Autistic girl kicked off flight because captain was uncomfor
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,519
Location: Long Island, New York
12 May 2015, 10:27 am
I do not think suing the airline is the best way to raise Autism awareness as the mother contends. 90% of the public will think this only about the money. It will further propagate widespread and "validate" the notions that 1. Autism is a scam disease 2. Autism is real but a large percentage of diagnosis are not for "real autism" but a scam to rip off hardworking taxpayers like themselves to pay underserved benefits.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
12 May 2015, 10:32 am
Aviationst wrote:
Hi folks. This incident was brought to my attention by a family member who works with children and young adults with occasional 'challenging behaviour' (that's her term). I'm a Captain for a large airline and she wanted my opinion. Its certainly interesting. I hope I can share a little of the decision making and rationales we use whilst also showing that some of us do respect and can be flexible within reason.
It's sad indeed that the child and her family were removed - never a good thing to have to offload anyone especially if there is no malicious intent. I'd personally see this as a memorable low-point in my career. I've done it myself several times mostly with intoxicated passengers and those displaying dubious medical symptoms but this was always before pushback from the gate - never needed to divert. Passenger safety always comes first and the whole regulatory system around flying is much tighter nowadays as we all know.
The Captain is bound by law to keep the aircraft and passengers safe at all times. The situation presented here is, as I see it, that a medical emergency or incident might ensue if the child fails to get access to hot food. This detail is perhaps something a responsible parent should have checked with the operator beforehand and we are always willing to cater for individuals dietary idiosyncrasies wherever possible. Speak to the airline - don't just wait for a situation to develop in the air because then it's up the the Captain and Captain's will go to truly extraordinary lengths to avoid risk - including diversions - and rightly so.
If it were me I would have held a brief discussion with the 'number one' (senior flight attendant) and my FO. We have limited time for these debates because the job of flying is more important but we will establish the facts as best we can. It would be impossible and foolish to ignore the statement from the mother. After all she knows her child best so we must take this as a very likely outcome. I could call our medical agents on a radio link but they mostly offer assistance for medical emergencies rather than making predications about the behaviour of someone they don't know. This is my call. I would look at the worst case scenario which would be a deterioration of the situation creating a possible risk or harm to the child, other passengers and for my crew who would need to intervene. Obviously I really want to avoid this happening but I am also aware that I am not a medical professional and cannot make any guesses as to how this might develop. Finally I look at our divert options - time, distance, fuel - and consider the implications for all concerned. I reach two possible decisions outcomes and I propose these to my colleagues. I would call the operations department, not for help with the decision, but to keep them in the loop.
Decision One:
Take NO action. Supply requested meal. Ensure piping hot to best of our ability. Get mother to check food meets requirements first - maybe sample. Be aware there is no guarantee of hot food from these galleys but take from hottest part of oven or consider reheating to bring to temp. If no meal available or cannot achieve temperature then offer attractive alternative cookies?? Incidentally, aircraft galleys seem to be getting worse. Many is the time I have requested a hot meal and it arrives lukewarm.
Decision Two:
Divert NOW (unless continuing to destination can be achieved in a reasonable time), considering the risk of a possible medical emergency and fallout from an incident on other passengers. Explain my decision in person to the parent. Explain that I cannot ignore the probable risk that the parent has presented and state my responsibilities under aviation law. Offer as much onward journey assistance as possible.
Of the two decision one looks better, nicer, friendlier doesn't it? The problem is this; If I don't go with decision two and it does all kick off then I'm really in big big trouble here. I need to make sure I have a bulletproof court-grade defence as to why I took no action so I put it out to you what is that defence? I honestly don't know but when I get hauled up before the airline executives and their lawyers I have to explain why I basically took what they will call a 'chance'. And you just know what the lawyers, medical experts, psychologists are going to say and it is this - 'You flat ignored the most useful insight into the problem, the child's own mother, stating that a meltdown would ensue. Why Captain? Why did you disregard that information? In so doing you placed the child and others in danger. Explain your reasoning to us, Captain. Substantiate it! Enlighten us, please.' Everything else becomes academic at this point. Its an unrecoverable situation from here.
On the other hand If I divert I can say this: I assessed the risk. I thought it was probably low but had no way of being sure. The child's own parent highlighted the very possibility of a deterioration so it was a no-brainer. Costly and extreme as it may seem diverting a flight is a safety measure. I would not be overjoyed - far from it - but I know my responsibility is to the safety of my aircraft, passengers and crew. Therefore I cannot see what this Captain could have done differently other than take a risk and do nothing but then I don't know many pilots like still alive any more.
