The conversation regarding healthcare for neurodivergent individuals has been extremely controversial. At the heart of the debate is a fundamental difference in ideologies: should neurodivergence be viewed through a medial lens where the focus is on curing these conditions, or should the goal be to treat these conditions as natural variations and provide support without pathologizing neurodivergence? Put simply, should neurodivergence be cured?
This tension shapes how healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the neurodivergent community approach medical interventions, therapy, and support systems. In this blog, we are going to explore the key controversies that shape this issue.
Medical Vs. Social Model of Disability:
A key aspect of the healthcare debate is the conflict between the medical and social models of viewing disability. The medicinal model views neurodivergent conditions as problems that need to be solved. This entails diagnosis and medical intervention, such as therapies, medications, and controversial treatments like Applied Behavior Analysis for autistic children, often to make them “normal”.
On the other hand, the social model argues that neurodivergence is not inherently a problem, rather it is the challenges created by society that lead to difficulty. According to this model, the focus should be on accommodating neurodivergent individuals by providing support and creating an environment where they can thrive. This is achieved through inclusive educational and employment policies and sensory-friendly healthcare environments rather than “corrective” institutions.
These different models often lead to debates about what healthcare should prioritize, treating the conditions, or creating a society that accepts and supports neurodiversity.
Controversial Treatments and Interventions:
Some of the most polarizing aspects of healthcare for neurodivergent individuals are around specific treatments and interventions. For example, Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) has been used for autistic children. Proponents say that ABA helps children develop vital skills and behaviors, giving them a better chance of integrating into society. On the other hand, critics argue that ABA is compliance training, saying that it pressures neurodivergent children to conform to neurotypical standards while suppressing their natural such as stimming. Many autistic adults who underwent ABA have reported lasting trauma and resentment from the therapy, saying that it taught them to mask themselves rather than celebrate their differences.
Another instance is medication for ADHD, namely Adderall and Ritalin. These medications are often prescribed to individuals with ADHD to help them manage symptoms like inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Many people report that these medications have had significant benefits and improved their quality of life. However, there is still an ongoing debate about the long-term effects of stimulant medications, potential side effects, and concerns about over-prescription. Some critics worry that widespread use of these medications, particularly in children, maybe a way to make them more manageable in school/work settings instead of embracing their creativity and energy.
Informed Consent and Autonomy:
Another major issue is the question of informed consent and autonomy of neurodivergent individuals.
Many neurodivergent individuals, particularly children, undergo therapies because of decisions made by their parents or caretakers. This raises some important and complex questions about who has the right to make these types of healthcare decisions, especially when the individual is unable to communicate preferences or fully understand the available options. Some say that it should be left up to the parents to decide what is in the best interest of the child. In contrast, others say that this approach can lead to decisions that prioritize societal expectations over the well-being and identity of the child.
Neurodivergent individuals are increasingly pushing for increased autonomy regarding which treatments they receive, and which ones they choose to avoid. For people who can communicate, this has become a core part of the movement. However, for those who are unable to speak or have some type of intellectual disability, the balance between necessary care and the need for autonomy remains a complex ethical dilemma.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, healthcare regarding neurodivergent individuals remains a complex issue, with valid points on both sides of the argument. As we sort out these issues, we should always work towards creating systems that provide treatments to those who want/need them, while respecting those who choose to embrace their differences.
