As a professor and clincian trained in applied behavior analysis, I generally tell students that four major events profoundly affected the future outlook for children with autism: 1) The publication of Lovaas's 1987 study in which nearly half of children treated with an applied behavior analytic (ABA) program "recovered" (with a substantial additional number of children making substantial progress), 2) the publication of Cooper, Heron, and Heward's professional book "Applied Behavior Analysis," 3) the publication of Maurice's powerful book "Let Me Hear Your Voice," and 4) the founding of a standardized certification credential for professionals in behavior analysis by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board. The first event (Lovaas's 1987 study) laid out the objective empirical evidence supporting the use of ABA with children with autism. The second (the Cooper et al book) described the thousands of evidence-based techniques and principles of learning that make up the science of ABA. The third event (the Maurice book) popularized the idea for many thousands of people that recovery from autism was possible and that there was a science-based treatment approach that could lead to such recovery. The fourth event (certification in ABA) came about, to a large extent, from the demand for ABA services generated by Maurice's book.

As "old" as Maurice's book is now, to date there are still no controlled peer-reviewed studies that have demonstrated the effectiveness of any of the alternative treatments for autism (many of which were described in Maurice's book). On the other hand, studies examining and confirming the effectiveness of ABA continue to appear in peer-reviewed scientific journals (most recently a replication of Lovaas's 1987 study by Sallows and Graupner in 2005 that found the same "recovery" rate of nearly half the children with autism that were treated). Despite this continued reliability of effectiveness, ABA is still attacked by its critics as "inhumane," "rigid," or something that generates "robotic children" even though there has never been a scrap of empirical evidence to support such mischaracterizations. ABA continues to be ignored by many school districts as the intervention of choice for autism despite its impressive track record. It continues to be naively derided by popular educational "advocates" such as Alfie Kohn (see his books "Punished By Rewards" and "Unconditional Parenting"). It continues to be denied funding from insurance companies who have no problem funding other less expensive non-evidence-based "treatments." Fortunately, Maurice is still fighting pseudoscience and advocating for science-based autism intervention through her work in the Association for Science in Autism Treatment, her speeches, and through her other books ("Behavior Intervention for Young Children with Autism" for example). She continues to inspire parents and professionals alike to do what is ethically right for our children: to teach them to speak, to teach them to love, to teach them to learn! so that THE CHILDREN have the tools to decide who they want to be and what they want to do in life. There can be no more noble endeavor than helping this happen for our kids.

It was an interesting book, but the author wants to sell the idea that ABA is the best and only approach to autism dismissing other choices like DIR/ Floortime, which in fact has proven to be more helpful in kids with PDD. Read Engaging Autism by Dr. Greenspan. Living with autism is more than just drills.

Like Catherine Maurice, I have two children that were diagnosed with autism at age two; one in 1994 and the other in 1996. I am a registered nurse and a long-time autism advocate. My kids are at opposite ends of the spectrum at this point but both were very severe at diagnosis. I cannot help but wonder what field Ms. Albert is in; perhaps a restaurant reviewer? She appears to have so little basic knowledge of autism, its symptoms and effective evidence-based treatments. Do you have or know any children with autism Ms. Albert? The Maurice kids displayed very classic signs of autism and the doctors that diagnosed them and later published a study detailing their descent into autism and recovery are some of the most respected autism experts in the country. To question their credibility and the reality of her children's diagnosis just makes Ms. Albert look foolish. And to actually endorse Martha Welch's holding therapy, which borders on child abuse, along with other useless or unproven treatments just adds to the absurdity of her claims.

Look, Catherine Maurice never offered anyone false or unrealistic hope, she just offered some hope and information back when there was none. It is true that sometimes parents can cling to someone's story and hope that their experience will be the same, but I for one was glad to know that autism was not necessarily a "nightmare without end." She never claimed that ABA would recover all or even most kids, but study after study shows that some children make incredible gains, and some actually do lose their diagosis after years of intensive treatment. Catherine Maurice shared her journey into the world of autism, including her mistakes and doubts, very eloquently and truthfully. How many could put themselves out there and detail this highly emotional experience? Why would anyone bother with bullies like Melissa Albert? While we are all entitled to an opinion, we should be responsible enough to check facts before discrediting an author's story. And lastly, slamming Catherine Maurice for being wealthy is just over-the-top and unfair. Autism strikes families from all socio-economic classes and her experience was as heart-wrenching as mine. So she found a therapy that worked for her kids but she should not take the time to tell parents about it because she is wealthy? How easy it would have been to dismiss autism from her life after her kids recovered, and just move on. She wanted to help other parents and write an honest account of her family's experience. And she did help. Today school districts and states are starting to offer funding for ABA, in major part because of her book and the published studies of many fine researchers and clinicians. I feel blessed to have learned about ABA through Catherine Maurice's book "Let Me Hear Your Voice" and I will always be grateful to her for offering my family that light in the night to guide our way.