It's sad indeed that the child and her family were removed - never a good thing to have to offload anyone especially if there is no malicious intent. I'd personally see this as a memorable low-point in my career. I've done it myself several times mostly with intoxicated passengers and those displaying dubious medical symptoms but this was always before pushback from the gate - never needed to divert. Passenger safety always comes first and the whole regulatory system around flying is much tighter nowadays as we all know.
The Captain is bound by law to keep the aircraft and passengers safe at all times. The situation presented here is, as I see it, that a medical emergency or incident might ensue if the child fails to get access to hot food. This detail is perhaps something a responsible parent should have checked with the operator beforehand and we are always willing to cater for individuals dietary idiosyncrasies wherever possible. Speak to the airline - don't just wait for a situation to develop in the air because then it's up the the Captain and Captain's will go to truly extraordinary lengths to avoid risk - including diversions - and rightly so.
If it were me I would have held a brief discussion with the 'number one' (senior flight attendant) and my FO. We have limited time for these debates because the job of flying is more important but we will establish the facts as best we can. It would be impossible and foolish to ignore the statement from the mother. After all she knows her child best so we must take this as a very likely outcome. I could call our medical agents on a radio link but they mostly offer assistance for medical emergencies rather than making predications about the behaviour of someone they don't know. This is my call. I would look at the worst case scenario which would be a deterioration of the situation creating a possible risk or harm to the child, other passengers and for my crew who would need to intervene. Obviously I really want to avoid this happening but I am also aware that I am not a medical professional and cannot make any guesses as to how this might develop. Finally I look at our divert options - time, distance, fuel - and consider the implications for all concerned. I reach two possible decisions outcomes and I propose these to my colleagues. I would call the operations department, not for help with the decision, but to keep them in the loop.
Decision One:
Take NO action. Supply requested meal. Ensure piping hot to best of our ability. Get mother to check food meets requirements first - maybe sample. Be aware there is no guarantee of hot food from these galleys but take from hottest part of oven or consider reheating to bring to temp. If no meal available or cannot achieve temperature then offer attractive alternative cookies?? Incidentally, aircraft galleys seem to be getting worse. Many is the time I have requested a hot meal and it arrives lukewarm.
Decision Two:
Divert NOW (unless continuing to destination can be achieved in a reasonable time), considering the risk of a possible medical emergency and fallout from an incident on other passengers. Explain my decision in person to the parent. Explain that I cannot ignore the probable risk that the parent has presented and state my responsibilities under aviation law. Offer as much onward journey assistance as possible.
Of the two decision one looks better, nicer, friendlier doesn't it? The problem is this; If I don't go with decision two and it does all kick off then I'm really in big big trouble here. I need to make sure I have a bulletproof court-grade defence as to why I took no action so I put it out to you what is that defence? I honestly don't know but when I get hauled up before the airline executives and their lawyers I have to explain why I basically took what they will call a 'chance'. And you just know what the lawyers, medical experts, psychologists are going to say and it is this - 'You flat ignored the most useful insight into the problem, the child's own mother, stating that a meltdown would ensue. Why Captain? Why did you disregard that information? In so doing you placed the child and others in danger. Explain your reasoning to us, Captain. Substantiate it! Enlighten us, please.' Everything else becomes academic at this point. Its an unrecoverable situation from here.
On the other hand If I divert I can say this: I assessed the risk. I thought it was probably low but had no way of being sure. The child's own parent highlighted the very possibility of a deterioration so it was a no-brainer. Costly and extreme as it may seem diverting a flight is a safety measure. I would not be overjoyed - far from it - but I know my responsibility is to the safety of my aircraft, passengers and crew. Therefore I cannot see what this Captain could have done differently other than take a risk and do nothing but then I don't know many pilots like still alive any more.
Thank you for taking the time to post this interesting and valuable insight on an outside perspective on the situation from someone who could have been the one making the decision. I think it's cleared a lot of our guesswork on what would have happened up before the decision to land the plane.
