That’s not for our kids

28 Apr

A recent Guardian Roundtable touched on an interesting subject for those of us who are responsible for children with learning difficulties. The article was written, sourced and published in the UK but I believe it applies everywhere in the world where there are children with learning difficulties.

Just 6.4% of people with learning disabilities are in paid employment and that stark statistic – and the shocking waste of financial (and human) resources behind it – formed the backdrop for a recent Guardian roundtable discussion.

This issue has its root, I believe, in the way we are led to think about our children from birth:

When it comes to setting expectations for a child with learning disabilities, things can start to go wrong the moment they are born. The roundtable heard how health staff use their “breaking bad news” training to counsel parents, leaving them with the impression that there’s not much incentive to look forward to the future.

I remember the day we received the news that our child was autistic with profound learning difficulties. There were 3 calm staff members and a box of tissues on the table. By the time we left, the tissues had been used – and although the staff were gentle, kind and wonderful people who clearly were fond of our child – they too fell into that trap of ‘breaking bad news’ mode. A mode that, by its very tenor, fulfills the expectation of _being_ bad news.

The truth is, in my opinion, that with a little effort from health care agencies we can move from:

staff at one special school who, when the issue of employment was raised, replied: “That’s not for our kids.”

to a de facto position as espoused by agencies like Remploy who are the UK’s leading provider of employment services to people with disabilities.

But we’re not anywhere near that yet. In my own experience too many parents of people with special needs are content to wallow in the comfort of ‘putting it off’ – their children are still young. But consider this – we are far longer a time adults than we are children. Our children need to learn how to function in the world. This won’t be brought about by sham cures and ideaslistic fights against a strawman army. Neither will it be brought about by those who insist on misrepresenting the nature of what autism is to all rather than some.

One speaker summed up the fundamental question underpinning the whole debate: “Do we believe that people with learning disabilities and their families are worth it?”

Are they worth the upheaval and political effort it would take to transform a system that often fails them when it come to finding work?

In any society that claims to be fair, children with learning disabilities surely deserve the same life chances as other young people, the roundtable heard. They should be encouraged to have ambition

About these ads

20 Responses to “That’s not for our kids”

  1. Brian Morgan April 28, 2011 at 15:13 #

    An interesting release here from Journal of Pediatrics –

    Screening for Autism Could Begin at the 1-Year Well-Baby Visit

    A simple checklist can detect autism spectrum disorders, language delays, and developmental delays as early as the 1-year well-baby visit, according to a Journal of Pediatrics study.

    Thirty pediatrics offices in San Diego County participated in a program that screened all infants for autism and related disorders at the 1-year checkup. Screening involved a 24-item checklist that parents completed in about 5 minutes in the waiting room. Of some 10,500 screened infants, 184 failed and were tracked every 6 months for 3 years. Some 40 infants who passed served as controls.

    During follow-up, 32 of the 184 infants were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders, 56 with language delays, 9 with developmental delays, and 36 with “other” delays. The positive predictive value of the checklist was calculated at 75%. All controls continued to test normally throughout follow-up.

    [Editor's note: The journal has not yet posted this article online, although the embargo has passed. We've linked to the early-release page, where the article should appear shortly.]

    Journal of Pediatrics early-release page (Free abstract)

    Infant-toddler checklist (Free PDF)

    Physician’s First Watch coverage of 2007 AAP guidelines on autism screening (Free)

  2. Harold L Doherty April 28, 2011 at 17:17 #

    Mr. Leitch

    There was no misrepresentation of autism in my post as you alleged. The misrepresentation arises on your part from portraying autism as other than what it is … a disorder. In the case of the Non-Aspergers’s part of the spectrum there is ample research indicating that the vast majority to quote CDC Autism Expert Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp also suffer from intellectual disabilities. More than 40% of the entire autism spectrum according to two recent CDC surveys and 80% of the non-Asperger’s autism population, according to the 2006 Senate brief of the Canadian psychological association also have intellectual disabilities.

    You misrepresent autism disorders by helping perpetuate a false picture of autistic persons as being bright but awkward socially.
    In doing so you help obscure the realities faced by the vast majority of those with Autistic Disorder. You are ashamed of any association between autism and intellectual disabilities and you simply ignore the literature and credible authorities.

