Understanding the Olmstead Act

The Olmstead decision, formally known as the Olmstead v. L.C. decision, is a landmark ruling by the United States Supreme Court that significantly advanced the rights of individuals with disabilities. Here's a closer look at its history, structure, impact, and the influential figures behind its enactment.

The Birth of the Olmstead Decision

The Olmstead decision was handed down on June 22, 1999. The case involved two women, Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, who had mental disabilities and were voluntarily admitted to the Georgia Regional Hospital. Although their doctors determined that they were ready to move to a community-based setting, they remained institutionalized for several years due to the state's failure to provide community-based services. The Supreme Court ruled that the unjustified segregation of persons with disabilities constitutes discrimination in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Key Provisions of the Olmstead Decision

The Olmstead decision is rooted in the ADA's mandate to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The main provisions include:

  1. Community Integration: The decision requires states to provide community-based services for individuals with disabilities when such services are appropriate, the affected persons do not oppose community-based treatment, and the services can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the state and the needs of others with disabilities.

  2. Reasonable Modifications: States must make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures to avoid discrimination unless the state can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the services.

  3. Comprehensive Plans: States are encouraged to develop comprehensive, effectively working plans for placing qualified persons with disabilities in less restrictive settings.

Influential Figures in the Making of the Olmstead Decision

Several key figures and advocacy groups played significant roles in the Olmstead case and its aftermath:

  1. Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson: The plaintiffs in the case whose experiences of unnecessary institutionalization highlighted the need for community-based services and set the stage for the landmark ruling.

  2. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Delivered the opinion of the Court, which underscored the rights of individuals with disabilities to live in the community rather than institutions.

  3. The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: Provided crucial legal representation and advocacy, helping to frame the arguments that led to the Court's decision.

  4. ADAPT: A national grassroots community that organizes disability rights activists to engage in nonviolent direct action, supporting the implementation of the Olmstead decision through continued advocacy and activism.

Interesting Historical Context

The Olmstead decision came at a time when the disability rights movement was gaining momentum, building on the foundation laid by the ADA. The case highlighted the systemic issues within state-run institutions and the need for a shift towards community-based services. The decision was seen as a significant victory for the disability community, reinforcing the principle that individuals with disabilities have the right to live and participate fully in their communities.

The Impact of the Olmstead Decision

The Olmstead decision has had a profound impact on the lives of individuals with disabilities and on American society as a whole. Key outcomes include:

  • Deinstitutionalization: The ruling accelerated the movement towards deinstitutionalization, encouraging states to develop and expand community-based services.

  • Increased Access to Services: States have been prompted to improve access to community-based services, allowing individuals with disabilities to live more independently.

  • Legal Precedent: The decision set a legal precedent that has been used in subsequent cases to advocate for the rights of individuals with disabilities.

  • Comprehensive Planning: Many states have developed Olmstead Plans to outline their strategies for complying with the decision and expanding community-based services.

Related posts: #Disability_History, #Disability_Legislation #Disability_Rights,  #Olmstead_Act #Policy_Law



Introducing proactive enforcement mechanisms would shift the burden off of employees and ensure accommodations are implemented without requiring legal action.

 

 "Everyday moments of awe offer profound benefits to our mental health, enhancing personal well-being as well as a sense of belonging, at no expense. Unlike the price-gouging therapies we autistics are surrounded by since childhood, these experiences of awe are accessible and deeply meaningful." - Hari Srinivasan

Read on... https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2024.38246.pw

Oddball Paradigms in Autism Research

Lexicon: Oddball Paradigms

Oddball trials, also known as oddball tasks or oddball paradigms, are a type of research experimental design used in cognitive and sensorimotor research. The oddball paradigm has been widely used in autism research to investigate sensory processing differences, attentional issues, and cognitive control. During an oddball task, researchers typically measure various physiological and behavioral responses, such as reaction times, accuracy rates, ERPs (via EEG) or fMRI (to examine neural activity patterns).

The oddball paradigm typically consists of two types of stimuli and participants are asked to detect and respond to the oddball.

  • Standard Stimuli: These are the most common stimuli presented in the sequence and serve as the baseline / control stimuli, occurring with higher frequency. Participants are generally instructed to ignore standard stimuli and withhold any response to them
  • Target Stimuli: These are the less frequent or "oddball" stimuli that differ in some way from the standard stimuli. The target stimuli can be defined by various characteristics, such as a different color, shape, sound, or any other perceptual feature.

