Autism and ABA - Michelle Dawson's "Expertise" and Ethics

The figure above represents the sum total of Michelle Dawson's ABA experience and expertise. Despite her voluminous writings (mis-characterizations) of ABA she has not, to my knowledge , indicated that she has any actual experience or expertise with ABA. Given her lack of actual involvement with ABA has her years long crusade against ABA intervention for autistic children been done in good faith? Is it ethical for her to appear in legal, political and media forums in an effort to keep OTHER PEOPLE's autistic children from receiving the benefit of ABA?

Ms Dawson brought a human rights complaint against Canada Post where she was employed as a letter carrier. Her complaint was based on Canada Post's failure to accommodate her disability as a person with an autism disorder. Some of her allegations against Canada Post were dismissed but she was successful in arguing that some Canada Post management employees had harassed her. In making that complaint Michelle Dawson, who the evidence showed was a very good letter carrier, and who has demonstrated considerable intelligence in fashioning a career as a researcher, still considered her autism disorder to be a disability that required accommodation.

In the course of that hearing Ms Dawson testified concerning her own self injurious behavior over a period of at least 9 years from 1990 to 1999. The mysterious Dr. "M", a colleague and co-author of papers with Ms Dawson, also testified concerning Ms Dawson's self injurious behavior and made it clear that self injurious behavior is directly linked to autism [paragraph 103]. Dr. M testified specifically about Michelle Dawson's self injurious behavior:

[129] The record shows that the second letter refers to Ms. Dawson self-inflicted wounds. In his letter, Dr. M. restates that Ms. Dawson is autistic and refers to the fact that Ms. Dawson’s psychological equilibrium is maintained through acts of self-injury performed at home, that it is a way for her to cope psychologically with intense emotional reactions and should not be seen as an expression of anger.

[130] Dr. M. testified that Ms. Dawson had told him that the injury that she self-inflicted helped her psychologically. For Dr. M., Ms. Dawson had the habit of self-injuring. Dr. M. interpreted these acts of self-injury as a sign of major psychological suffering, a way for autistic individuals to cope with anxiety. He stated in his testimony that he personally saw one of the wounds that Ms. Dawson had inflicted upon herself and stated that the wound was impressive, and would have been impressive for her coworkers.

In the case Ms Dawson also gave considerable evidence about how best to communicate with autistic persons, not just her as an autistic persons, but autistic persons generally. No authorities, studies, Random controlled trials or any other "science" are cited in support of her opinions.

Michelle Dawson has first hand knowledge of the serious self injury that some autistic persons inflict on themselves. Reducing self injurious behavior, not conforming to an abstract social norm, but reducing self injurious behavior, is one of the well documented results that people who actually work with ABA and autistic children have achieved ... the self injurious behavior which is directly linked to autism as Dr. "M" testified.

In my view it is bad faith, and it is unethical, for Michelle Dawson to oppose efforts to reduce self injurious behavior in autistic children via ABA. For a period of at least 9 years she was obviously not successful at eliminating her own serious self injury. And yet she has opposed ABA interventions for other people's autistic children even though it has been used by professionals and parents to help autistic children reduce such self injurious behavior. She does so despite a complete lack of expertise and experience with ABA and despite having no other solution to offer parents trying desperately to help their children.

autism

Read more »

The Mysterious Dr. M: The Notion of Curing Autism Is Nonsensical

Above: Dr. Laurent Mottron, Psychiatrist, High Functioning Autism Expert
Below: Dr. M, Psychiatrist, CHRT Recognized Autism Expert, Identity Unknown

I would like to commend and congratulate Michelle Dawson who has won her human rights complaint against Canada Post Corporation. The decision in her favor will be of assistance to other autistic Canadians facing discrimination on the basis of their autism disability. In Dawson v. Canada Post Corporation, 2008 CHRT 41, 2008/10/03 a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, comprised of member Pierre Deschamps, rejected some complaints made by Ms Dawson but ruled that:

[219] However well-intended Canada Post management was in seeking a medical evaluation, the Tribunal finds that, in the present circumstances, the general behavior of those Canada Post employees who were involved in the medical evaluation process constitutes harassment. .....