This comes of no surprise. It would be very easy for someone with a bias towards the family, since we have autism, to start blaming what happened on fear of autism, but it's clear that's not what happened here, especially based on what you said. It may seem like an overreaction, but in the air you're in a closed environment and far away from any outside help, so should the situation escalate, it's a bad situation to be in. It's just making sure things are 100% safe up there. I don't know why the mother was so shocked, saying that to the flight crew that response should have been expected. I hate the media for taking her side without wanting the information you just said to give another view on the situation.
It's also interesting hearing the process that occurs. I never knew that before.
12 May 2015, 10:33 am
Hyperborean wrote:
Perhaps I'm being simplistic, but there's a fairly easy solution to this: society needs to know far more about autism (and other 'invisible' conditions). Much is said about 'raising awareness' of autism, which is fine as far as it goes, but we currently have a situation where plenty of people are 'aware' of autism, they know it exists, that it's a condition etc, but they know virtually nothing about how it presents, how diverse it is, what it actually IS. Hence all the vile remarks on Twitter by morons who think that ASD = psychopath.
This is where the problem lies.
This is where the problem lies.
That is so true. Before my son was diagnosed with ASD, I thought autism was a childhood issue where kids had behavior issues. Even 1 year later I am still learning about what it is. I remember how in school everyone was always scared of children in special education programs. We thought they would attack us any time. We didn't know the difference between their afflictions.
lostonearth35
Veteran
Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,912
Location: Lost on Earth, waddya think?
12 May 2015, 11:26 am
Aviationst wrote:
Hi folks. This incident was brought to my attention by a family member who works with children and young adults with occasional 'challenging behaviour' (that's her term). I'm a Captain for a large airline and she wanted my opinion. Its certainly interesting. I hope I can share a little of the decision making and rationales we use whilst also showing that some of us do respect and can be flexible within reason.
It's sad indeed that the child and her family were removed - never a good thing to have to offload anyone especially if there is no malicious intent. I'd personally see this as a memorable low-point in my career. I've done it myself several times mostly with intoxicated passengers and those displaying dubious medical symptoms but this was always before pushback from the gate - never needed to divert. Passenger safety always comes first and the whole regulatory system around flying is much tighter nowadays as we all know.
The Captain is bound by law to keep the aircraft and passengers safe at all times. The situation presented here is, as I see it, that a medical emergency or incident might ensue if the child fails to get access to hot food. This detail is perhaps something a responsible parent should have checked with the operator beforehand and we are always willing to cater for individuals dietary idiosyncrasies wherever possible. Speak to the airline - don't just wait for a situation to develop in the air because then it's up the the Captain and Captain's will go to truly extraordinary lengths to avoid risk - including diversions - and rightly so.
If it were me I would have held a brief discussion with the 'number one' (senior flight attendant) and my FO. We have limited time for these debates because the job of flying is more important but we will establish the facts as best we can. It would be impossible and foolish to ignore the statement from the mother. After all she knows her child best so we must take this as a very likely outcome. I could call our medical agents on a radio link but they mostly offer assistance for medical emergencies rather than making predications about the behaviour of someone they don't know. This is my call. I would look at the worst case scenario which would be a deterioration of the situation creating a possible risk or harm to the child, other passengers and for my crew who would need to intervene. Obviously I really want to avoid this happening but I am also aware that I am not a medical professional and cannot make any guesses as to how this might develop. Finally I look at our divert options - time, distance, fuel - and consider the implications for all concerned. I reach two possible decisions outcomes and I propose these to my colleagues. I would call the operations department, not for help with the decision, but to keep them in the loop.
Decision One:
Take NO action. Supply requested meal. Ensure piping hot to best of our ability. Get mother to check food meets requirements first - maybe sample. Be aware there is no guarantee of hot food from these galleys but take from hottest part of oven or consider reheating to bring to temp. If no meal available or cannot achieve temperature then offer attractive alternative cookies?? Incidentally, aircraft galleys seem to be getting worse. Many is the time I have requested a hot meal and it arrives lukewarm.
Decision Two:
Divert NOW (unless continuing to destination can be achieved in a reasonable time), considering the risk of a possible medical emergency and fallout from an incident on other passengers. Explain my decision in person to the parent. Explain that I cannot ignore the probable risk that the parent has presented and state my responsibilities under aviation law. Offer as much onward journey assistance as possible.
