InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "dude, wheres my car"

heiko (heiko) wrote in asperger,
@ 2008-01-07 18:16:00

From Livejournal: The Son Rise Program

The techniques listed on that page seem pretty sound, in terms of encouraging the parent to experience, positively, the viewpoint of their child on their own terms. To what degree is it "recovery from autism", and to what degree is it merely positive socialization with a mother who may otherwise conduct actions that are detrimental to the child's well-being? To what degree does neurology shape the person?

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

(Post a new comment)

concrete_stare
2008-01-07 07:24 pm UTC (link)

I think some of the ideas behind the SonRise programme to be sound, and I have used them extensively with both my children. This is not because I intend to cure them of autism but because I think connecting with one's children is a vital task for a parent, whether the child is autistic or NT.

The only treatment principle I disagree with is the insistence on eye contact. Neither of my children actually have severe problems with eye contact as long as they are allowed to initiate it. I, as an autistic adult, am the same. I can do eye contact if it's on my terms. I feel that forcing eye contact onto an autistic child who is resistant to it is a form of psychological abuse.

I also despise their claim that if you do the program perfectly your child will "choose" to become NT. I honestly think that's a load of shit. Autism is not a choice.

But my problems with SonRise as a programme go far beyond their treatment methods. I have a huge, huge, huge problem with the way SonRise is marketed. I looked into it when my daughter was first diagnosed. They want $2000 up front for a five day seminar which both parents must attend whilst leaving the autistic child (and any other children) at home.

My understanding is that they give some programme basics during that first five-day seminar, but its main purpose seems to be presenting a "hard sell" of their "Intensive" programme. If you opt to only participate in the five-day programme, you receive no further support of any kind from the SonRise foundation once you leave.

If you opt for the Intensive programme, the cost is

$11,500

. You can then opt to receive phone consultations afterward for $550 an hour.

I do understand that treating autism is expensive- what I object to is the not-so-subtle suggestion that you are more likely to obtain a "cure" if you spend more money.

Also, the SonRise people have long been reluctant to allow controlled studies of their programme to determine whether their claims of "cure" or even improvement are warranted. If this programme was about something more than making money, it seems they would be welcoming scientific study with open arms.

Also, why are they unwilling to train outside professionals on their method in order to make it available to as many families as possible, rather than insisting that only their special foundation is capable of properly training parents? The SonRise programme has existed for close to thirty years now. Why has the focus been only on recruiting the parents of autistic children, who pay money directly to the founders of the programme, rather than widely disseminating their programme and making it part of a scientifically established treatment method?

Because of these issues, SonRise definitely sounds like more of a money-making venture than an actual effort to help as many children with autism as possible. In some ways it almost smacks of culthood. (If you dig a little deeper you will find that Raun Kaufman may have never had an official diagnosis of autism, for example, and was too young at the beginning of his treatment for it to be objectively determined that he was "severely" autistic.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	hand_of_paper 2008-01-11 12:41 am UTC (link)
	"Choose" to become NT? So, being autistic is like being gay, apparently? </sarcasm> (Reply to this) (Parent)

	heiko 2008-01-12 02:32 pm UTC (link)
	Now that you've explained it, the marketing method does seem very fishy. There is also very little rationale to disallow scientific studies of their methods. This is very creepy. (Reply to this) (Parent)

hi from spike

sapphoq
2008-01-12 08:14 am UTC (link)

I read the books as they came out-- there was a second after Noah had improved.

Autism, Aspergers, anything on the spectrum-- none of it is cureable. It doesn't just go away. We get better at some things perhaps but we are who we are.

In some places like Orange County California the "curebies" are taking over. That I hate to see.

Neurology is everything.

The real problem with that program besides the price-- it has become more and more cult-like complete with gorup think over the years.

spike

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: hi from spike

heiko
2008-01-14 04:31 pm UTC (link)

Hi Spike.

I agree that it is not curable. If I could take a magic pill, however, I would probably do it. Since much research that goes on shows that since autism is neurological in nature, and it is not feseable to cure it without causing severe trauma/damage to the individual, obviously such a thing is not possible and it is only fantasy.

I do , however, question the extent to which positive socialization improves autistic traits. It seems to me, the less stressed I am, the more capable of being my normal self I can be, and therefore I function best. Although one might question what is "normal" in terms of "my normal self", to which I actually have little comparison for.

I do not like curebies. They seem to be rather moronic.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	fenners 2008-01-12 03:02 pm UTC (link)
	It looks more like positive socialisation than a 'cure for autism' to me -- a lot of the suggestions there just look as though they would help the parent to connect to the child (as concrete_stare pointed out in her comment), but they CERTAINLY don't look like the 'miracle cure' that those leaflets were touting. - Kerry (Reply to this)