[Sabrina Freeman]

For those of you who would like to be part of a research project (out of Florida) on ABA,
the survey is posted on the internet at

http://www.coe.fau.edu/card/EIBI2003survey.htm

I takes about 20 minutes. It is designed for parents who have home
programs. It also contains information for behavioural professionals who may
wish to pass it on to families.
According to the researcher, Canadian responses are very much needed
on this.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact Jack Scott at
jscott@adelphia. Net or phone 561 775 0625.

[Sabrina Freeman]

The Supreme Court of Canada announced this morning that it will hear the Government's appeal of the B.C. Court of Appeal's ruling in the Auton case. Start collecting those "frequent flyer" miles because we are going to Ottawa!

Sabrina

[Sabrina Freeman]

Hi all,

Someone mistakenly advertised a Sensory Integration workshop on the FEAT Chat Board today. As most of you know, this is a discussion forum for science-based treatment, which, in the current state of the science, is Lovaas-type ABA. There are a number of other chat boards and E-lists for discussions about a wide range of scientifically unsubstantiated treatments, including Sensory Integration. For these types of discussions we ask that members of the group please use those alternate groups and keep this forum for its intended purpose — discussions centered on ABA related issues.

Since the Sensory Integration workshop was advertised here, I feel obliged to speak to the generally recognized lack of scientific evidence behind this method. I'll keep comments brief and simply cite the New York State Department of Health Report on Best Practices for Children with Autism. The New York Report states the following regarding Sensory Integration.

"(1) It is important to recognize that there is no research evidence that intervention approaches using sensory integration therapy are effective as an intervention for young children with autism. [D1]" p. IV-59

"… There is currently no adequate scientific evidence (based on controlled studies using generally accepted scientific methodology) that demonstrates the effectiveness of sensory integration for young children with autism. Therefore, the use of this method cannot be recommended as a primary intervention method for young children with autism." p. IV-60.

For those interested in obtaining a copy of the New York Report, it can be purchased in B.C. from Kids Tools, Ph. 604-924-5437.

Please do not respond to this post in the interest of avoiding an inappropriate "thread" on Sensory Integration.

Thank you.

Sabrina Freeman, Ph.D.
Executive Director
FEAT BC

[Sabrina Freeman]

Hello everyone,

We recently sent a copy of the Auton BC Court of Appeal ruling to Dr. Lovaas. He sent reply mail today with a message to BC families which is reproduced below.

___________________________________________________

Sabrina,

I finally found the time to sit down and read about the court’s decisions on behalf of persons diagnosed with autism.

Congratulations to all involved, the future looks brighter to the many who now hurt. It was medicine for the heart.

Please give my fond regards to the parents in BC and wishes for continued progress.

Ivar Lovaas

University of California, Los Angeles
Department of Psychology
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563
___________________________________________________

[Sabrina Freeman]

The Autism 2002 conference and Community Living Transition

Hi everyone,

For those who were unable to attend the recent Autism 2002 conference, here are a few thoughts based on my experience at the event.

The conference was VERY interesting on a number of levels; here are two important points gleaned from the conference. The issues have implications for individualized funding for treatment.

IEII Funding

I had the opportunity to speak, informally, with a government employee who informed that if a region runs out of IEII funding, the manager of that region has instructions to contact Victoria with a request for additional funding, specifically for the IEII program. So, for those of you who have been told by social services staff that you are on an IEII waiting list, here are some options.

Ask to speak with, or meet, with the social worker's supervisor and suggest that they phone Victoria to request additional funding for the IEII program in your region. If that doesn't work, then
– call Linda Reid, Minister of State for Early Childhood Development, and inform her that your child is eligible for the IEII program funding but you're are not receiving funding because the program has run out of funds in your region. If that doesn't work,
– you may want to consider establishing a relationship with a lawyer to work with you in this area. Call FEAT of BC; we can refer you.

