Renee F.’s Post

NDIS’s emphasis on “evidence-based” practices presents significant issues, especially for autistic individuals & those whose historical treatment was steeped in control rather than support. 1. Historical Limitations of Evidence: The so-called "evidence base" for autism largely stems from medicalized & behavioral approaches shaped during eras of institutionalization. Social & economic participation for #autistic people lacks longitudinal studies & positive data because, historically, autistic individuals were segregated, #medicated & subjected to unethical electric shocks and aversion treatments. This limited evidence base remains biased, failing to reflect approaches focused on #empowerment or dignified support. 2. "Evidence-Based" as a Tool for Control: Insisting on evidence-based criteria can restrict access to #innovative modernised support if mostly medical & behavioral sciences & approaches are considered. This risks reinforcing narrow, #outdated perspectives, rather than embracing a holistic view that supports neurodiversity, individual growth & dignity. 3. Lack of Research on Social & Economic #Participation or adults in general: The lack of historical research on fostering social & economic participation reflects a system that prioritized control over inclusion. Today's claims of supporting #social & economic inclusion lack rigorous evidence on what genuine participation entails, especially when it seeks to respect autonomy & choice. 4. Control Under the Guise of “Support”: A concerning trend emerges when NDIS & similar bodies push #prescriptive , medically-oriented interventions as "evidence-based." This stance risks a return to restrictive, #institutionalizing mindsets under a modern framework. (hang on we are already there) True “evidence” should involve the Autistic community, be led by lived experience, & the voices of autistic individuals themselves. 5. The #Need for a Rights-Based Approach: Rather than a narrow evidence-based standard rooted in institutional legacies, a rights-based approach would offer an ethical framework for NDIS. This approach prioritizes #autonomy , voice, & the diverse needs of individuals, rather than imposing treatments or restrictions based on outdated practices. Ultimately, the insistence on a limited form of evidence-based support within #NDIS should be scrutinized. This approach risks cementing old practices, overlooks past injustices, & fails to meet current needs. A broader, more #inclusive definition of evidence—one that values diverse forms of knowledge and voices—is essential to prevent a return to restrictive, dehumanizing practices. Marie J. Peter Gregory Mark Sweeney Bob Buckley Shirley Humphris Byron Stol Jarrod Sandell-Hay Belinda Kochanowska Dr George Taleporos (GAICD, PhD) Karrie Brockovich Graham Taylor Veronica Stephan-Miller Dr Rodney Jilek MAICD Jordon Steele-John Annette A. David Napier Helen Bonynge