You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Aradical shift occurred in the explanations given to the etiology of autism in the Seventies. Rimland (1964) and Ornitz and Ritvo (1976; Ritvo, 1976) challenged Kanner's (Kanner, 1942) view that the disorder was related to early maternal deprivation. They suggested an organic basis for the disorder. Mahler (1965; Mahler & Furer, 1968) also hypothesized a neurological basis for the disorder, but maintained that the disorder was treatable through a special form of intensive psychotherapy that involved the mother as well as the child. Only Bettleheim (1976) remained adamant that the disorder reflected the child's response to an environment that was experienced as uncaring and unresponsive. Similar questions were not raised regarding what Ellen Stockdale calls secondary autism, which we now diagnose, according to DSM III-R (1987), as a Specific Development Disorder, disorders that are presumed to have a neurological basis (Bryan & Bryan, 1986).
My experience with children with learning disabilities leads to believe that Ellen Stockdale's case supports a hypothesis that her condition was that of a Specific Developmental Disorder which