Individualized Funding through the Community Living Governance Model

As some of you may be aware, in April 2003 the IEII program is going to be administered by a quasi-government body. I heard a lecture given by Tim Stainton, Ph.D., U.B.C. Professor of Social Work, who is heavily involved in this transfer of funding authority. Dr. Stainton appears to be (at first glance) a proponent of individualized funding. Right now there is a Transition Steering Committee in charge of the transfer of authority. Although this sounds like simply a bureaucratic reorganization (yet another MCFD ‘restructuring’ shuffle), I am somewhat concerned that a group comprised of parents of children with a VARIETY of special needs will have power over autism IEII funding. For those of you receiving this funding, it is important to remain vigilant.

Why the concern? Partially because Dr. Stainton's comments and some unfortunate facts and opinions were telegraphed by this key speaker.

Points to keep in mind follow:

– Conspicuously, IEII parents running ABA programs are not part of the Community Living transition steering committee. The question is, will they be part of the group that decides who does or doesn't receive funding, and how much? This appears to be a small group of parents who have a disproportionately large amount of power and discretion. They are unelected and most certainly do not represent the majority of children with autism who require necessary treatment.

– Dr. Stainton seems to challenge the fact that IEII funding is earmarked for "medically necessary" autism treatment. When a mother asked about whether such necessary treatment was going to be means-tested, Dr. Stainton said that although many folks believe that this is medically necessary treatment, the BC Court of Appeal had not yet decided on this and that we were all going to have to wait for that ruling. Key point is that Dr. Stainton was not prepared to concede that ABA is medically necessary treatment. This is quite troubling and should sound the alarm for all families running home-based programs.

– Throughout Dr. Stainton’s talk and via discussions at the conference, I arrived at the opinion that government bureaucrats have successfully turned a large group of parents of people with developmental disabilities against those of us who are advocating for autism treatment rights. They have used the tried and tested technique of "divide and conquer." Specifically, the government pitch appears to be, "since the court case makes us spend all this money on autistic children, there just isn't enough for your special needs children." Of course, this false zero sum argument was made and lost by BC Attorney General lawyers in both BC Supreme Court and BC Court of Appeal.

The Community Living group — and I've spoken to a few of the movers and the shakers who have cozied up government for many years, and whose grown children are being funded — denies that there is a qualitative difference between the treatment needs of our children, and the housing/care/respite needs of the families they represent. We know there is a big difference. Our children's primary need is costly treatment for a health issue, not respite! This is potentially a VERY SCARY situation.

Another view of the Community Living group seems to be, apparently, that we are trying to change our children purely to conform to society … that we should just let our children be who they are and work to see that society changes for — and adapts to – them! In my opinion, the fact that this attitude is pervasive in Community Living quarters reflects an utter ignorance regarding what autism treatment is all about and what this devastating condition holds for children and families absent bona fide treatment.

Dr. Stainton offered an anecdote about one autistic person who he apparently 'deinstitutionalized,' and for whom he found emplyment. In telling this story, he displayed a profound ignorance of ABA and likely offended 3/4 of the audience. In his defense, Dr. Stainton DID admit he knows nothing about autism or ABA. However, the anecdote shows his hand regarding an attitude towards ABA and children afflicted with autism that is an anachronism.

For those of you receiving IEII funding, you need to be vigilant and communicate the moment your monies start to be eroded. We all know that the amount of IEII only pays for 1/3 of your program. We cannot afford any erosion whatsoever. In addition, the minute any means testing is introduced (Dr. Stainton claimed there would be no means testing for autism), you MUST communicate. Understand that if we do not hang together on this, we will hang separately. Remember that many parents with special needs children who are not autistic, are not happy about gains made by our community. They feel as though somehow their children are going to lose out … what Justice Allan refered to in Auton 2 as government pitting one special needs group against another. The saddest part of this for me, personally, is that I would be more than willing to share ideas with these parents on how to see that government lives up to its responsibilities for other special needs children. I think we all have to help each other, irrespective of our children's disabilities.

