Susan Senator
All happy families are not alike...
All happy families are not alike...
What’s Autism Got to Do With It?
This bit I wrote is in today’s Washington Post.
washingtonpost.com
What’s Autism Got to Do With It?
Sunday, July 30, 2006; B08
How do we make sense of the murder of William Lash IV, an autistic 12-year-old from McLean, killed by his supposedly loving, well-respected father? After living with my son Nat’s severe autism for 16 years, I am no stranger to hardship and struggle.
The lowest point in my life was when Nat attacked me at the subway station. Though 11, he was almost as big as me, and I had my infant son in my arms, with the stroller hanging heavily from my wrist. None of my parent training would have prepared me for that moment of sweaty panic as I struggled to slip the stroller off my arm, hold on tightly to the baby, and fend off Nat’s clawing hands.
I remember the agonizing thoughts running through my brain. This was the most severe of many such episodes in the preceding few months. I felt myself going to a dark place in my mind, down that “what if . . . ?” path. Life would be so much easier had he not been born or if he were. . . .
That evening, I cried as we began to make arrangements to put Nat in a residential placement. My sadness collided with my guilty relief, as I dared, at last, to imagine our life without Nat: travel, going to parties easily, visiting other families.
In the end, I just couldn’t send him away. As hard as things were, it just did not feel right. And so we hung on; we got through it, with calls to supportive family, new medications and the healing passage of time.
The thing I know now, that I did not know then, is that many parents with or without disabled children have similar devastating moments, filled with terrible wishes. Autism does not make my family unique or its circumstances more tragic than those of any other family. That is what makes the stories about William Lash, and Christopher DeGroot and Katie McCarron, all the more horrifying. These children were killed by their parents, and the way the stories read, presumably because of their autism.
Like those parents, I have seen some pretty dark days because of autism. But I have also known some of my brightest moments because of my autistic son. Understanding Nat and autism have certainly been difficult, excruciating at times, but by now, so have certain other challenges life has thrown my way.
No question, dealing with autism without understanding it is difficult. But murdering because of it? Unfathomable and inexcusable. We all have our own sack of troubles, as my great grandmother, a pogrom survivor, used to say. And to paraphrase another survivor, Tina Turner: What’s autism got to do with it?
— Susan Senator
Brookline, Mass.
susan@susansenator.com
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
22 comments
E-mail Susan
On Facebook
@susansenator
What are the devestating moments for other families? I want to have your wisdom about these things now. My daughter is 2 and will not be able to live independently on her own. We go to this therapy place where all the moms sit in the waiting rooms and I listen to all their “serious” problems. There are other obviously disabled kids, but most are not. The moms list shyness, not quick to make friends, won’t follow instructions, needs to be reminded to take their vitamins. I want to scream at them and tell them that they are lucky, lucky, lucky. Who can look into other families and know about their sorrows? How does it compare to my completely apparent and obvious sorrow?
My daughter is 2 and will not be able to live independently on her own.
Well, you can’t know that. (Especially at 2).
“That is what makes the stories about William Lash, and Christopher DeGroot and Katie McCarron, all the more horrifying. These children were killed by their parents, and the way the stories read, presumably because of their autism”.
In regards to William Lash, I would like to see any proof that you have that his murder was committed due to his autism? To write that in the Washington Post is inappropriate UNLESS you can back it up.
Doris,
Your daughter has Rett, right? I’d find the page for you but I can’t right now…linked to the International Rett Syndrome Association page there’s a girl named Jocelyn. Her last name starts with a C. Click on her picture or the link given (can’t remember how they’re doing it right now) and check out her webpage. It’s really quite fabulous and hopeful (Jocelyn has I believe 3-5 years on me, too, so diagnosis and intervention were different then).
Actually, I first saw the story in the Washington Post; that was where I got my info.
Doris –
Joseph is right, your daughter is sooo young. And you know what, my son is, too. Wonderful things happened as late as 13 and 15, and hopefully, today!
“Actually, I first saw the story in the Washington Post; that was where I got my info”.
So then I will assume that we read the same article. I would encourage you to go back to that article and re-read it. Where is the part in the article which leads you to believe that this man killed his child because the child was autistic? I may have missed it. You may be correct. Your assumption may very well be right. However, to make that leap? Yuck! Pretty bold of you.
Sue – Susan made no assumption. She made a presumption based on the way the article was written and what was quoted. The title of Susan’s piece, in case you missed it, was ‘what’s autism got to do with it?’
“Sue – Susan made no assumption. She made a presumption based on the way the article was written and what was quoted. The title of Susan’s piece, in case you missed it, was ‘what’s autism got to do with it?”
Just so we are talking apples to apples here. Is this the article in question?:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR2006071400502.html
Is it the fact that the article mentions that the son was autistic that leads Susan to her assumption that this is the reason for the murder? I’d also like to say this is not just a discussion between us or a random blog entry. This was published in a newspaper near where the family lives (I presume), so for her to bring this up in the manner that she did is just a bit distasteful to say the least UNLESS their is good reason for her assumption. Again, maybe she read something that I didn’t. Please post, if that’s the case. As for the title of Susan’s letter “What’s Autism Got to Do With It”?… I think a right back at ya’, Susan, works pretty well.
