being right is not wrong? let's not fight for right or wrong or rights or rightouaness Dr kondekar emphasises the need to focus on ability..

TRUE HOPE IN AUTISM: BEYOND ACCEPTANCE AND ADVOCACY

Concept – Dr Kondekar Santosh

www.autismdoctor.in | 9869405747

In the journey of autism, three words are often used — acceptance, advocacy, and hope.

But do we truly understand what they mean in practice?

Acceptance – When It Becomes Silent Surrender

Acceptance is often advised as the first step.

“Yes, my child has autism. I accept it.”

Acceptance can bring emotional stability. It can reduce denial.

But sometimes, acceptance quietly turns into something else —

a silent giving up of rights.

When acceptance becomes:

• “This is how he is. Nothing will change.”

• “Autism means lifelong limitation.”

• “We will just adjust.”

Then acceptance stops being strength and starts becoming surrender.

A child’s potential does not end with a diagnosis.

Acceptance should calm the heart — not close the possibilities.

⸻

Advocacy – When It Becomes Only Demanding Rights

Advocacy says:

“I will demand my child’s rights.”

“I will fight the system.”

“I will ensure inclusion.”

This is powerful and necessary.

But advocacy alone often focuses on:

• School rights

• Social rights

• Government benefits

• Accommodations

It demands change from the outside world.

Yet, advocacy does not automatically guarantee developmental change within the child.

Rights are important.

But rights without growth can still leave the child dependent.

⸻

True Hope – Struggling Until It Becomes Right

True hope in autism means something deeper:

Not giving up rights.

Not only demanding rights.

But struggling until it becomes right.

True hope says:

• If this is my child, I will stay connected.

• I will work for change, not just adjustment.

• I will not stop at coping.

• I will not label and limit.

• I will seek guidance, but remain the central driving force.

True hope is active.

It is disciplined.

It is patient.

It is persistent.

It means:

• If there is no eye contact, we work for it.

• If there is no speech, we stimulate it.

• If there is aggression, we understand and correct it.

• If there is sensory dysregulation, we guide it.

• If there is delay, we intervene early and intensively.

Not with panic.

Not with blame.

But with structured struggle.

⸻

Autism Is Not a Full Stop

Autism is not the end of possibility.

It is a signal that development needs direction.

Parents are not spectators.

They are not helpless victims of circumstance.

They are the primary neurodevelopmental environment of the child.

Therapies assist.

Specialists guide.

But transformation begins in the emotional and cognitive ecosystem created at home.

⸻

Beyond Coping – Towards Change

Coping keeps life manageable.

True hope makes life progressive.

Acceptance calms fear.

Advocacy protects rights.

True hope builds capacity.

And capacity changes destiny.

⸻

If we truly believe:

“This is my child.”

Then we must also believe:

“I will struggle with discipline, knowledge, and persistence until things move in the right direction.”

That is not denial.

That is not aggression.

That is responsible hope.

Dr Kondekar Santosh

www.autismdoctor.in

📞 9869405747

Hope is not passive waiting.

Hope is structured action sustained over time

.This is an important and sensitive discussion.

When we speak about “being right,” “being righteous,” and “demanding rights” in autism, the intention is usually positive. However, these ideas can create significant controversies — ethically, emotionally, and socially.

Let us examine this calmly and intellectually.

⸻

1️⃣ The Controversy Around “Being Right”

When parents say:

 • “I want my child to become right.”

 • “I want to correct autism.”

 • “I want change.”

Some advocacy groups may interpret this as:

 • Rejecting neurodiversity

 • Pathologising difference

 • Imposing normalcy

The neurodiversity movement argues that autism is a variation, not a disease to be made “right.”

The Ethical Tension

 • Is “right” defined by society?

 • Or defined by functional independence?

 • Or defined by reduction of suffering?

If “being right” means:

 • Less distress

 • Better communication

 • More independence

 • Reduced aggression

 • Improved self-regulation

Then most families would see it as compassionate.

But if “being right” means:

 • Forcing conformity

 • Suppressing personality

 • Eliminating uniqueness

Then it becomes ethically problematic.