I strongly suggest that every parent receiving IEII funding e-mail me directly (skfreeman@featbc.org) and I will compile a list. The moment I hear that this money is being eroded, I will contact you all and we can then meet to review all legal options. Unfortunately, I know of no other way to keep the Community Governance structure accountable. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that the government is so naïve as to think they can can delegate the treatment needs of our children to a group of parents who don't believe in the legitimacy of medically necessary autism treatment needs and then expect them to administer the funding as the courts have ordered. The last time the government set up a similar parent group was with the "At Home" funding program, which we all know discriminates against children with autism because the four criteria for funding are: a child's dependence for 1) eating, 2) toileting, 3) dressing and 4) sleeping. As we all know, once a child is in an IBI program, the above criteria no longer apply for many children with autism – the entire program has a clear physical (vs. neurological) disability bias. All the other issues parents with autistic children face, such as safety concerns for example, don't count for folks running the "At Home" program.

Government hides behind this group of parents by saying, "it's not up to us, it's up to the parent group." I hope the new Community Living structure for autism treatment funding does not turn into the latest rendition of the Monty Python Cheese Shop skit. Gains made thus far for younger children may be reversed unless we are stay smart and well-organized.

If you would like to know more about the way that IEII money is to be distributed, please e-mail the conference speaker at: timst@interchange.ubc.ca for policy clarification. But remember, he has been appointed by government to administer a quasi-government body.

Sabrina Freeman, Ph.D.
Executive Director,
FEAT BC

[Sabrina Freeman]

Dear FEATBC members:

As of late, there have been a large number of new chatboard participants. I'd like to welcome you all to our board and acquaint you with the FEATBC chatboard rules.

The FEAT BC Discussion Group Rules

To be a discussion group member in good standing, please respect the following:

1) The FEAT BC Discussion Group has been designed to discuss any topic relevant to home-based A.B.A. programs (including Government funding and school issues). When we use the term A.B.A., we mean discrete-trial-based interventions (also referred to as "applied behaviour analysis" or "Lovaas" behavioural treatment) for autism and related disorders. This is not an appropriate forum to discuss the latest, unscientific “cure of the day”. If you would like to discuss alternative “options”, please go to the THE AUTISM MAIL LIST.

The autism mail list is an open e-mail-based forum to discuss autism hosted by St. Johns University, and administered by Bob Zenhausern and Ray Kopp. It includes parents, autistic people, researchers, professionals, students, and other people interested in autism. Discussion is lively: many weeks see 500 or more postings. It is a very good forum for posing a question for which you do not know who would have the answer. To subscribe, send an email to: listserv@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU. Leave the subject line blank and in the body type SUBSCRIBE AUTISM [firstname lastname].

2) Be courteous to each other. We ask you to refrain from abusive language, insults and profanity (swearing).

3) Personal attacks are not permissible in the FEAT BC Discussion Group. We respect all opinions even if we disagree with them.

4) This is NOT a confidential discussion forum. Responsibility for posts to the FEAT BC Discussion Group lies entirely with the author who posted the original message.

Important points to remember:

1) Although User ID is required to post messages to the FEAT BC Discussion Group, posted messages can be read BY ANYONE with access to the world wide web (this a web-based Discussion Forum). To help protect yourself from personal liability, it is important to remember the following: if you are criticizing a school, organization or group of any kind, please make sure to state that: “This is the experience I had with [the school, institution,
organization]”, rather than general, global statements about the organization.

2) If you would like to help a parent out, but need to keep the information confidential, we suggest you e-mail that parent privately. If the person included an email address with their message, you can simply click on their email address and send them a private message. If they posted anonymously, post a request to the forum asking for the person’s e-mail address.

I hope that the board will continue to be a lively place to exchange ideas.

Sincerely,

Sabrina Freeman, Ph.D.
Executive Director
FEAT BC

[Sabrina Freeman]

Hello Everyone,

We have a very good thread going regarding teachers, SEA’s and other school issues! However, I want to discuss an important point to ensure we maintain a high quality, meaningful discussion on this very important topic.

School issues are understandably emotional for many, but I strongly urge everyone to please debate based on ideas rather than attack any member of the forum. What makes us strong, as a group is the ability to address contentious issues, laying out the facts and critiquing faulty policies and systems rather that assaulting the credibility of a chat board member.