Of the two decision one looks better, nicer, friendlier doesn't it? The problem is this; If I don't go with decision two and it does all kick off then I'm really in big big trouble here. I need to make sure I have a bulletproof court-grade defence as to why I took no action so I put it out to you what is that defence? I honestly don't know but when I get hauled up before the airline executives and their lawyers I have to explain why I basically took what they will call a 'chance'. And you just know what the lawyers, medical experts, psychologists are going to say and it is this - 'You flat ignored the most useful insight into the problem, the child's own mother, stating that a meltdown would ensue. Why Captain? Why did you disregard that information? In so doing you placed the child and others in danger. Explain your reasoning to us, Captain. Substantiate it! Enlighten us, please.' Everything else becomes academic at this point. Its an unrecoverable situation from here.
On the other hand If I divert I can say this: I assessed the risk. I thought it was probably low but had no way of being sure. The child's own parent highlighted the very possibility of a deterioration so it was a no-brainer. Costly and extreme as it may seem diverting a flight is a safety measure. I would not be overjoyed - far from it - but I know my responsibility is to the safety of my aircraft, passengers and crew. Therefore I cannot see what this Captain could have done differently other than take a risk and do nothing but then I don't know many pilots like still alive any more.
It's sad indeed that the child and her family were removed - never a good thing to have to offload anyone especially if there is no malicious intent. I'd personally see this as a memorable low-point in my career. I've done it myself several times mostly with intoxicated passengers and those displaying dubious medical symptoms but this was always before pushback from the gate - never needed to divert. Passenger safety always comes first and the whole regulatory system around flying is much tighter nowadays as we all know.
The Captain is bound by law to keep the aircraft and passengers safe at all times. The situation presented here is, as I see it, that a medical emergency or incident might ensue if the child fails to get access to hot food. This detail is perhaps something a responsible parent should have checked with the operator beforehand and we are always willing to cater for individuals dietary idiosyncrasies wherever possible. Speak to the airline - don't just wait for a situation to develop in the air because then it's up the the Captain and Captain's will go to truly extraordinary lengths to avoid risk - including diversions - and rightly so.
If it were me I would have held a brief discussion with the 'number one' (senior flight attendant) and my FO. We have limited time for these debates because the job of flying is more important but we will establish the facts as best we can. It would be impossible and foolish to ignore the statement from the mother. After all she knows her child best so we must take this as a very likely outcome. I could call our medical agents on a radio link but they mostly offer assistance for medical emergencies rather than making predications about the behaviour of someone they don't know. This is my call. I would look at the worst case scenario which would be a deterioration of the situation creating a possible risk or harm to the child, other passengers and for my crew who would need to intervene. Obviously I really want to avoid this happening but I am also aware that I am not a medical professional and cannot make any guesses as to how this might develop. Finally I look at our divert options - time, distance, fuel - and consider the implications for all concerned. I reach two possible decisions outcomes and I propose these to my colleagues. I would call the operations department, not for help with the decision, but to keep them in the loop.
Decision One:
Take NO action. Supply requested meal. Ensure piping hot to best of our ability. Get mother to check food meets requirements first - maybe sample. Be aware there is no guarantee of hot food from these galleys but take from hottest part of oven or consider reheating to bring to temp. If no meal available or cannot achieve temperature then offer attractive alternative cookies?? Incidentally, aircraft galleys seem to be getting worse. Many is the time I have requested a hot meal and it arrives lukewarm.
Decision Two:
Divert NOW (unless continuing to destination can be achieved in a reasonable time), considering the risk of a possible medical emergency and fallout from an incident on other passengers. Explain my decision in person to the parent. Explain that I cannot ignore the probable risk that the parent has presented and state my responsibilities under aviation law. Offer as much onward journey assistance as possible.
Of the two decision one looks better, nicer, friendlier doesn't it? The problem is this; If I don't go with decision two and it does all kick off then I'm really in big big trouble here. I need to make sure I have a bulletproof court-grade defence as to why I took no action so I put it out to you what is that defence? I honestly don't know but when I get hauled up before the airline executives and their lawyers I have to explain why I basically took what they will call a 'chance'. And you just know what the lawyers, medical experts, psychologists are going to say and it is this - 'You flat ignored the most useful insight into the problem, the child's own mother, stating that a meltdown would ensue. Why Captain? Why did you disregard that information? In so doing you placed the child and others in danger. Explain your reasoning to us, Captain. Substantiate it! Enlighten us, please.' Everything else becomes academic at this point. Its an unrecoverable situation from here.
