The decision that the SCoC made was that the BC government does *not* have to fund ABA (Applied Behaviour Analysis) - specifically Lovaas-type (there are four types that I personally am aware of) - for autistic children using health care dollars.
Now, this is a good thing because (and *only* because) there are other types of ABA out there that are much more humane and actually treat the child like a *child* in the process of teaching him/her new behaviours and academics and whatnot. My personal view is that the families behind the court case were taking a tremendously narrow view of appropriate treatment for autism. I know for a fact (from personal experience, having lived in BC for two years during the initial court battles there and being on the wrong end of some of these families' sympathizers) that they are rabidly *for* Lovaas-style and refuse to support *anyone* who doesn't use Lovaas-style ABA... even if it's still ABA. I have a *really big problem* with that. Morally and ethically, it is *wrong*.
The SCoC decision basically says that ABA can't be covered under the Canada Health Act because it's not delivered by medical personnel or in a hospital or other medical facility. This is quite true. While the consultant often (but not always... proper qualifications is a different matter altogether) has a Masters or PhD in Psychology, the actual therapy is delivered by people like me (or really a lot *unlike* me), who have or are working on an Undergraduate degree in Psychology or Education.
In the States, the school boards generally cover the cost of ABA provision, though it's expensive and difficult to get them to fund the amount deemed necessary by ABA proponents. Cost is another issue again; it can cost up to $60,000 per year (or more, if you're really unlucky) to run a 40 hour per week program for a preschooler. That's why families can't afford to pay for it themselves. Of course, a lot of the cost involved is paying all these professionals (the consultants) their $150/hour fee for coming in and observing sessions, writing reports, and doing training workshops. The rest is paying the therapists, who I've heard might charge as much as $25/hour when they're *still in school*! I've been doing this for five years, and I would *never* charge more that $15/hour at my current level of education. But, that's me and the way my ethics direct me. Other people don't have the same sensibilities I do. And I do understand that, even though I really hate it.
As for family stress, that's a really huge thing. A *lot* of families break up due to the stress caused by having an autistic child. Some stay together, but I can see (and sometimes hear) the effects of the stress when I'm in the home for a session.
Here's what happens.
The provincial government says, "Okay, we'll fund this ABA treatment thing for your autistic children." Then, they set up regional centres to provide ABA. Except that the people they put in charge don't know much of anything about ABA, and the people they hire to be the therapists know even less. You're generally lucky if these people even know what autism really *is*.
And then, a child is diagnosed at 3yoa. They're put on a waiting list for the regional centre so they can get this wonderful ABA treatment (well, I suppose something is better than nothing). While they're waiting, they're denied all other services, "because you're going to get ABA".
They wait. And they wait. And then the child turns 6, and is SOL. Because, the government says, the findings are that ABA is most effective before age 6, which *obviously* means that it's completely *ineffective* after that age. (I really don't know how much common sense there is in parliament... I suspect next to none.)
The provincial governments could quite easily decide not to fund *any* autism treatments (beyond occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and speech therapy) based on this, which is what is bad about it, in my opinion.
I am stressed out emotionally over this because I am stuck on both sides of the issue. On the one hand, I'm glad that Lovaas-style ABA wasn't determined to be "medically necessary" autism treatment (which it really isn't... it's an educational technique when it comes right down to it, which I believe is part of why the schools pay for it in the States). But on the other, I'm worried about what could happen to all these kids who so desperately need *something* to help them learn.
It just feels so big again, and the autism thing hasn't felt big like this since Fall 2002.