    It is you who misrepresents autism and who contributes to the further stigmatization of all persons with intellectual disability.

    Shame on you.

    • Sullivan April 28, 2011 at 19:53 #

      Harold L Doherty,

      “You misrepresent autism disorders by helping perpetuate a false picture of autistic persons as being bright but awkward socially.”

      Who does this? It isn’t Kev, and it isn’t anyone on this blog. It isn’t even the self-advocates that seem to bother you so much. Autistics have big challenges, whether they have additional disabilities or not. There’s no point in downplaying the struggles of a group of people that are the natural allies of our kids. Just like there’s no point in not being allies to all autistics, whether they are like our kids or not.

  3. Kev April 28, 2011 at 18:52 #

    Harold, you just make it up as you go along don’t you? My own child is intellectually disabled – do you feel I am ashamed of my own child?

    And Harold? Go back and read your own posts on the matter. Nobody else I’ve met claims autism is solely as _they_ see it. You do though. Why do you think that is?

  4. Nightstorm April 28, 2011 at 23:11 #

    For the record. I have Autistic Disorder. Not Aspergers I was reevaluated by specialists this pass February.

    Harold said: “You misrepresent autism disorders by helping perpetuate a false picture of autistic persons as being bright but awkward socially.”

    Kav said:
    Who does this? It isn’t Kev, and it isn’t anyone on this blog. It isn’t even the self-advocates that seem to bother you so much. Autistics have big challenges, whether they have additional disabilities or not.

    There is a reason why it’s called a spectrum disorder. Autists of all kinds have all sorts of personal and diverse issues. I am normal intellectually to some degree but I have massive gaps in certain parts of academics, Math for instance. I can’t do anything above basic math. My grammar skills are sub par, yet I have excellent grasp in reading. It’s varied and irregular. We have various and unique challenges based on the individual diagnosis and nature. I don’t think any of one on the blog or myself (in fact I champion more exposure for autists with intellectual delays) are ashamed of autists with intellectual disabilities or delays. After all with my own gaps I am not one to judge.

  5. sharon April 29, 2011 at 01:32 #

    I really appreciate this post. I do believe strongly that expectations are key to developing full potential. Many now successful Adult Autists say the same thing. As do the parents of these now adults who refused to listen to the professional opinions of the day. Don’t lower the bar. Expect your child can learn, will have skills, can lead a fulfilling life.
    Perspective is a choice (I’m looking at you Harold).

  6. jypsy April 29, 2011 at 01:51 #

    We (Alex & I) just blogged today about his job – Saltscapes Expo – Yes, we have soap! Those 1,500 bars of soap he cut & labeled were just part of what he did at work this week. He starts his days filling the online mail orders and tomorrow he’ll be doing some landscaping around the shop.
    Alex is bright and socially awkward and very much autistic. His “realities” are accepted and accommodated by all who know him, including his employer and co-workers.

  7. julia April 29, 2011 at 04:22 #

    The one part of not being diagnosed with ASD as a child that I am grateful for is the expectations placed on me that allowed me to become employed. I am not sure if I know my parents well enough to say how they would have reacted to what some parents’ groups and physicians portray as ASD even today let alone in the 1960s. My father was not one to go for supplement city as a treatment for anything. So, the dire prognosis that these groups say would be in my future without their “treatments” would have no doubt depressed my mother and her reaction would have affected my father. Drama and doom and gloom, woe-is-me attitudes would have, ironically, possibly doomed me. So, not only do their treatments hurt kids’ chances their mind-set does too. I think this website makes this clear. So, the ASD kids that grow-up will/should thank the editors as do I.

  8. Sunshine April 30, 2011 at 09:15 #

    Idk why everybody hates on Harold just because he is angry and perhaps a little misguided. His rants aren’t really as bad as Michelle Dawson’s… why isn’t she mentioned as someone who assumes there is basically one type of autism, an autism of high functioning individuals who don’t need any sort of treatment ever because in her mind that would be a human rights violation? I don’t necessarily agree with Harold (dude, honestly, there was a study just done to prove all those huge percentages of MR and intellectual disability are just pulled out of thin air) but there is a CLEAR double standard here, and certainly the overall thesis of his blog post was true- there is NO research to indicate high intelligence is a common feature among ASD individuals. The person who wrote that pulled THAT out of HER ass just like the CDC pulled their statistic out of THEIR ass.