On the other hand If I divert I can say this: I assessed the risk. I thought it was probably low but had no way of being sure. The child's own parent highlighted the very possibility of a deterioration so it was a no-brainer. Costly and extreme as it may seem diverting a flight is a safety measure. I would not be overjoyed - far from it - but I know my responsibility is to the safety of my aircraft, passengers and crew. Therefore I cannot see what this Captain could have done differently other than take a risk and do nothing but then I don't know many pilots like still alive any more.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I knew this was more of a liability and safety issue than about autism and I still believe if the mother hadn't said "she will try and scratch" they wouldn't have been kicked off.
I get the mother was probably frustrated and I am a parent and I don't want my son waking up his sister or else I will end up dealing with a grouchy and fussy baby and that makes me irritable and I certainly don't want anyone telling my son we will do this or that or else he will be expecting it to happen and then I will have to deal with his crying and his impatience if it doesn't happen soon enough and what happens if that thing doesn't happen, then there is disappointment and him not understanding it's not going to happen and I get that a parent may give in their autistic child so they won't have to deal with their crying which they call meltdown and it's hard for any parent to deal with it but if it only lasts for a few minutes, they are okay with it but for an autistic child if it lasts for let's say five hours, they will just give in and let them have their way you know. It's picking your battles and the mother probably didn't want to deal with it on an airline and have other passengers listen to it and I don't know how long she will carry on for and I saw in another article she only scratches sometimes so I am sure the mother didn't want to take that chance. But the pilot didn't want to take the chance either so he landed the plane and had them removed.
I doubt the mother really has a lawsuit and will most likely lose because of airline policies they have about safety issue. Next time the mother will just call ahead of time and let them know about her daughter's special needs and hot food preference for in case she refuses to eat again at an airport.
One thing that frustrates me about disabilities is people automatically assuming there is discrimination or always thinking something is always about the disability. Don't they realize it makes other parents of kids with disabilities look bad or people with disabilities. They make us look all entitled and spoiled like we deserve special treatment or that no one has a right to a safe environment.
_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.
Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.
12 May 2015, 2:43 pm
Quote:
Next time the mother will just call ahead of time and let them know about her daughter's special needs and hot food preference for in case she refuses to eat again at an airport.
Next time the mother won't say anything about her daughter's condition. She won't want to risk being refused a ticket in the first place. Is that better?
12 May 2015, 4:09 pm
That's sad but I think the mother shouldn't have told them her daughter was going to have a meltdown or something if food wasn't brought, I think she should've told them her daughter has some medical reasons or something so that's why she needs the food so badly because if you tell them she's going to have a meltdown I think some people would be scared especially on a plane.
13 May 2015, 1:01 am
Aviationst wrote:
...I would look at the worst case scenario which would be a deterioration of the situation creating a possible risk or harm to the child, other passengers and for my crew who would need to intervene...
Decision One: Take NO action.
Decision Two: Divert NOW.
Of the two decision one looks better, nicer, friendlier doesn't it? The problem is this; If I don't go with decision two and it does all kick off then I'm really in big big trouble here. I need to make sure I have a bulletproof court-grade defence as to why I took no action so I put it out to you what is that defence?...
Decision One: Take NO action.
Decision Two: Divert NOW.
Of the two decision one looks better, nicer, friendlier doesn't it? The problem is this; If I don't go with decision two and it does all kick off then I'm really in big big trouble here. I need to make sure I have a bulletproof court-grade defence as to why I took no action so I put it out to you what is that defence?...
THIS, is EXACTLY why, not only should the Captain be fired, he should NEVER have been around other people in the first place, let alone have responsibility for anyone's safety.
One decision is to treat them as you would yourself and your family, the other decision is discrimination based on stigma and bigotry and is NOT even slightly acceptable.
Any reasonable person, will say that the possibility of the girl "becoming violent" is the same as every other 15 year old girl suddenly "becoming violent". Any reasonable person will conclude that being an AS person doesn't somehow equate to being a violent person. A reasonable person would also feel sympathy upon hearing about any potential meltdown.
But not in this situation, the pilot and crew singled this one person out and ejected them from the plane because of their bigotry. The defence, is that there's no reason to suspect any kind of violence. You can see that the event is indeed discrimination, because the Captain didn't use this as an excuse to kick EVERYONE off the plane, just this one person, "just in case". It's absolutely disgusting to, for example, kick black people off planes, in order to hold the defence "I had to cover myself legally, in case he was violent." No, you wouldn't have been questioned "why didn't you kick them off after knowing they were black?", as it's a very leading question, not to mention incredibly disgusting.
