Moving Forward: Better Ways to Frame the Dialogue

Can a person who is diagnosed with autism make durable and significant progress to a level that meets the dictionary definition of “recovery’ cited above?  If so,

•    How could we define “recovery” clinically?  What reliable and valid tools should be used to assess “recovery”?

•    Can a consensus be obtained that researchers can use the same measures to assess outcomes?

•    How many people achieve this outcome?

•    How is “recovery” made possible? 

•    How do we measure the degree of “recovery” on a continuum?

It would certainly be helpful if there was consensus regarding the questions above; however, I believe there are broader issues warranting our attention (see list below).  Lack of agreement in these areas is far more significant and troubling and represents major barriers to effective intervention for all children with autism and their families.

1)    The vast majority of autism interventions lack any scientific support.

2)    Published research is ignored by many professionals.

3)    Whereas the treatment of choice for many diseases and condition is guided by the best available research, that is sadly not the case with autism.

4)    Proponents of various methods, who are critics of the best available research, do not feel compelled to produce research that is either as rigorous or even more rigorous.

5)    Public funds are often used to pay for interventions that have actually been documented to be ineffective.

6)    Proponents of autism treatments that have not been empirically validated often do fully disclose the lack of scientific evidence to the consumers whom they serve.

7)    Objective data are often not collected as a means to assess treatment efficacy.

8)    Objective data does not routinely guide decision making for all treatments and for all treatment providers.