The purpose of oddball trials is to investigate how the brain processes and detects rare or deviant stimuli amidst a background of more common stimuli. By manipulating the frequency and characteristics of the target and standard stimuli, researchers can examine various aspects of cognitive processing, including
  • Attention: how participants allocate and sustain their attention to detect infrequent target stimuli. It allows researchers to explore the mechanisms of selective attention, attentional capture, and the ability to filter out irrelevant information.
  • Perception & perceptual processing: how the brain discriminates between different stimuli; how the brain detects and discriminates deviant stimuli based on sensory features, and how it forms representations and expectations about the environment
  • Memory and Cognitive Control: Participants may be required to remember the occurrence or characteristics of the target stimuli and maintain this information for subsequent recall or recognition. Also sheds light on cognitive control processes, such as response inhibition and response selection when distinguishing between standard and target stimuli.

Oddball Paradigms in Autism Research

Oddball paradigms in autism research, offer a window into the sensory processing differences, attentional mechanisms, and cognitive control capabilities.

  1. Sensory Processing Differences: One of the core areas of investigation in autism is sensory processing as autistics often exhibit atypical responses to sensory stimuli, which can range from heightened sensitivity to specific stimuli to a diminished response to others. Oddball paradigms help researchers understand these sensory anomalies by comparing how autistics detect and respond to infrequent target stimuli compared to neurotypical controls. This can reveal whether there is an enhanced perceptual sensitivity or other unique patterns of sensory processing in autism.

  2. Attention and Attentional Allocation: Studies focus on how autistics sustain and allocate their attention when faced with rare target stimuli amidst a stream of more common stimuli. Findings often indicate differences in how attention is captured and maintained, which can be linked to broader attentional issues in autism. For instance, some research suggests autistics may focus more on local details rather than global features of stimuli (Weak Central Coherence theory)

  3. Cognitive Control and Inhibition: Cognitive control, including response inhibition and flexibility in shifting attention, is frequently assessed through oddball tasks. These tasks can highlight the executive functioning issues, such as challenges with inhibiting inappropriate responses or switching attention between different tasks or stimuli.

Key Findings from Autism Research

Research using oddball paradigms has provided several key insights into the neurocognitive characteristics of ASD:

  • Enhanced Perceptual Sensitivity: Some studies suggest that autistics may exhibit enhanced perceptual sensitivity, reacting more quickly or accurately to target stimuli than neurotypical individuals. This heightened sensitivity might be associated with an increased focus on specific features in the environment.

  • Atypical Neural Responses:  Differences in the amplitude and latency of ERP components, such as the P3 wave, which is linked to attentional processes and cognitive evaluation, have been noted (1).

  • Attentional Allocation Differences: The way individuals with autism allocate their attention during oddball tasks often differs from that of neurotypical individuals. This can include a tendency to focus more narrowly on specific stimuli aspects, potentially reflecting a unique attentional strategy or sensory processing style (2).

  • Cognitive Control Challenges: Oddball tasks also reveal cognitive control issues, such as difficulties with response inhibition and flexibility in attention shifting. These findings are consistent with broader patterns of executive dysfunction observed in autism (3).

References:

  1. Gomot, M., et al. (2008). Atypical auditory processing in children with autism: A cohort study with event-related potentials. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(7), 1307-1316.
  2. Sokhadze, E. M., et al. (2009). Atypical prefrontal cortex development in autism: ERP evidence of abnormal inhibitory control in a Go/NoGo task. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 5, 9.
  3. Hill, E. L. (2004). Executive dysfunction in autism: A review of the evidence for specific deficits. Developmental Psychopathology, 16(3), 377-401.

 

Multilingual and disability inclusion is essential for creating equitable and inclusive societies. Many of us have extended family members whose primary language may not be English, or who only speak their native tongue

Read Full Article at unesco.org...

The Uncomfortable Truth Behind a Comforting Word

In the world of scientific research, words carry weight. They shape perceptions, influence emotions, and sometimes, soften the harsh realities of the work being done. One such word is "sacrifice," a term often used to describe the killing of animals, particularly rats, after they have been subjected to various experiments in the name of research. But what does "sacrifice" really mean in this context, and why does it seem to make everyone feel better about a process that is fundamentally unsettling?

The Comforting Illusion of Sacrifice

The word "Sacrifice" is imbued with noble connotations. It suggests an offering, a giving up of something valuable for a greater good. In religious and historical contexts, sacrifices are seen as acts of devotion, acts that are often rewarded with blessings or benefits. In the laboratory, however, the use of "sacrifice" to describe the euthanization of lab rats serves a different purpose—it sanitizes the act, masking the uncomfortable truth of what is actually happening.

The Reality Behind the Term

In research settings, rats are often subjected to a variety of procedures. These can include surgeries, injections, and exposure to drugs or other substances, all in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. After these procedures, the animals are typically euthanized. The term "sacrifice" is used to describe this final act. But let's be clear: the rats are not voluntarily giving up their lives for the greater good. They are being killed because their continued existence is no longer deemed necessary or beneficial for the study.

