You can't win them all and I’ve certainly not won over Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick with my novel, Daniel Isn't Talking. He doesn't like that the mother in the novel questions the safety of the MMR. He doesn't think that early intervention helps children with autism; he doesn't think the gluten and casein-free diet is worth a try, and suggests that the great burden of trying to help your child with autism is a vain pursuit which will only leads to frustration and bitterness.

Dr. Fitzpatrick’s interpretation of the novel is a bit unusual. He seems to think it demonstrates the overall failure of a mother to help her child with autism, while I am sure that it shows exactly the opposite. He also has this crazy idea that Melanie is hugely rich, which is not the case at all. I think he got confused because Melanie had (years before having children) inherited some money from her mother, who had died of breast cancer. She bought a very tiny, rundown cottage in Wales for Ł25,000. Of course, when Daniel is diagnosed she tries to sell the cottage in order to pay for therapy. Admittedly, a cottage of any sort, even one with no running water, could be considered a luxury. However, I don’t really think it qualifies as the “second home” described by Dr. Fitzpatrick:

“For Leimbach’s Melanie, with a house in one of London’s most exclusive neighbourhoods, things reach such a pitch that she is forced to consider selling the family’s second home, a cottage in the country. It is good that some parents can rely on support and resources of this kind - what worries me is the burden that the pursuit of these regimes imposes on families who lack any such reserves.”

Okay, perhaps he read it quickly or just glossed over the details about the cottage. I can understand that. However, since when does trying to help your child with autism (regimes?) ever impose on other families who do not have the resources to do the same? I am not sure I understand him.

I will let you decide what you think of his article. Here is the link, as well as my response, which may or may not be printed on his comments page:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1283/

Dear Dr. Fitzpatrick,

The character, Daniel, in my novel, Daniel Isn't Talking, undergoes a great deal of developmental progress through the book. Daniel receives an eclectic form of ABA to which he responds positively. My own son, who is now fully verbal and whose IQ score is now well within the normal range, who attends mainstream school and is well-liked by his peers, improved dramatically on just such a program. Your article seems to suggest that early intervention is of little worth to our children with autism and you specifically denigrate ABA. Having seen the progress of my own son and many other children like him, I feel you are may be underestimating the value of early intervention (of which ABA is one example) as well as biomedical interventions such as the GFCF diet.

I do hope that parents reading your article are not put off from finding help for their children. My novel demonstrates some of the struggles that many of us go through trying to get help for our children with autism, but it also shows just how valuable are our efforts. Although you were correct in saying that Daniel Isn’t Talking is based in part on my own life, the only aspect of the novel that is from my real life is the condition of the child, Daniel, at age three when he is diagnosed and the improvement he makes because of early interventions of various types.

With all respect, I would like to add that doing nothing, trying nothing, hoping for nothing, will not make living with a child with autism one bit easier.

Marti Leimbach