And these people, no, not people, monsters, are those that have the exact same thinking, and the same reasoning as war criminals. War criminals that rationalise away murdering fleeing civilians, because they're "military age". Hey, they might have a concealed weapon, they might be running over to a weapons cache, they might have a bomb shoved up their arse. Hey, if they do have a weapon, and they do attack, I need to have a defence for when my CO asks why I didn't kill them. Better murder them, just in case.
The same monsters that are able to rationalise away murdering black kids because they're dangerously (sarcasm) going out to buy skittles. Hey, you have to gun down those black kids right? They may do something violent with their packet of skittles. What will you tell the families if he does go on a violent skittles rampage, what excuse will you have to cover yourself should you let him go.
The precedent is absolutely vile. This says to the community, that publicly, you cannot even hint at the idea of being on the spectrum, lest people discriminate against you and think you're some violent crazy persons that's going to go on a rampage.
13 May 2015, 1:18 am
ASPartOfMe wrote:
I do not think suing the airline is the best way to raise Autism awareness as the mother contends. 90% of the public will think this only about the money. It will further propagate widespread and "validate" the notions that 1. Autism is a scam disease 2. Autism is real but a large percentage of diagnosis are not for "real autism" but a scam to rip off hardworking taxpayers like themselves to pay underserved benefits.
The alternative is, to do nothing, and let them get away with it. Then it would become much easier to use this as an example and excuse for other places to discriminate against AS people.
They can point to this incident and say we're in fact, crazy violent people, and get rid of us under "safety concerns for their customers".
13 May 2015, 1:22 am
Quote:
The Mother made a threat!
Quote:
The Mother said she was going to scratch/bite other people!
No, no there was no threat, and she didn't say she was going to scratch or bite other people
Here's what she actually said:
“I just kind of said, ‘You know what? Maybe after she has a meltdown and she’s crying and trying to scratch, then you’ll help us,'” Beegle told the station.
13 May 2015, 4:27 am
Moromillas wrote:
Quote:
The Mother made a threat!
Quote:
The Mother said she was going to scratch/bite other people!
No, no there was no threat, and she didn't say she was going to scratch or bite other people
That is exactly what she admitted saying, that she might scratch someone.
Quote:
She told KOIN 6 News she explained that if her daughter didn’t get a hot meal, she would “get to the meltdown point” and maybe scratch someone. Juliette soon got a first-class meal.
‘She wasn’t put off plane because of autism’
13 May 2015, 4:40 am
0regonGuy wrote:
Moromillas wrote:
Quote:
The Mother made a threat!
Quote:
The Mother said she was going to scratch/bite other people!
No, no there was no threat, and she didn't say she was going to scratch or bite other people
That is exactly what she admitted saying, that she might scratch someone.
Quote:
She told KOIN 6 News she explained that if her daughter didn’t get a hot meal, she would “get to the meltdown point” and maybe scratch someone. Juliette soon got a first-class meal.
‘She wasn’t put off plane because of autism’
Incorrect. Here's Beegle's quote again:
“I just kind of said, ‘You know what? Maybe after she has a meltdown and she’s crying and trying to scratch, then you’ll help us,'” Beegle told the station.
That article you linked appears to be heavily biased, for people that want to support the idea that it wasn't discrimination.
13 May 2015, 10:34 am
Both have a bias. The first one posted has a bias and only talks to the mother, this one talks to the mother and two passengers. The mother probably doesn't remember exactly what she said, instead giving a statement of the general of things she said. What she actually said was most likely worded a little differently. I do think the second woman they interviewed in that article there has a fear of autism, there's no doubt about that one. Unless you know anyone with autism you're not going to be informed about what it is, all you know is there is a teenager making weird noises. It leads people to think things that aren't true. Or she could possibly have outdated knowledge, given her age, that autism is childhood schizophrenia. And we all know the stigma around schizophrenia. People do fear the unknown, and she didn't know why this teenager was crying and making noises or know what she was thinking. She feared her and her autism.