Making Everyone Feel Better

Using the word "sacrifice" helps researchers, lab technicians, and the public feel better about the process. It creates a psychological buffer, a way to cope with the ethical dilemmas inherent in animal research. By framing the killing as a sacrifice, it suggests that the act is justified, that it is part of a noble quest for knowledge and human advancement. This linguistic choice helps to ease the guilt and moral discomfort that might otherwise accompany the act of ending an animal's life.

The Irony and Ethical Implications


The irony is palpable. While the term "sacrifice" suggests a willing, even heroic act, the reality is one of imposed death following a period of often stressful and painful experimentation. This discrepancy raises important ethical questions. Are we too quick to accept this euphemism without questioning the underlying practices? Does the term "sacrifice" allow us to avoid confronting the moral complexities of animal research?

Perhaps it is time to reconsider our language and the comfort it provides. Transparency in research practices, including the language we use, is crucial. Instead of relying on euphemisms, we should strive for honesty about what happens to animals in research settings. This might involve using more straightforward terms like "euthanize" or "kill" to describe the end of an animal's life in the lab.

 I got to co-write the Foreword for this book with Dr Temple Grandin.



Neurodiverse people are often expected to manage their emotions to align with narrow social norms —showing just enough to seem relatable but not so much to be seen as "other."

Read Full Article at


 

Do you grow out of autism?

 The understanding of autism has come full circle—from Kanner’s original view that it is a lifelong condition, to the mid-century belief that it was something you might grow out of, and now back to recognizing autism as a spectrum of experiences that continue into adulthood. This evolving perspective has profound implications for how we support and accommodate autistics at every stage of life.

Kanner’s Early View: Autism as a Lifelong Condition

In 1943, child psychiatrist Leo Kanner published his groundbreaking paper on autism, describing it as a rare but distinct developmental disorder. He identified autism as a condition that appeared from early infancy and persisted throughout life, believing it to be innate. His observations of children with social difficulties, repetitive behaviors, and an “insistence on sameness” led him to conclude that these traits were deeply embedded and unlikely to disappear.

Kanner’s view of autism was revolutionary at the time, as he set autism apart from other mental health conditions. He noted that while some children might improve with intervention, autism itself was a lifelong condition. This perspective laid the foundation for early autism research and clinical practice.

The Shift: Autism as a Childhood Disorder

By the mid-20th century, the focus on autism began to shift, and the condition came to be viewed more as a childhood disorder. Several factors contributed to this change:

  1. Lack of Longitudinal Data: In the early years of autism research, there was little long-term data on how autistic children fared into adulthood. Without follow-up studies to track their development, the focus remained on interventions aimed at children, especially those designed to improve communication and social skills. This narrow focus reinforced the belief that autism was primarily a childhood condition, and there was little understanding of how the condition evolved across the lifespan.

  2. Influence of Developmental Psychology: During the 1950s and 1960s, autism was studied within the context of developmental psychology, which emphasized stages of growth in children. Autism became viewed through the lens of early childhood development, which often led to the assumption that autistic children could “grow out of” the condition. The lack of focus on adult outcomes further entrenched the belief that autism was something that primarily affected children.

  3. Institutionalization and Societal Factors: A significant factor in the mid-century shift was the institutionalization of autistic individuals, especially those with more severe symptoms. During much of the 20th century, many autistic children were placed in institutions, often isolated from the community. This removed many autistic adults from public view (out of sight is out of mind) and contributed to the idea that autism was primarily a childhood disorder. Without tracking autistic individuals into adulthood, the misconception persisted that autism either diminished over time or became less visible as people aged.

  4. DSM-III and the Diagnostic Focus: The third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III), published in 1980, played a role in reinforcing the view of autism as a childhood condition. The DSM-III categorized autism as a disorder that first appeared in childhood, and it did not fully address how autism might manifest in adults. While this edition was important in standardizing the diagnosis, it contributed to the ongoing focus on childhood autism.

The Shift Back: Autism as a Lifelong Spectrum

In the late 20th century, research began to challenge the idea that autism was solely a childhood disorder. Several key developments led to the shift back to recognizing autism as a lifelong condition:

  1. Longitudinal Studies in the 1970s and 1980s: As researchers began following autistic individuals into adulthood, they found that many core features of autism—such as social and communication challenges—persisted throughout life. These studies demonstrated that while some individuals could develop coping strategies or improve in certain areas, autism did not simply go away with age. This long-term data challenged the earlier view that autism was something children could outgrow.

  2. Broader Recognition of the Autism Spectrum: The 1994 publication of the DSM-IV marked a turning point in how autism was understood. The DSM-IV expanded the definition of autism to include related conditions, such as Asperger syndrome and Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). These changes reflected a growing awareness that autism manifested differently in individuals and affected people across the lifespan. The concept of an autism "spectrum" began to take hold, highlighting the diverse experiences of autistic individuals, including those who may have been overlooked in earlier childhood-focused models.