We should keep in mind that by the very nature of this medium — E-mail communication — posts can take on a VERY casual, virtually conversational style. This means they can be less than perfect in form but, of course, perfection is not the intent of this forum. The goal of the exercise is to share thoughts so everyone can hopefully become better informed and more effective in what they do.

I believe most of us want to hear what everyone has to say, even if the ideas may differ from our own or perhaps are jotted down quickly, with imperfect form. This is a particularly important point to stress when it comes to valued members of the group who may speak English as a second language. Everyone must feel comfortable and welcome to share with us.

Please let's keep the discussion targeted on content rather than form. There is much that needs to be debated where our public schools are concerned.

Thank you!

Sabrina (Miki's Mom)

[Sabrina Freeman]

Hello everyone,

I am posting to the discussion group in response to requests by those who want some additional background on the Government sponsored Autism 2002 conference, and the role of academics and government players in the long-running MCFD effort against families in the Auton case.

First, regarding the speakers at the conference, Dr. Tristram Smith is a very well known and respected researcher in the autism field and is a professor at the University of Rochester in New York. He received his doctorate at UCLA, working closely with Dr. Lovaas. Since that time, he has published several studies on the UCLA model of autism treatment (the protocol designed by Lovaas and colleagues). From my reading of his studies and reviews, Dr. Smith is very well informed regarding the latest research on intensive Behavioral Treatment. On a personal note, I would very much like to hear his views on the state of the science.

In terms of the local speakers, Dr. Pat Mirenda will be on an expert panel during the conference. Dr. Mirenda is an Associate Professor of Special Education in the Faculty of Education at U.B.C, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and Special Education: (http://www.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/pmirenda/mirenda.htm). Prior to this, Dr. Mirenda was the Director of Research and Training for four years with CBI Consultants, a longtime B.C. government autism services contractor. CBI consultants provided an affidavit for Attorney General lawyers to defend government in the Auton case. Of note is that BC Supreme Court rejected all government contracted service providers because they do not provide medically necessary autism treatment. To my knowledge, Dr. Mirenda was not affiliated with CBI at the time.

One aspect of Dr. Mirenda's very close relationship with government is that she, along with Dr. Jill Calder (a board member of the ASBC) and Ms. Deborah Pugh (former Executive Director of the ASBC), were all appointed to a special BC Government committee — created during the NDP Government as a response to the Auton case — to help decide which autism service providers would receive government's three rounds of contracts for the so-called "EIBI" program. As many of you know, the EIBI program was offered up to the BC Supreme Court as a "remedy" in the Auton case — a part of the ruling cross-appealed by the families.

It is also my understanding that Dr. Mirenda is one of a group at U.B.C. who received a sizeable contract from the Children's Ministry to evaluate the same 'EIBI' program U.B.C. helped create for the Attorney General's effort against parents in the Auton case. This costly MCFD 'evaluation' contract ($1,200,000) was awarded to U.B.C. by a senior civil servant in the children's ministry — Ms. Robyn Syme — now working essentially as the Deputy Minister of State for Linda Reid, Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. Ms. Syme is Executive Director of the Early Childhood Development and Community Living Services Division, MCFD.

Of note is that this MCFD evaluation contract DID NOT go out to tender. In other words, there was no competitive bidding permitted to determine who is best suited for the EIBI evaluation work; the children's Ministry simply issued an expedient "intent to contract" notification. (Available for perusal at http://www.featbc.org/downloads/MCF_UBC_Contract.PDF). The reason Ms. Syme gave for not going out to bid on this lucrative autism contract is that, purportedly, only academics from UBC are "uniquely qualified" to do an evaluation of the program. Of course that claim is more than a bit of a stretch, but it is also problematic for another reason: UBC helped develop government's made-for-court "EIBI" autism pilot project (formerly known as P-CARD) and is now entrusted with evaluation of it's own program. You would not be alone if first thoughts that come to mind on all this are 'conflict of interest'.