[220] The Tribunal thus finds that Ms. Dawson’s disability was an important factor in the way she was treated by the Respondent in relation to the above mentioned events and that theRespondent’s conduct amounts to harassment and contravenes section 14 of the Act. However, the Tribunal finds that there exists no conclusive evidence that the Respondent’s conduct and that of its employees constitute retaliation.

[235] In view of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Complainant and the Commission have not established a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation. The evidence shows clearly that the delay in providing Ms. Dawson with the permission to tape-record conversations with management stems from the reluctance of certain employees to be tape-recorded. In the present circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent had to balance the needs of the Complainant with the concerns expressed by certain of its employees. This said, the tense relations between Ms. Dawson and management at Canada Post cannot be totally excluded as a factor having contributed to the delays.

Some of the evidence about autism and autistic person's generally was provided by Michelle Dawson herself although the tribunal did not qualify her as an expert. The expert evidence was provided solely by a Dr. M called as a witness by Ms. Dawson. Dr. M. was qualified as a credible expert witness by the Tribunal despite his close ties to Ms. Dawson:


b) The testimony of Dr. M

[99] At the beginning of his testimony, Dr. M., who is a psychiatrist, was qualified by theTribunal as an expert in autism. Dr. M. filed a report as well as three letters pertaining to Ms.Dawson’s condition.

[100] Dr. M. testified on the nature of autism, autistic individuals as well as on Ms. Dawson’scondition. The credibility of Dr. M. as well as the accuracy of his statements and opinions wasnot challenged by the Respondent. The Tribunal finds Dr. M.’s testimony highly credible even ifthe evidence shows that in recent years, Ms. Dawson has worked with him and has co-authored scientific articles with Dr. M.

It is truly an amazing coincidence that the mysterious Dr. M. worked with and co-authored scientific articles with Michelle Dawson. I wonder if Dr. M. has ever met high functioning autism expert Dr. Laurent Mottron, who is also a psychiatrist who has worked with and co-authored scientific papers with Ms Dawson? Of course Dr. Mottron has also provided affidavit evidence in support of Ms Dawson's intervenor appearance before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Auton case, and has appeared with, and offered personal testimonial support for, Ms Dawson's particular form of autism advocacy in general media publications and programs such as CBC Radio's Quirks and Quarks. None of that background is cited by the CHRT when it discussed how it concluded that Dr. M. was credible despite his ties to the Compalinant Ms. Dawson so I will have to assume that Dr. M. and Dr. Mottron are two separate individuals.

The expert evidence of the mysterious Dr. M in Dawson v CPC will certainly be of assistance to the broader autism community beset as it is by so many controversies. Dr. M offers his expert evidence to settle many burning controversies in world autism arguments. In particular Dr. M. leaves no doubt that there is no point in seeking to cure autism:

[86] Ms. Dawson testified that autism is a neurological disability and that people generally do not have a good understanding of this reality. Ms. Dawson stated repeatedly that autism was not a mental illness. For her, a mental illness has an onset, various treatments, and there is a return to the previous state to a greater or lesser degree. Both Ms. Dawson and Dr. M., as will be seen,pointed out that the notion of curing autism was nonsensical. Still many people want to cure autism.

It might be helpful for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research which organized the "National Autism Symposium" held last November to get in touch with Dr. M. One of the keynote speakers at the Symposium was Dr. Laurent Mottron. Had CIHR, which is involved with funding some of Dr. Mottron's high functioning autism research, instead chosen Dr. M. he could have advised everyone involved to stop wasting time and money on research aimed at finding a cure for autism.

I have been unable to find any of the papers written by Dr. M. but I do look forward to reading some of his work. And I hope also to be able to meet him some day. I have lived with and cared for a 12 year old severely autistic boy but after reading Dr. M's expert testimony before the CHRT about the nature of autism and autistics I have the haunting feeling that he may not truly be autistic since he does not share many of the characteristics of autistic persons as defined by Dr. M in his testimony.

The case of Dawson v CPC confirms that federally regulated employers must accommodate autistic employees in their workforce.

As a side benefit it has also highlighted the autism expertise of the mysterious Dr. M who can enlighten the world about the true nature of autism. As a further benefit he could persuade the CIHR to stop wasting money researching autism cures.

autism

Read more »