  9. McD May 1, 2011 at 00:46 #

    I’m with Sunshine on this one. I had a look at Harold’s link and I don’t think he was mis-representing all autistics, but making a quite valid objection to someone else attempting to claim ‘highly intelligent’ as a ‘common characteristic’ of autism. If Harold overstates the extent of disability on the spectrum, I don’t think it is in the post linked to.

    Sunshine, you mentioned research on rates of MR? Are you talking about Dawson et al’s work with the Raven’s Test?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17680932

    Or have I missed something? do you have a link?

    Dawson’s view that any therapy or adaptation to the NT world is a human rights violation is the sort of extreme polarising view that I think would have been a better illustration for Kev’s point. She has taken on the mantle of speaking for all of us, and we can just bugger off and shut up if we don’t agree with her.

    As an Aspie who narrowly escaped entering an institution for psychiatric treatment for suspected psychosis(‘just for the school holidays’ – yeah right), I definitely am in favor of self-determination. Once they started me on meds I didn’t need, god knows what would have happened. I would also have later been denied employment in the big green sheltered-workshop (the Army) that served as my highly structured behavior therapy for 16 years (can’t get a security clearance after mental hospital).

    But as the mum of a severely autistic kid whose inability to interpret the world was causing him tremendous anxiety, with awful fear or frustration-based meltdowns, I am a big fan of behavior therapy.

    Dawson would rather my boy respond to his inability to interpret and communicate by developing stims and rituals and withdrawing into the tiny portion of the world he could predict and control, it was his ‘human right’ to be left in ignorance of anything else, poking his eyeballs to see sparks.

    We had to teach him by breaking everything down into the tiniest components and he learned step by step. The more of the world that he mastered, the more confident he got, and the less the anxiety kept him bound up. He is now at a stage where he can learn things himself – by observing someone and then imitating them on his own initiative. Something other kids do naturally. I love it when he surprises us with something new he picked up on his own, and he is an outgoing, cheeky, friendly, joyful little boy now. Did we violate his rights? or should he have been allowed stay shut off and afraid, poking his eyes for entertainment.

    Following Dawson’s mandate, our boy would spend his adult life in an institution, enjoying his human right to be autistic from the security of a very restricted environment.

    I don’t think either Harold or Kev are trying to say there is only one ‘type’ of autism. In fact it looks like they are both reacting to (mis)perceived stereotyping by others. And sometimes you HAVE to deliberately focus on deficits or abilities depending on what you are fighting for right now.

    Having high expectations of our kids means putting the effort and resources in to teach them while they are young. I think Harold’s reaction to ‘romanticizing’ autism is understandable when those resources are scarce and the supply insecure. On one hand, as parents we want to secure resources – which means IEP meetings where we have to highlight the awful state that our child is in. Then, on the other hand, we want there to be opportunities for our kids as adults – which means highlighting potential and their abilities.

    I would hope that a take-home point from these discussions is that improving outcomes for adults is not only going to be a result of high expectations and appropriate opportunities, but also a result sufficient input and resources from pre-school. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.

    The article mentioned better adult outcomes for kids who were mainstreamed rather than in special schools. That may be true for learning disabilities across the board, but based on the results coming out of TEAACH and ABA schools in the US and other places, I don’t think that is true for autism at all. If they come up with a one-size fits all program, autistic kids may end up sitting at the back of the room stimming into space, learning nothing useful at all.

  10. sharon May 1, 2011 at 02:26 #

    I find the term ‘romanticization’ of Autism hyperbolic. If we cannot share success stories and narratives of hope with each other for fear of offending or angering parents who find no comfort in them, then we have a problem.
    One parent hears a positive story about an Autistic person and feels resentful because they think it misrepresents their child and their daily struggles. Another parent hearing the same story sees it as a reason for optimism. Same story, differing perspectives. Perspective sets up expectations. Both low and high. This can influence outcomes. It’s important to contemplate how your approach to Autism colours the relationships you have with people on the spectrum. In particular your child/ren.
    This is what people with Autism tell us. If we are willing to listen.

  11. Rebecca May 1, 2011 at 02:33 #

    McD,

    I’m not one to comment often on blogs, but I have to say, that was the best rebuttal I’ve read to this ridiculous “I’m high-functioning autistic, so everyone else with autism must be as well, and therefore it’s cruel to provide therapy” BS I’ve seen rampant on some autism pride sites.