I wouldn't say what happened with the airline is fear of autism, personally. It just shows the amount of liability and how much people have to cover their asses not to get a court case where they'll lose. Should the kid go around scratching people, it could make a valid court case as the pilot would have ignored the advice the mother gave about what would happen. These pilots not only have to fly the plane but cover their damn asses. Health and safety and liability has just gone too far. If anything should be taken out of this it's just how much responsibility people have which they reasonably shouldn't. No pilot should have to worry about the situation in a plane, they should just focus on flying it. That or I have a wrong view on the world. Could be that. Just too many things for them to think about, in my opinion.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,519
Location: Long Island, New York
13 May 2015, 1:04 pm
Moromillas wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
I do not think suing the airline is the best way to raise Autism awareness as the mother contends. 90% of the public will think this only about the money. It will further propagate widespread and "validate" the notions that 1. Autism is a scam disease 2. Autism is real but a large percentage of diagnosis are not for "real autism" but a scam to rip off hardworking taxpayers like themselves to pay underserved benefits.
The alternative is, to do nothing, and let them get away with it. Then it would become much easier to use this as an example and excuse for other places to discriminate against AS people.
They can point to this incident and say we're in fact, crazy violent people, and get rid of us under "safety concerns for their customers".
They can do all they are doing going to the media etc without suing. We are discussing NT's who are not wired to automatically take things literally. It is probably different where you are from, but Americans fear saying and doing things they believe in not only out of fear of political correctness but of a very real fear of being sued. So that is why when people hear somebody is suing for a "good cause" their first instinct is to assume the real motive is money not only with Autism but with any subject.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
13 May 2015, 6:54 pm
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Moromillas wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
I do not think suing the airline is the best way to raise Autism awareness as the mother contends. 90% of the public will think this only about the money. It will further propagate widespread and "validate" the notions that 1. Autism is a scam disease 2. Autism is real but a large percentage of diagnosis are not for "real autism" but a scam to rip off hardworking taxpayers like themselves to pay underserved benefits.
The alternative is, to do nothing, and let them get away with it. Then it would become much easier to use this as an example and excuse for other places to discriminate against AS people.
They can point to this incident and say we're in fact, crazy violent people, and get rid of us under "safety concerns for their customers".
They can do all they are doing going to the media etc without suing. We are discussing NT's who are not wired to automatically take things literally. It is probably different where you are from, but Americans fear saying and doing things they believe in not only out of fear of political correctness but of a very real fear of being sued. So that is why when people hear somebody is suing for a "good cause" their first instinct is to assume the real motive is money not only with Autism but with any subject.
"Greedy money grubbers" is significantly better than people that supposedly "have random murderous outbursts".
There was already a legal win when an AS child was banned from the scouts "for the safety of the other children", and I don't think it will hold if that's now dropped, rather than reinforced.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,519
Location: Long Island, New York
13 May 2015, 7:15 pm
Moromillas wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Moromillas wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
I do not think suing the airline is the best way to raise Autism awareness as the mother contends. 90% of the public will think this only about the money. It will further propagate widespread and "validate" the notions that 1. Autism is a scam disease 2. Autism is real but a large percentage of diagnosis are not for "real autism" but a scam to rip off hardworking taxpayers like themselves to pay underserved benefits.
The alternative is, to do nothing, and let them get away with it. Then it would become much easier to use this as an example and excuse for other places to discriminate against AS people.
They can point to this incident and say we're in fact, crazy violent people, and get rid of us under "safety concerns for their customers".
They can do all they are doing going to the media etc without suing. We are discussing NT's who are not wired to automatically take things literally. It is probably different where you are from, but Americans fear saying and doing things they believe in not only out of fear of political correctness but of a very real fear of being sued. So that is why when people hear somebody is suing for a "good cause" their first instinct is to assume the real motive is money not only with Autism but with any subject.
"Greedy money grubbers" is significantly better than people that supposedly "have random murderous outbursts".
There was already a legal win when an AS child was banned from the scouts "for the safety of the other children", and I don't think it will hold if that's now dropped, rather than reinforced.
In the public's mind the "greedy money grubber" will be that mother and her daughter her helpless victim.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| I might get kicked out. |
19 Apr 2024, 4:13 am |
| Alaska Airlines Flight Carrying Pets Arrives With Cargo Door |
12 Mar 2024, 7:22 pm |
| Handbook for autistic-autistic social interactions |
08 Feb 2024, 1:31 pm |
| A counterpoint to Autistic Supremacy? Autistic Inferiority? |
26 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm |
