U.S. Families Sue Over Discontinued Autism Therapy
January 19, 2010
Families with autistic children in eastern Los Angeles County have filed a class-action lawsuit against a nonprofit agency for discontinuing therapy for the disorder, it was reported on Monday.
The Eastern Los Angeles County Regional Center halted the therapy for more than 100 children, citing budget cuts in state- funded services, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The center informed more than 100 families late last summer that their children were losing the therapy — known as the DIR model, or "developmental, individual difference, relationship- based" — as a result of state budget cuts, the paper said.
The center, which oversees state-funded services for the developmentally disabled in the area, eliminated DIR because it " doesn’t meet the rigors of science," said Gloria Wong, the executive director, who is named as a defendant in the suit.
The therapy is the basis for a popular treatment known as Floortime, in which a therapist follows a child’s lead during play activities to help build communication and social interaction skills. Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that limits communication and social interaction.
The move "threatens to condemn our clients and this group of children to a bleak future under institutionalized care," said Laura Faer, an attorney at the Public Counsel Law Center, which filed the suit on behalf of the families in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Attorneys for the families said that DIR should not be considered experimental, because it has been reported to be " clinically effective," and pointed out that none of the other 20 regional centers in the state had discontinued it.
Last July, the state Legislature cut more than 300 million dollars in services for the developmentally disabled, including experimental treatments, recreational activities and nonmedical therapies, according to the paper.
Although there are no controlled scientific studies on DIR, the National Research Council concluded in 2001 that it had enough in common with other, proven methods that it could be considered a valid model for treating autism. Across the country, some public agencies and school districts have funded it, while others have refused, said the paper.