squonk wrote:
I think Wolfheart makes some excellent points, particularly regarding the media and how they view autistic people, like us.
Who would I be to 'dispute' the diagnosis of McKinnon? I can't do that but I can question its validity and more particularly, its timing.
Oh I agree about the points that are being made about media coverage. Unfortunately being helpful to the debate is not what tabloids are about, but aboutt shifting copies and as the Leveson enquiry shows they frequently don't care about truth or decency.
But I am wondering about the diagnosis angle. In an attempt to educate myself about the value of adult diagnosis (not for me) for someone >50 the NAS website at that time (about 2 years ago) seemed to say that if the person was making a living, was not seeking benefits and was not in trouble with the law then the value of a dx was limited. What I'm trying to work round to, it seems quite possible to me to go undiagnosed
until you get in trouble with the law if you live as part of a family that does not push you out of the nest, as it were.
I am not saying that is what happened in Gary McKinnon's case. I don't know. But as a historical sequence I can imagine that happening. And if there is a dx then is it not human nature, at least for the immediate family, to try and use it, if not as a defence then in mitigation? Just a thought.
_________________
I have traveled extensively in Concord (Thoreau)