A Grassroots Community Dialogue on the Ethics of the Care of People with Autism and Their Families: The Stony Brook Guidelines.

The increased recognition and reported prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) combined with the associated societal and clinical impact call for a broad grassroots community-based dialogue on treatment related ethical and social issues. In these Stony Brook Guidelines, which were developed during a full year of community dialogue (2010-2011) with affected individuals, families, and professionals in the field, we identify and discuss topics of paramount concern to the ASD constituency: treatment goals and happiness, distributive justice, managing the desperate hopes for a cure, sibling responsibilities, intimacy and sex, diagnostic ethics, and research ethics. The members of the dialogue core committee included doctors, ethicists, administrators, social workers, ministers, disability experts, and many family members of individuals with autism who were especially engaged in community activities on behalf of their constituency, including siblings, parents, and grandparents. Our guidelines are not based on "top-down" imposition of professional expertise, but rather on a "bottom-up" grass roots attention to the voices of affected individuals and families speaking from experience. These guidelines can inform clinical practice, but they also are meaningful for the wider social conversation emerging over the treatment of individuals with ASD.

Brief report: Stony Brook Guidelines on the ethics of the care of people with autism and their families.

The increased prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD), with associated societal and clinical impacts, calls for a broad community-based dialogue on treatment related ethical and social issues. The Stony Brook Guidelines, based on a community dialogue process with affected individuals, families and professionals, identify and discuss the following topics: treatment goals and happiness, distributive justice, managing the hopes for a cure, sibling responsibilities, intimacy and sex, diagnostic ethics, and research ethics. Our guidelines, based not on "top-down" imposition of professional expertise but rather on "bottom-up" grass roots attention to the voices of affected individuals and families speaking from experience, can inform clinical practice and are also meaningful for the wider social conversation emerging over the treatment of individuals with ASD.