  12. Arthur Golden May 2, 2011 at 20:08 #

    1. Realizing that I may subject myself to personal criticism, but in accordance with my ethics I try to be fair to everyone. Therefore I believe I should post a comment here that Ms. Michelle Dawson has posted the following messages to her own public discussion board about this blog entry:

    http://www.quicktopic.com/27/H/vJvhV4fDnBgw7/m12233

    http://www.quicktopic.com/27/H/vJvhV4fDnBgw7/m12234

    2. My ethics also include that it is not proper for people to be strict on others and lenient on themselves. Therefore, I also wish to make the following points:

    3. But first, on the original subject of the blog entry, my own 39 year-old son Ben, who received his first official diagnosis of autism as a young child in 1977 from pediatric neurologist Peter Rosenberger, MD of Massachusetts General Hospital, is completely nonverbal, whose IQ on standardized tests is measured at about 25 and is often described as “low functioning,” had his first summer job as a stock clerk in a grocery store at age 16 in 1988 and continued to have various employment while in school for the next 6 years. But then is 1994 at age 22, Ben expressed through Facilitated Communication his own choice about his future to learn Torah full-time in yeshiva in Israel and did so for the next 15 years in Yeshiva Pisgat Yehuda. Unfortunately, a couple years ago, the yeshiva was unable to continue to raise private donations and for reasons still not understood, Ben has had erratic sleep patterns making a day program currently impossible to arrange. However, since being in Israel for the past 17 years, Ben has had occasional “employment” writing political-religious commentaries (now mostly in Hebrew) and he set up a publications committee that arranges to print 80,000 copies of his commentaries which are distributed throughout Israel by a network of 1,200 volunteers (also posted on the internet at http://www.dani18.com/ ).

    4. Ms. Michelle Dawson wrote today on her public discussion board (please read the entire messages for proper context):

    “…LBRB welcomes comments on LBRB in which I’m misrepresented and defamed as a researcher. Defamation is illegal, for the record.”

    5. I wish to comment that as a 1971 graduate of Harvard Law School who is fairly familiar with defamation, I do not know if the comments posted to this blog entry by “Sunshine” and “McD” are defamation, but I do wish to note that if their comments are defamation then the public comments that Ms. Michelle Dawson made in 2008 on her public discussion blog and public blog about me and also my son Ben are definitely defamation. For over 2 years, I have avoided all direct interaction with Ms. Michelle Dawson and I intend to continue to do so. I do feel I should state that she seems to be one of those people who are strict on others and lenient on themselves In any case, I do not understand how LBRB can be considered that it “welcomes [such] comments on LBRB in which [Ms. Michelle Dawson is] misrepresented and defamed as a researcher.”

    6. Although I have just expressed some of my concerns about the writing of Ms. Michelle Dawson, since I try to be fair to everyone I do wish to express some concerns about the statements of Sunshine and McD, even if they do not meet the legal requirements of being defamation. I will try to post another message in the next couple of days, starting with point 7. as a continuation of this message, to express some of those concerns.

    Arthur Golden

  13. Disability Training May 2, 2011 at 23:23 #

    Brian, thanks for the comment with the article from the Journal.

  14. Arthur Golden May 3, 2011 at 08:46 #

    comment #16

    7. As I ended my last message to this blog entry, at point 6, since I try to be fair to everyone I do wish to express some concerns about the statements of Sunshine and McD, even if they do not meet the legal requirements of being defamation [of Ms. Michelle Dawson].

    “Sunshine” writes above:

    “His [Harold Doherty's] rants aren’t really as bad as Michelle Dawson’s… why isn’t she mentioned as someone who assumes there is basically one type of autism, an autism of high functioning individuals who don’t need any sort of treatment ever because in her mind that would be a human rights violation?”

    “McD” writes above:

    “Dawson’s view that any therapy or adaptation to the NT world is a human rights violation is the sort of extreme polarising view that I think would have been a better illustration for Kev’s point. She has taken on the mantle of speaking for all of us, and we can just bugger off and shut up if we don’t agree with her.”