The MCFD argument that autism research in this province can only be competently done as a 'Made in BC solution' stretches the limits of credulity. Science and knowledge have no borders, so the MCFD evaluation contract, summarily awarded without competition, has all the appearance of a cynical effort to achieve a predetermined, politically motivated outcome i.e., potentially a 'cook the data' effort in the fight against Lovaas-ABA parents, as opposed to genuine autism treatment research. One certainly hopes that the academics involved in the EIBI evaluation project will resist any pressure from MCFD to come up with a predetermined outcome. One certainly hopes that the UBC Ethical Guidelines will be strictly adhered to, unlike when the B.C. Office of Health Technology Assessment at U.B.C. was asked by the Health Ministry to help out in the Auton case with anti-lovaas research that was ultimately found by BC Supreme Court to be "obviously biased" and of "minimal value".

Another member of the expert panel is Dr. R. Gerald Kysela. Professor Emeritus, Educational Psychology, University of Alberta. Dr. Kysela is very much involved in MCFD's EIBI program as well. Prior to his work in B.C., he was involved in government autism programs in Alberta. It is my understanding he is relied upon by MCFD as the most senior Autism expert and that all three of BC's EIBI sites rely upon his autism expertise. I have been told he was awarded the Okanagan grant for the EIBI, but I haven't seen documentation to that effect.

In terms of government bureaucrats and politicians involved in the Autism 2002 conference, the office of Ms. Linda Reid, 'Minister for Children Six and under', is underwriting the event. You may be interested to know that Ms. Robyn Syme — whom some of you met last year at an MCFD meeting held in Coquitlam — was promoted from her key autism role during the NDP days in MCF, to her current position as Honorable Linda Reid's most senior civil servant. Of note is that Ms. Syme was well aware of Dr. Strain's adversarial role against families in the Auton case as a government expert.

In addition, another key civil servant you should know about is Ms. Randi Mjolness, an MCFD policy analyst who also received a promotion after her involvement in the Auton case, where she provided Attorney General lawyers with an affidavit describing all the purportedly wonderful autism services the children's ministry offered at the time the case was heard (think Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch). Ms. Mjolsness is now in charge of the new, post Auton 'Provincial Autism Initiatives Branch', as well as the 'Children & Youth with Special Needs Unit' at MCFD. Ms. Mjolsness was also at last years MCFD meeting held in Coquitlam.

In terms of whether it is worthwhile attending this conference, here are some thoughts. It is always a good idea to take advantage of opportunities where purported experts are speaking on the topic of autism. Fortunately, the $235 cover charge for parents of kids 6 and over has been reduced to $25. For those of you who are planning to attend, simply go in with a critical, but open mind.

What to Look for at the Autism 2002 Conference

Some themes to look for that are not generally part of academe, but actually a government agenda, are the following:

GOVERNMENT THEME #1: PARENTS AS THERAPISTS

When academics speak about "teaching parents" skills, or "supporting families", this is often a code — Orwellian double speak if you will — for "teach the parents the rudimentary skills and that's good enough because we as a government can't possibly be expected to treat these children on a costly, ongoing basis". The longtime government strategy: teach the parents, whose labour is free, and then government can appear to be doing something." That's why government sponsored several parent-training sessions via CBI all over the province in 2001, so they could tell a judge they're supposedly doing something about systemic autism discrimination and neglect in B.C.

Please keep in mind that government bureaucrats very much favour 'processed based' evaluation criteria, wherein they can report to higher-ups how much money they have spent, how many meetings they sponsored or attended, how many workshops they sponsored, and how many conferences they organized – but never mind actual outcome of autism policy. Remember, if the Auton Case is appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Autism 2002 conference will likely be used as evidence that the Government of B.C. is actually working in good faith to improve autism treatment practices in B.C.! Truth is, government bureaucrats and in-house policy analysts despise outcome-based evaluations because it means they actually have to prove that what they're spending your tax dollars on is genuinely effective, or perhaps face up to the opposite. That is extraordinarily inconvenient for MCFD's senior civil servants. We parents, on the other hand, DEMAND outcome-based evaluation because it's our children's futures at stake, not simply a government job or a promotion-imperative that's aiming for the more prestigious South facing corner office.

