were no stupid questions, just stupid answers!

Welcome to the world of "autism awareness." It's a deeply flawed industry of misguided intentions and conflicts of interest. The big three autism organisations in the USA are Cure Autism Now, Autism Speaks (these two recently merged into one) and the Autism Society of America. The problem is that autistic people are not adequately represented in the makeup of any of these groups to the point of exclusion. They represent two main aims (1) to ease the so called suffering of parents of autistic children and (2) to find a cure.

The problems with this are obvious and many. First, and most importantly, they fail to see things from autistic points of view. They push "intensive interventions" that try to eliminate perceived problem behaviours (such as flapping hands, obsessive interests, and so on) which in reality are not problems, their coping strategies and teaching children to suppress them is teaching them to pretend they're something they are not. Autistic people have a right to an autistic identity and personality, which these sorts of programs attempt to remove.

Another problem is the whole cure subject. To find a "cure" for autism is the openly stated ultimate aim of these groups. That is frankly insulting. I have problems. Some of them are pretty big. Plenty of people have far more serious problems than me. Problems aside though, autism is fundamental part of my personality and who I am as a person. To remove it is to change me and that is not on. It's called eugenics pure and simple and the last time someone wanted to do that, a lot of countries went to war to stop him.

Think how this community would react if a well supported, well publicised and well politically supported group called "Cure Infantilism Now!" came along calling for intensive psychiatric programs to eliminate ABDLs because we "just don't fit into society." Obviously we can and do. So can autistics given the correct support and encouragement.

[End of major rant, I promise!]

AutieAB

[seppuku]

(Edit) There was some sort of disjointed rant here, but i've since removed it. Pictures like that shouldn't be taken of any child - regardless of disability. No one takes such pictures of normal babies.