Well just let me tell you this, it does feel different if you are the child who is attacked by his father, and I do know what that feels like.
I don’t think anyone is ever killed for there autism as such, they are killed for there difference (lets stop this autiecentric mentality right now we share a greater oppression) children constructed as being disabled are persecuted (to the ultimate degree of murder), for the notion that they were not the objects that society in its macrocosms and microcosms taught that they ought to be.
The murders are bad enough, but the society that provokes and sanctions them is worse still
Sue M.
I believe you are jumping into the subject a little late and don’t have the background information necessary to understand Susan’s point. Recently, the news media have written stories of children being murdered, and they mention that the children had autism. Well, the point Susan is trying to make is why include that? To include that is to imply that Autism had something to do with the act of murder! Exactly the point Susan and you are both making, albeit from two different angles. When reporting that the child had autism (and by extension all the “negative stereotypes” that are associated with that label), what many people read, especially those with autistic children, is that the reporter is implying that autism could be a possible motive. What Susan said is that autism is A. Not as bad as the press often reports B. not an excuse for murder and C. unless there was a note left by the murderer as to motivation then autism shouldn’t be mentioned as a speculative motive by the reporter. What the Post reported, along with most other newspapers, is a way to justify murdering disabled children as an explanation for the murderer’s action. To sum up, you are arguing with yourself on this one because you simply missed the point from a lack of background.
You write of the frustration so well.
The murder of any child is such a frightening read.
Thank you for saying what desperately needed to be said!
The child didn’t die because of his autism. He died because his father murdered him. End of story. The autism shouldn’t play into the trial or the reason the child is dead, but it will.
Alexander’s Daddy,
You wrote this:
“Well, the point Susan is trying to make is why include that? To include that is to imply that Autism had something to do with the act of murder! Exactly the point Susan and you are both making, albeit from two different angles”.
If this is the case, then I don’t believe that Susan made her point very well. To me, her message seemed to imply that it was her believe that this young boy was murdered by his father because the boy was autistic. You cannot reach that conclusion from the article posted and I took issue with her making that assumption. So, it is possible that I misread or misinterpreted her point. I would wonder how many other readers did as well. What I am hearing from you is that unless the autism is a main component of the story… then it should not have been addressed in the article (however fleeting). In other words, the story should have just been that the man killed his son, right? Is that the idea?
Alexander’s Daddy,
How does this statement from Susan’s letter fit into your analysis. She wrote:
“No question, dealing with autism without understanding it is difficult. But murdering because of it? Unfathomable and inexcusable”.
I think some of you are even on different pages here.
Sue, I believe Susan’s article was mainly addressed to the news media.
“These children were killed by their parents, and the way the stories read, presumably because of their autism.”
Read that again: THE WAY THE STORIES READ….
Susan’s point to the media is “What’s Autism Got to do with it?”
Alexander’s Daddy,
If Susan meant mostly to address the news media… she did a horrible job. I think you should check with her to see if that’s really what she meant to address? If we are going to pick and choose select sentences/phrases, I’ll try this one again:
“No question, dealing with autism without understanding it is difficult. But murdering because of it? Unfathomable and inexcusable”.
I think that you might be wrong in your analysis of what Susan was trying to do. Again, I could be wrong.
Sue, if you insist on misunderstanding the gestalt of the article, no amount of persuasion on my part will help.
It is quite clear from Susan’s lack of commentary here that I am right and you are wrong 🙂
Oh, Sue, you are going to believe what you believe, and that’s your perogative. But I think you’d be better off letting this one go at this point.
Parents also murder their NT kids and not because they are NT, but, in my opinion, because the parents had an incredibly serious mental illness.
One of the reasons I liked Susan’s book so much, and read this blog, is because she and others here understand what it is like to live with a child with autism. How it can be draining: emotionally, physically and financially. That is something no one can grasp unless they are living it every day. This is an important blog for me. It helps keep me grounded.
I have two sons, BOTH autistic. I got the point Susan was trying to make – the possibility that a parent could be so frustrated, or ashamed, of his child that he could commit a horrible act in a fit of rage. Never in my life have I been so frustrated, but there are days when both of my boys are so difficult I want to act out, lash out, give up – or just leave (but then what kind of parent am I to do so). Some parents also never quite come to terms with their child’s situation, and even deny it to the point of adversely dealing with it. I am sure there is more to the story but it will only be revealed in time. PS Susan, just read your book – thank you!
“Oh, Sue, you are going to believe what you believe, and that’s your perogative. But I think you’d be better off letting this one go at this point”.
If Alexander’s Daddy was correct in his analysis. I would suggest that you are more careful the next time that you write a letter to the media. Your point was not made.