If you choose to attend the government Autism 2002 conference and hear so-called experts attempting to academically justify the rationing of autism health care (a.k.a. therapy hours), you should know that this works to support government's agenda, cloaked in academic legitimacy.

GOVERNMENT THEME #2: CHOICES

Choices (or lack thereof) are another theme government uses in attempts to ration health-care. When government speaks about "choices," for the most part what they are actually saying is "choices, except for Intensive Behavioral Treatment," i.e., Lovaas. There are two reasons for this; first, the government doesn't want to fund Lovaas Treatment (ABA-DTT), which is clearly more expensive than any other so-called treatments for autism due to the intensity and the degree of expertise required for bona fide treatment. In addition, most of the other choices in autism treatment can be offered by the autism services industry MCFD contracts with in B.C. When you are at the conference, and the speakers are attempting to academically legitimate other "choices," note that those choices generally play into the government's less expensive category. For example, pre-school based programs where pre-school teachers and parents get "quick and dirty" training; this low cost, expertise-free option works very well with the government agenda. In fact, it is a virtual certainty you will hear at Autism 2002 about the supposedly great therapeutic pre-school model from Manitoba, but I'll wait until after the conference so we can all share thoughts in this.

GOVERNMENT THEME #3: AVERSIVES

If speakers at Government's Autism 2002 emphasize that their form of therapy is "positive behaviorism" or "positive behavioral support", what is unsaid in the innuendo is that somehow, what "those FEAT people do" with their kids, by inference, is somehow negative or harmful to the child; outrageous as that may sound, those are the spurious charges that are leveled by anti Lovaas academics; Government's case in the Auton hearings was fully stocked with this red herring. If any one at the Autism 2002 conference start to take pot shots at mild aversives used by Dr. Lovaas in his early research work, but fails to mention that this was over thirty years ago at the dawn of autism research and not in any way part of successful replications of Lovaas research data today, please keep in mind that this is an all too typical critique of Lovaas-ABA and arguably an indication that the conference may be designed to support the government agenda against B.C. families.

At any rate, at the conference we'll have to sample the daily specials MCFD's got cooking in their special needs café. I'll see some of you there.

Sabrina
(Miki's Mom)

[Sabrina Freeman]

I would like to add to Tamara Leger’s comments regarding the Autism 2002 conference, sponsored by Hon. Linda Reid — Minister for children under six — and one of Government’s long-time contractors , the Laurel Group (a former employer of … Hon. Linda Reid).

It is important to note that when government puts on a conference of this type, it is typically not without an agenda. There are a couple of worthwhile speakers who were likely included to make the government appear balanced; however, it is fair to say that the majority of speakers chosen have made money in the past from the Government of British Columbia, in some capacity. I’m not going to delve into this, speaker-by-speaker, to tell you about each lecturer’s history and background via a vis Government, but I AM compelled to speak about one speaker in particular that Tamara mentioned in her post to this group.

Tamara noted that Dr. Philip Strain has been invited to speak at this conference. I think it is important that members of this discussion group know — in advance of this Government conference — that Dr. Strain in fact acted as an expert witness for the BC Government against families in the Auton case.

BC Attorney General lawyers used Dr. Strain’s testimony in their effort to defeat the class action lawsuit launched by families of children with autism seeking access to universally funded, medically necessary treatment. Regrettably, Dr. Strain weighed in on Government’s side, in this long and difficult legal struggle for our children.

For those of you who were not in the autism world at the time the Auton case was launched in BC Supreme Court (1998), you should know the families involved in the case originally asked to be certified as a class so that every child would hopefully benefit from a win and receive publicly funded autism treatment that is effective and science-based. It is an undeniable, documented fact that Dr. Strain’s affidavit testimony was used by Government lawyers against our families’ effort to be certified as a class in the Auton case. Dr. Strain’s affidavit is replete with references regarding how ‘different’ every child is and that somehow this justifies Government denial of publicly funded Lovaas Treatment to children whose physician prescribes medically necessary autism treatment, and whose parents request it. Whether or not the Judge was influenced by Dr. Strain’s affidavit is difficult to gauge. However, the fact remains that BC Supreme Court unfortunately did not certify our families as a class in what was arguably a very close call.