    “Dawson would rather my boy respond to his inability to interpret and communicate by developing stims and rituals and withdrawing into the tiny portion of the world he could predict and control, it was his ‘human right’ to be left in ignorance of anything else, poking his eyeballs to see sparks.”

    “Following Dawson’s mandate, our boy would spend his adult life in an institution, enjoying his human right to be autistic from the security of a very restricted environment.”:

    8. Having extensively read the writings of Ms. Michelle Dawson, I do not believe that the above quotes accurately represent her positions. However, I will not attempt to try to represent the positions of Ms. Dawson, knowing that she has public forums where she can express her own positions.

    9. I would like to respond to the above statements of Sunshine and McD by expressing some of my own positions, knowing that I am the best person to express my own positions.

    10. Even though I believe that young children with autism do not need the treatment of ABA and for some ABA can be very harmful, I do believe that all children, with or without autism, should begin to receive an appropriate education by age 3.

    11. I believe Science is a useful tool in helping to improve the quality of life of human beings, but I do not rely solely upon Science in making decisions.

    12. When interacting with others, with or without autism, I always presume competence and I believe that all human beings are highly intelligent.

    Arthur Golden

  15. bellahm May 11, 2011 at 22:21 #

    I read leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk via google translate – feed up with the updates !

    ??????

  16. McD May 12, 2011 at 04:13 #

    Why can’t Michelle Dawson respond here?

    I don’t want to to be involved in some sort of board war, particularly if she is banned from here from some reason. But I stand by my opinion that her anti-ABA writings are polarizing and do not accurately depict modern ABA, and the remainder of my comments depict the probable outcome for my son if we were not able to afford ABA.

    Reading her main ‘essay':http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_aba.html
    In the first couple of paragraphs she clearly states that as a parent who chooses ABA for my child I am behaving ‘unethically’. As an autistic person, I am a marginalized victim.

    There is so much that she could contribute to discussion of and development of ABA, but she has chosen to attack it instead. Instead of being a moderating voice, she is just driving people apart into pro and anti camps. I think there is middle ground.

    Unfortunately, the anti-ABA movement has gained traction at the policy-making level over here. Even after Australia moved to fund early intervention a few years ago, NZ is still sitting on its hands. After conceding that ABA does have the weight of evidence behind it, our policy-wonks are now waiting for evidence that ABA is better than some other, unspecified, untested, intensive intervention

    eg: “there is no evidence that ABA is better than – oh, let’s say – play therapy” – although we DO have evidence that ABA is better than standard special Ed, and we have no comparisons of play therapy against anything – let’s wait another ten years until someone compares ABA against every other therapy out there – you get the idea.

    In our recent draft ASD Guidelines, and in any number of official and unofficial documents, echoes of the anti-ABA activists can be heard. In a magazine article last month, a member of the AutismNZ advisory panel called ABA “torture”. When the draft ASD Guideline came out, ABA parents had to mount a protest to get some of the worst language removed, and have a retrospective rethink of ABA put into the Guideline – which led to the side-step I describe above where they can delay introducing ABA by testing it against every new thing someone dreams up. 20 years from now they will still be insisting it be tested against dolphin therapy.

    http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/nz-asd-guideline-apr08

    This is what I mean by polarizing. As she intends, her anti-ABA activism impacts on education policy. And the policy-wonks are only too happy to have reasons to spend less money and resources on autistic kids, especially if they can feel good about valuing ‘human rights’ while they are at it. So the parents move further along the opinion-space.

    These comments have prevented ABA from getting recognition in our schools, and then make it hard for those of us who choose this for our kids to go about fund-raising. Consequently, even though we have organized into local parent-led trusts, the fund-raising is so sporadic, that only parents who can pay, can afford the therapy. Which is needlessly expensive and intrusive because it is not mainstream. So kids who can’t afford therapy are just getting baby-sat at school – sitting at the back of mainstream classes if they are quiet, or locked into ‘special’ classrooms if they are runners, or need special attention.

    Another point; Dawson is claiming Sunshine and I defamed her as a researcher. This is wrong. The only mention of her actual research was where Sunshine mentioned revised rates of MR, and I asked if that was from Dawson’s work with the Raven’s test. No further comment was made on that, and that it was Dawson’s work was incidental. I happen to think that that is an excellent study, and could not think of any other work that fitted Sunshine’s description, but would have been interested in following it up if someone had done something along those lines, hence my request.

