Not everyone has the same degree of autism. Well functioning children for example may not need any treatments. On the other hand, entirely non functioning children, who are depressed, so easily over stimulated that their lives are actively difficult, etc I would be shocked to see someone claim they should continue to suffer and reject potential treatments because others feel like their own autism doesn't cause any issues.

I even know people who have their autism well under control who would have had much better childhoods and be happier today had there been better treatments, and would likely accept some treatments now given certain effects were possible.

[–] ZoeyBear 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To me it’s simply speaking that autism itself is a problem when it is a spectrum disorder and not every case is a “problem” it’s the language I have a problem with, not the idea that treatment could be available.

[–] Umbrias 6 points 1 year ago

I promise that they are just speaking clinically. Any given treatments target specific symptoms or properties. Just as treatments for ADHD target things like executive dysfunction in various specific ways, but not on eliminating adhd as a condition, there is no feasible way to "cure" autism as you're inferring from the phrasing. What might help is considering possible rephrasing to see that it's just something English isn't well tooled for.

Researchers almost never have an interest in this concept of "curing" something like autism. The focus is on reducing suffering caused by negative symptoms of conditions, pretty much always to the degree the patient desires.

Reading the quotes from the paper for example where they describe a boon here being identifying possible effects from intervention and to be able to predict the effects more accurately. I.e. better target symptoms with fewer side effects, and better design therapies.