So the controversy lies in the definition of “right.”

⸻

2️⃣ The Controversy Around “Being Righteous”

Righteousness can be empowering:

 • “I am fighting for my child.”

 • “I know what is correct.”

 • “I will not listen to negativity.”

However, righteousness can unintentionally lead to:

 • Dismissing professional differences

 • Rejecting evidence-based debate

 • Polarising parent communities

 • Creating guilt in other parents

When a parent says:

 • “You accepted too early.”

 • “You didn’t fight enough.”

 • “You are not hopeful.”

It can divide families instead of strengthening them.

In developmental conditions like autism, humility is essential.

No one has the full answer for every child.

⸻

3️⃣ The Controversy Around “Demanding Rights”

Demanding rights is essential in many contexts:

 • Inclusive education

 • Therapy access

 • Insurance coverage

 • Social protection

But there are layers of complexity:

A) Rights Without Responsibility

Sometimes systems provide rights, but families may not simultaneously engage in developmental responsibility at home.

B) Rights vs Capacity

Inclusion without skill-building can sometimes lead to:

 • Social rejection

 • Academic frustration

 • Emotional breakdown

Demanding rights is necessary.

But preparing the child for those rights is equally necessary.

C) Conflict Model

When everything becomes:

 • System vs Parent

 • School vs Child

 • Society vs Autism

The model becomes adversarial instead of collaborative.

⸻

4️⃣ The Core Philosophical Conflict

At the heart of this debate lies a deeper question:

Is autism primarily:

 • A difference to be accepted?

 • A disability to be accommodated?

 • A developmental disorder to be improved?

 • Or a combination depending on severity and individual profile?

The controversy arises because different stakeholders emphasize different aspects:

 • Neurodiversity activists emphasize dignity and identity.

 • Medical professionals emphasize impairment and intervention.

 • Parents emphasize functionality and future security.

Each perspective holds partial truth.

⸻

5️⃣ The Risk of Extremes

Extreme Acceptance:

“Nothing needs change.”

Extreme Correction:

“Everything must be fixed.”

Extreme Advocacy:

“Only society must change.”

Extreme Righteousness:

“My way is the only way.”

All extremes create friction.

Balanced hope may require:

 • Acceptance of current reality

 • Advocacy for fairness

 • Intervention for development

 • Humility about uncertainty

⸻

6️⃣ Reframing “Struggling Until It Becomes Right”

Perhaps “right” should be reframed as:

 • Reducing suffering

 • Increasing independence

 • Improving communication

 • Enhancing emotional connection

 • Expanding adaptive capacity

Not erasing identity.

Struggle should not mean:

 • Fighting the child

 • Fighting society blindly

 • Fighting other parents

It should mean:

 • Persistent structured effort

 • Data-driven improvement

 • Emotional stability

 • Long-term commitment

⸻

7️⃣ The Most Sensitive Area

One of the biggest controversies arises when improvement narratives are interpreted as:

 • Blaming parents if progress is slow

 • Suggesting other parents “did not try enough”

 • Implying autism severity is always modifiable

This can unintentionally create shame.

Every child’s neurological profile is different.

Response to intervention varies.

Socioeconomic realities differ.

Hope must never become pressure.

⸻

8️⃣ A Balanced Ethical Position

A mature framework might look like this:

✔ Accept the child fully.

✔ Protect their dignity.

✔ Demand fair rights.

✔ Provide structured developmental input.

✔ Measure progress realistically.

✔ Avoid ideological rigidity.

✔ Avoid parental guilt.

✔ Avoid comparison wars.

⸻

Final Reflection

The real controversy is not about autism.

It is about:

 • How we define normalcy.

 • How we define improvement.

 • How we balance identity and impairment.

 • How we combine compassion with ambition.

Being “right” should not mean being superior.

Being “righteous” should not mean being rigid.

Demanding “rights” should not replace building “capacity.”

The safest path forward may not be ideological certainty —

but thoughtful, individualized, ethically grounded action.