    I have a lot of respect for Dawson’s research, it is her opinion that I have no time for. I am pretty sure that having a difference of opinion is not defamatory.

    Although, I am sure she will be happy to know that there is one area where her opinion has been taken on board by some behaviourists, though probably not deliberately; regarding Lovass and his research she said:
    “That leaves a third choice which is entirely ethical. Behaviourists promoting autism-ABA could do so without citing Dr Lovaas’ troubling study and its 47% success rate.”
    That is exactly what NZ’s ABA working group did:

    http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/special_education/61210/1

    They even got non-behaviourists to do a parallel review, and when ABA was still supported they had to do the shuffle to avoid having to implement any of the recommendations.

    I know it is not the same anti-ABA activist, but have you seen this article Arthur?

    http://paulcoynephd.typepad.com/files/a-case-study-in-the-misreprensentation-of-applied-behavior-analysis-in-autim–the-gernsabacher-lectures.pdf

  17. McD May 12, 2011 at 05:58 #

    @Arthur, why is ABA ‘very harmful’ to some children?

    And what is the difference between ABA and ‘appropriate education’?

    When I went to school in the 70s, I was hit, strapped, sent from class, and humiliated by teachers on numerous occasions for engaging in ‘autistic’ behavior.

    Should I assume that the modern school system is an unethical rort? That any improvements, or modern disavowals of aversives are just window-dressing that does not address the basic human-rights violation involved in forcing children to remain in one location, engaged in an adult-directed activity?

  18. Arthur Golden June 1, 2011 at 18:18 #

    McD,

    13. Sorry for the delay of nearly 3 weeks in getting back to you, but I was away for most of the rest of May.

    14. Ms. Michelle Dawson may respond here on LBRB but feels she cannot do so, probably because she has been placed on moderation and finds that an obstacle to posting on LBRB. When someone is placed on moderation on LBRB, which seems to be done for specific topics, there is no notice nor explanation. For example, my first post to this topic must have been considered too controversial and I found my next post was on moderation and took several hours before it was made public. I do not know what will happen when I try to post this comment on Wednesday evening UK time.

    15. Ms. Dawson seems to consider just about everybody involved with autism, including me, as behaving “unethically” so I wouldn’t get upset by it. I still think your language against Ms. Dawson was too harsh but I do understand your concerns about her positions, especially on ABA where you live in probably the only country (New Zealand) in the at least English-speaking world which seems to be anti-ABA. At one point, New Zealand was probably the only country in the English-speaking world which seemed to me to be pro-FC when all the other countries were pro-ABA and anti FC. Just curious, how is the general opinion in New Zealand on FC (Facilitated Communication) today?

    17. Not only have I seen but I have carefully read “A Case Study in the Misreprensentation of Applied Behavior Analysis in Autim- The Gernsbacher Lectures” by Professor Edward K. Morris, University of Kansas. Professor
    Morton Ann Gernsbacher of the University of Wisconsin Madison is a close ally of Ms. Dawson.

    18. I am not qualified to try to explain why ABA is very harmful to at least a significant minority of persons with autism, but I have confidence in my information that it is very harmful. I do not expect there will ever be good data on why because behaviorists show absolutely no interest in researching the issue of harm caused by ABA but instead are very willing to conduct research against FC and publicly write how FC is very harmful. By the way, I strongly believe that after nearly five years of appearing to help my son Ben that he was traumatized by age 13-1/2 by ABA which to him was very harmful. On the other hand, FC has been very helpful to my 39 year-old son for nearly 20 years even though the general opinion is that there is no experimental data to support its use and that it is considered to be very harmful. After recent exhaustive investigation I am uncovering that there is experimental data in support of Facilitated Communication (going back to 1979) that appears to have been intentionally suppressed.

    19. I did not state that there is a difference between ABA and an appropriate education, but an appropriate education for a young child with autism does not have to be only ABA.

    20. I do not understand you last two sentences of your last comment so I cannot respond.

    Arthur Golden

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Autism Blog – That's not for our kids « Left Brain/Right Brain | Untreated Info - April 29, 2011

    [...] link: Autism Blog – That's not for our kids « Left Brain/Right Brain Posted in Autistic disorder, Tic disorder Tags: autistic disorder, autistic-disorder, [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,119 other followers

%d bloggers like this: