Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 > > > > > > > > > > But... why is it so important that the child look in the first place? > > > > > > > > > Quite simple, looking creates connection. Looking away creates > > separation. > > > > I hear what you're saying, but autistic children/adults can and do > > learn without making harsh, intrusive eye contact that can leave them > > anything but comfortable. If only there could be > > more autistics in the disability field, making the necessary changes. > > > > Eye contact is not harsh or intrusive. It is one of the most gentle > loving actions we can ever learn. Yes it may be uncomfortable for some > in the beginning, I know, I find eye contact very difficult but I also > know the rewards of getting past that discomfort. > > Would you suggest that there should be more pregnant doulas to make > birthing easier? Would you suggest more Doctors with cancer would help > improve cancer treatment? " I know, I find eye contact very difficult but I also > know the rewards of getting past that discomfort. " I think that is the crux of the matter. it is your choice, and that was something that i liked about the rdi program. it is about mutual benefit, so the person would attempt joint attention for because he/she could see personal benefit eg with my children and from the past, one lover, i have been able to make eye contact without being aware of it as long as they are not speaking or emoting strongly. this was pleasurable. for the rest, my joint attention is signalled by a strong focus on the mouth. very few people even notice. my doubt lies in the fact that there is unequal power in the coach/student relationship, so the desire to make social contact is cohersive in most cases, even if it is very gentle. actually that is the ultimate in manipulation when a person has no awareness of it. i was interested in marria's description of gutstein's assurances that she would not need to make eye contact. his goal is for that to happen. i am sort of confused about the morality of all this. he would say that the ends justifies the means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 > i am sort of confused about the morality of all this. he > would say that the ends justifies the means. My concerns: Who decides for a 5 year old? Or younger? Honestly, most 5 year olds don't have the information to make a decision of that magnitude. But assuming things like " looking at people " are essential and good to have if someone can't say they disagree - that's scary. As for the end justifies the means, that is never a valid ethical justification. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 actually people can be desensitized to an extent to tactile defensiveness. i need to go through that process in order to have a physical relationship. also, if i child is mainstreamed, he/she will need some support in this area or constant pain will be a problem. that is a common reason for OT. when he was born my son could not bear to be touched and that was a huge issue in daily care. i desensitized him unwittingly by beginning baby massage a couple of days after birth. I often wonder what his dx would have been without that. > > > > > It is one of the most gentle loving actions we can ever learn. > > > > For some. For others, it is not. > > > Agreed. > > Agreed as well, and another example: Many autistics are extremely > tactile-defensive. I am only tactile-defensive some of the time, and > the degree to which I am varies. I would not tell an extremely > tactile-defensive person that touching would be a gentle loving action > for them, because I know (and I admittedly have experience with it > since I fluctuate in this regard) that it can feel like being burned > and scraped, and that being burned and scraped is not a gentle loving > action, and is not one that most people who feel that way can just be > desensitized to. > > (I don't tend to like being touched unexpectedly even when I'm not > tactile-defensive, though, because of the fact that it is distracting. > If someone touches me, it throws everything into confusion, including > my ability to tell them " Don't touch me please. " ) > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 > > > i am sort of confused about the morality of all this. he > > would say that the ends justifies the means. > > My concerns: > > Who decides for a 5 year old? Or younger? Honestly, most 5 year olds > don't have the information to make a decision of that magnitude. But > assuming things like " looking at people " are essential and good to have > if someone can't say they disagree - that's scary. > > As for the end justifies the means, that is never a valid ethical > justification. > it isn't, but on a message board, he was fairly blatantly saying that. re the 5 year old, there is need for concern. a lot of crappy things have been done to children because someone believed it was for their own good. um same with vulnerable adults. > -- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.