In short, this lecturer at the upcoming Government conference actually acted as an expert witness for Government! Therefore — de facto – this autism academic has a clear track record of supporting the BC Government in its ongoing defense of discriminatory and morally bankrupt autism policies (whether or not he actually knew B.C. was an autism treatment free zone at the time of his testimony).

It is also important to brief everyone in this group regarding another historical tidbit relating to Dr. Strain: the LEAP Preschool is Dr. Strain’s brainchild; it was imported into BC from the U.S., where Dr. Strain developed the model. For several years, many of you have complained to FEAT BC about how your child did not benefit from LEAP Preschool. If Dr. Strain had his way, I suspect LEAP Preschool would be one of his early intervention programs of choice in this province.

Since one of my responsibilities is to pull back the curtain on Government’s “Wizard of OZ”, I want everyone to know about this lecturer’s longstanding (from at least 1998), cozy relationship with the Government of B.C., before you take his comments as purportedly unbiased, disinterested information. For those of you who choose to attend the Autism 2002 conference — despite government’s imposition of age discrimination in providing conference-cost subsidy only for kids six and under — please put on your critical thinking caps when listening to speakers at this conference since this is much more than a disinterested, academic exercise.

Once again, the unfortunate, long-standing BC tradition of an incestuous relationship between Government and its academics is at play at the Autism 2002 conference. Government’s Orwellian, glossed-over autism policy still sees that unqualified MCFD social services bureaucrats are firmly in charge over our kids; they hand pick the academics you are going to hear, yet impudently extol that all is superb and unbiased. In the vernacular, this simply does not pass the smell test.

Regards,

Sabrina
_______________________
Sabrina Freeman, Ph.D.
FEAT of BC
skfreeman@featbc.org

[Sabrina Freeman]

Dear FEATBC members,

Although not directly related to the mandate of this board, I also feel compelled to post a note regarding the recent ASBC General Meeting. I understand that despite an unprecedented motion brought by an insurgent group of disaffected ASBC members to overturn the recently elected ASBC board, the current board was given a vote of confidence in a vote of close to 200 ASBC members on Aug 8th (an unprecedented turnout in recent memory).

Several years ago, I was a member of the ASBC. I let the membership lapse because I could not support an organization that was controlled by government, cut private deals with an inner circle and wouldn’t work collaboratively with FEATBC regarding something so fundamentally just and necessary as distributing the Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (CHAT) to every General Practitioner and Pediatrician in the province so that every child could be diagnosed as early as possible, ideally by 18 months of age. The ASBC essentially said ‘No’ by endless foot dragging. FEATBC eventually went it alone with what little resources we had. The CHAT mailing finally went out to 3500 B.C. physicians despite ASBC’s de facto rejection of this important project.

However, today it appears as if the nature of the ASBC has changed to be more inclusive and representative of the wide and more diverse cross-section of families affected by autism in B.C. Therefore, I now believe that the time has come to rejoin a more representative and democratic ASBC. Such an honest organization will likely now fight for necessary initiatives such as individualized funding in support of choices in autism treatment. At this juncture in the evolution of autism advocacy in B.C., I now strongly encourage all the 100’s of members of this discussion group and the over 1000 individual FEAT members at large to join as individual members of the ASBC to ensure your voice is heard (604-434-0880). ASBC is a very important advocacy group that can help advise and guide government in formulation of the policies that affect your children – including individualized funding policies.

Despite all the controversy of the so-called ASBC vs. FEAT debate, I still firmly believe that the two organizations can be complementary rather than adversarial and that a more inclusive and representative ASBC will serve the needs of all British Columbians with Autism — if you all get involved to ensure that happens.

Sabrina

[Author]

Posts