  3. Advocacy and Autistic Voices: The voices of autistic adults themselves began to play a key role in shifting the narrative. As more autistic individuals spoke about their experiences, it became clear that autism affected them well into adulthood, and they advocated for recognition, rights, and support that extended beyond childhood. This push for greater inclusion helped drive the shift toward understanding autism as a lifelong condition.

  4. DSM-5 and the Unified Spectrum: The publication of the DSM-5 in 2013 solidified the shift back to understanding autism as a lifelong condition. The DSM-5 introduced the term Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), which combined previous diagnoses under one umbrella. By viewing autism as a spectrum, the DSM-5 recognized that autism presents differently in individuals and persists across all stages of life. This marked a significant step toward integrating the idea that autism is not something one grows out of but a lifelong condition that requires ongoing understanding and support.

The Implications of a Lifelong Understanding

The return to understanding autism as a lifelong spectrum has profound implications for how society supports and accommodates autistic individuals. With this recognition, there is a growing focus on services that support autistic adults in areas such as employment, healthcare, and independent living. This shift also emphasizes the need for tailored support throughout different life stages, including transitions from school to work and aging as an autistic adult.

Additionally, this broader understanding allows for more research into the needs of autistic adults, including mental health, relationships, and aging. As society moves away from the childhood-only model of autism, there is greater awareness of the spectrum of experiences that autistic individuals face, and a commitment to supporting them throughout their lives.

In PlainSpeak: Plain Language for the Lay Reader

The understanding of autism has come full circle—from Kanner’s original view that it is a lifelong condition, to the mid-century belief that it was something you might grow out of, and now back to recognizing autism as a spectrum of experiences that continue into adulthood. This shift has significant implications for how we support and accommodate autistic individuals throughout their lives.

Kanner’s Early View: Autism as Lifelong

In 1943, Leo Kanner first described autism as a lifelong condition. He believed it appeared in early infancy and persisted into adulthood, noting traits like social challenges, repetitive behaviors, and a need for sameness. Kanner thought that while some children could improve with intervention, autism itself was unlikely to disappear.

The Shift to Autism as a Childhood Disorder

By the mid-20th century, autism came to be viewed primarily as a childhood disorder. Several factors contributed to this shift:

  • Lack of Longitudinal Data: Early research on autism didn’t track autistic individuals into adulthood, leading to the focus on childhood interventions. The lack of long-term studies contributed to the misconception that autism was a childhood condition.

  • Developmental Psychology Influence: Autism was often studied within childhood development models, reinforcing the idea that it was something children could potentially "grow out of" as they developed.

  • Institutionalization: Many autistic children were institutionalized, particularly those with severe symptoms. This removed autistic adults from public view, further reinforcing the idea that autism primarily affected children.

  • DSM-III (1980): The DSM-III reinforced autism as a childhood disorder, as it primarily focused on diagnosing autism in children and didn’t fully address how autism manifests in adults.

The Shift Back to Lifelong Understanding

By the 1970s and 1980s, research began to show that autism was not something individuals outgrew. Several developments led to the recognition of autism as a lifelong condition:

  • Longitudinal Studies: Research following autistic individuals into adulthood revealed that many core traits, such as social and communication challenges, persisted throughout life.

  • Broader Spectrum Recognition: The 1994 publication of the DSM-IV expanded the definition of autism to include related conditions like Asperger syndrome, acknowledging that autism manifests differently across the lifespan.

  • Autistic Advocacy: Autistic adults began advocating for recognition and support, making it clear that autism affects people well into adulthood, driving a push for lifelong understanding.

  • DSM-5 (2013): The DSM-5 introduced Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), recognizing that autism exists on a spectrum and persists across all life stages. This marked a formal acknowledgment that autism is not something people grow out of, but a lifelong condition requiring ongoing support.

Implications of a Lifelong Perspective

This shift back to viewing autism as lifelong has significant implications for how society supports autistic individuals. There is now a greater focus on providing services for autistic adults in areas like employment, healthcare, and independent living. As the understanding of autism grows, so does the commitment to supporting autistic individuals at every stage of life, ensuring that their needs are met not only in childhood but well into adulthood.

 My Ted X talk titled "Pebbles in the Pond of Change

Hari Srinivasan, shares a powerful message about the power of small actions in creating ever-widening ripples in the pond of change. Drawing from personal experiences and the legacy of disability rights leaders, he redefines progress as a journey that starts with simple, accessible steps. His inspiring message encourages everyone to identify and act on their own "small pebbles" to drive societal transformation.

Does Autism Magic Away in Adulthood

 Psychology Today: Do You Grow out of Autism?