All Rileyed Up

Recently, two celebrity remarks have generated buzz in the autism community—

Actress Amanda Peet said in Cookie magazine: “Frankly, I feel that parents who don’t vaccinate their children are parasites.”

Radio talk show host Michael Savage said: “I’ll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out. That’s what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they’re silent? They don’t have a father around to tell them, “Don’t act like a moron. You’ll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot.”

Peet apologized, and said, among other things, “I still believe that the decision not to vaccinate our children bodes for a dangerous future. Vast reductions in immunization will lead to a resurgence of deadly viruses.” and “In the fifties, vaccines were recognized as life-saving. My mom had polio and was quarantined when she was 6 years old. It’s so hard to appreciate vaccines now that so few children are dying from preventable diseases today, but that could all change if we’re not vigilant.”

Savage and his network have apologized, and defended his remarks with “Dr. Savage [according to Wikipedia, he holds a PhD in nutritional ethnomedicine] has clarified that his July 16th statements concerning autism were not directed at those who are in fact challenged by this horrible affliction, but were instead addressing efforts to broaden the concept of autism beyond those who truly are autistic to a broader “autistic spectrum” of behavioral symptoms which are also manifested by persons who do not suffer from autism, and his concern that many children are being misdiagnosed as autistic due to the subjective nature of autism diagnosis (due to the lack of known biomedical indicators, such as blood tests, to definitively confirm or deny the actual existence of autism). Dr. Savage has also explained his belief that there have been efforts by certain professionals and professional organizations to expand diagnoses of autism more broadly, for various reasons, and his concern that this victimizes and stigmatizes children who are misdiagnosed as autistic.”

The apology statement went on to point out that “The purpose of talk radio is to raise the level of public discourse by introducing commentary on controversial issues.”

So the real question is, why didn’t you guys just #@&! say that in the first place?

Commentary on controversial issues does not mean speak like a close-minded jerk. If you wanted to address the concerns of overdiagnosing autism or the importance of vaccines, you didn’t need to classify an entire group of people as brats or parasites to get your point across.

I especially liked (and by liked, I mean rolled my eyes) this blurb from Savage’s network’s statement concerning “his brief 84 seconds of commentary”:

“In the context of his broader concerns, it is clear that Dr. Savage’s comments were intended to suggest his opinion that, in the vast majority of cases, most children throwing tantrums, or refusing to communicate, are not autistic. Unfortunately, by condensing his multifaceted concerns into 84 seconds of commentary, the necessary context for his remarks was not apparent, and the few words he used to express his concerns were, in this instance, inartfully phrased.”

What “vast majority of cases” is he referring to? Children in general or cases of autism? If the former, duh, of course temper tantrums and refusal to communicate don’t mean they’re autistic. Who even thinks that? If the latter, how could he possibly formulate such an opinion without reading enough autism diagnoses to say “a majority of cases.” Here’s the criteria for DSM-IV Autism. Clearly, more than temper tantrums and refusal to communicate are necessary. Is the wording vague? Yes. Is there room for misinterpretation? Yes. Did a neurologist once explain to me that autism diagnosing was similar to art appreciation and that everyone views it differently? Yes. These are very important things to consider if you think your child has autism or you disagree with a DSM IV diagnosis, and I think Michael Savage would agree, but the seriousness of his subject was lost to his “inartfully phrased” comments. Is it just me, or are the words “inartfully phrased” the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever read? He called 99 percent of autistic kids “brats.” That’s not “inartfully phrased.” That’s rude, demeaning, insulting, offensive, generalizing, judgmental… take your pick.

What bothers me about media focal points like Peet said parasites or Savage said brats are the that they bury the real concern – children’s health – under name calling.

I don’t care about Amanda Peet or Michael Savage and they don’t care about me. They will insult me today and apologize tomorrow and I will be no different as a result. We do have a shared concern for the health of children, though. So the next time Peet and Savage have the opportunity to use their celebrity status to bring attention to something important, I hope they don’t waste it on an insult, er, inartful word.