Recently, the city of Ottawa, Canada formed a child autism registry. A collaboration between the Autism Organization of Ontario and the Ottawa Police Department, the registry allows 911 dispatchers to respond to emergencies involving children with autism spectrum disorder. The two organizations argued heavily for the formation of the registry, saying that it would help these children receive optimal emergency care.
It’s difficult to say whether or not this registry will infringe upon individual privacy, but the measure will undeniably afford the Ottawa Police Department more specific information on what to expect in an emergency involving an autistic child. For example, children with ASD may not be able to respond to police requests and orders. Through the autism registry, the challenges of communication, coordination, cognition, and control of self are taken into account as products of ASD, rather than intentional violation of the law. In this aspect, the autism registry is compelling, as it demonstrates good intentions on the part of officials, who are genuinely interested in improving emergency response for the disabled.
Though an autism registry does potentially allow officials to respond to emergencies more peacefully, it fails to take into account the individual incapacities of ASD. Some autistic children may be prone to violent outbursts, while others may be able to control their actions over time and with the help of professional therapy. Additionally, in cases of mild autism, law enforcement faces the possibility of being too sensitive and accommodating towards children who are actually in control of their actions and emotions.
Criminals have long used tactics involving false mental illness and cognitive incapacity to evade consequences and charges of their crimes. Although children may be too young to understand the potential to employ this ruse, parents of children with mild autism may take advantage of the disability and the registry to liberate their children from consequences of their actions. Tara Fisher (MSB’15) has dedicated her past four summers to working with Autistic children, and shares similar concerns. “I’ve worked with autistic kids on different levels, and they are still humans,” she said. “Being autistic does not mean that you are unaccountable for your actions.” While certain children may not understand how to behave, to group an entire spectrum of people into one single registry leaves room for confusion and dishonesty.
Autism of any severity not only challenges the person who receives the diagnosis; it also affects that person’s family. Although I do not have any close friends or family members with autism, I, like many other people in America and Canada, am uncomfortable with the idea of making a child’s personal incapacities so open to law enforcement officials and the general public. In registering an autistic child, parents are in effect typecasting their children, defining their entire identity as people through one label, leaving factors like personality, aspirations, and even severity of their conditions as second-rate details.
Further, this registry is anomalous in that other mental conditions, which could potentially complicate emergency situations and hinder the abilities of ambulance workers, do not have their own registries. No one is seriously considering implementing a registry for bipolar disorder or attention deficit disorder. What makes autism so different? The ASD registry is a noble concept, but in its current form, it raises more questions about law enforcement sensitivity and how police will treat different levels of autism than it promises in possible protection.
I don’t think you comprehend the gravity, or have a complete understanding, of the issue of first responder interaction with people on the autism spectrum.
First, voluntary, privacy protected registration with a 911 call center can and does save lives. The “public” does not have access to this information, though some may want to share some of this information with neighbors, relatives and friends, where appropriate.
Providing first responders with critical information on their way to a call, rather than after they arrive is very important. Things like “What does the person look like?” “Are they verbal or not?”, “What are their likes and dislikes, habits, medication information, favorite things and places (local water sources may be a critical)?. In cases of elopement (wandering), which are quite common in the autism community, time is of the essence. In the case of a stressful situation, potentially triggering a “meltdown”, it is equally important for a first responder to know ahead of time if the person has autism or other special needs.
First responders are highly trainied to react to body language and physical actions, which we know are atypical in some people with autism. Knowing that they may be dealing with a person with autism can help the responder prepare ahead of time to consider the use of “deescalation”, rather than standard “increase of control” techniques. First responders are tasked with making split second judgments that may mean the difference between life and death…their own and that of the general public, including people with autism. However, they are not field diagnosticians. Giving them tools to enhance everyone’s safety makes tremendous sense.
Finally, the notion that some on the spectrum would provide information to first responders with the expectation of law enforcement “going soft” on them is beyond comprehension to me. You or your sources need to go a easy on the baseless speculation. I suggest you reach out to a wider range of factual sources on this subject, starting with Autism Speaks “Autism Safety Project” (linked below), on which I am an Advisory Committee member. Thank you.
http://www.autismsafetyproject.org/site/c.kuIVKgMZIxF/b.5058283/k.BE40/Home.htm
I agree entirely with the above comment. The fact that the majority of your argument revolves around the “accountability” of people with autism misses the fact that the registry is the collection of information intended for the safety of people with autism in emergency situations (nothing to do with an evaluation of their legal accountability in a criminal case), making the comparison to “criminals” with “tactics involving false mental illness and cognitive incapacity” inaccurate and insensitive.
Also, if you read the frequently asked questions page on the registry ‘s website (which was started over a year ago, although it seems you may have gotten your recent inspiration from Yahoo News), you would see that the information is not public and thus the remainder of your argument about “labeling” making no sense.
http://ottawapolice.ca/en/community/autism/FAQ.aspx
Furthermore, programs (in addition to actual registries, although those are fewer) have in fact been created in cooperation with law enforcement offices that are comparable to those for people with other cognitive impairments, such as Alzheimer’s and dementia, as a quick Google search would tell you. The quick comparison to bipolar disorder and ADD (“What makes autism so different?”) reflects a transparently shallow understanding of these disorders and the purpose of a registry.
An example of a program my brother participates in: http://www.projectlifesaver.org/