As a special ed teacher of an autistic classroom, I found this book very interesting. It was written at a time when ABA treatment for autism was a little known and cutting edge treatment, whereas now you can barely Google the word 'autism' without countless ABA references. As a result, Ms. Maurice describes a journey through a world of therapy options that have fallen by the wayside in today's treatment world...play therapy, holding therapy, and the like. This book is famous because it helped, in part, to make ABA the widely used therapy it is today.

As others have noted, a part of me does wonder how much of the two recoveries in this book were attributable to ABA. I think it was a factor, but I think there were likely other factors at play as well. Many children receive 40+ hours of this therapy a week with widely varied levels of success...if I remember correctly, Anne-Marie was only getting about 10 hours a week (well below the number of hours required for ABA to show effectiveness in controlled studies) and yet she fully recovered in less than two years. Autism is not an all or nothing proposition...I'm sure the therapy aided in their recovery but it seems likely that these children were also high functioning to begin with.

I did appreciate Ms. Maurice's take on some of the older treatments for autism that were in widespread use at the time. I think play therapy is fine if it's being used to teach skills...as in, let's hide the balls 'in', 'on', and 'under' the furniture to learn about prepositions. I disagree with the type of play therapy described in the book, however, which seems to operate on the idea that autistic children are emotionally disturbed and need psychological healing in order to recover. The same basic idea is used in holding therapy. I don't think it can be said enough...autism is NOT, I repeat NOT, a psychological problem. It is a neurological difference that is present from birth or develops soon thereafter. Unless a child is severely neglected or physically abused to the point of neurological injury, autism is NOT caused by bad parenting (or by any particular style of parenting at all, for that matter). So even if I don't agree with the super pro-Lovaas-style-ABA philosophy of this book, I thought Maurice made an important point there.

First the good points:

This book is quite well-written, and an excellent overview of many competing "therapies" for autistic children. Both myself and my sister have worked extensively with autistic children, and we have family members who suffer from both autism and Asperger's syndrome. But....

This book is EXTREMELY biased--and sadly, not altogether true. The Lovaas method is praised as "recovering" children from autism, and though Mrs. Maurice repeatedly states that her children are "recovered," from the evidence she herself provides, it's fairly clear her children were not "autistic" to begin with. It seems that while her daughter may have had some mild-to-moderate form of developmental disorder, she was obviously not autistic (and the idea that her daughter "recovered" in a matter of mere months is ludicrous). Even sillier is the story of her youngest son, who does not seem to have developed any indications of autism beyond being a late talker. It seems as if Mrs. Maurice found doctors who told her what she wanted to hear, and then became obssesed with "recovering" her children. Clearly her daughter benefitted from the early intervention, but Maurice's story lacks credibility. For those who have children with true autism, Mrs. Maurice's story of a "miracle cure" will prove more devastating than encouraging. (A particularly tragic story of a woman named "Lucille" is appended to the book, who upended her family's life to enroll her autistic son in a Lovaas-based program--partly on Maurice's advice--and whose son has so far made little progress). There are autistic children who do become very high-functioning, even mainstreamed, but deficits remain. That Maurice's children "recovered" so fully and rapidly is proof that they were never autistic to begin with. At her interview with her child's behavioral therapist, she states decisively, "Anne-Marie IS going to recover." Of course--since she'd already decided in her mind that her daughter was autistic, it was easy enough to then declare her "recovered" a few months later.

Maurice seems not to understand that autism is a "spectrum" disorder, and she accepts as faith that it is a completely neurological disorder. Much like depression, autism can have either biological or psychological causes, and the root cause is not always so clear. At one point she notes "Failed bonding is a result of autism, not the cause"--but again, this isn't always true.

Even more biased is her presentation of the various alternative therapies for autism. She rejects all medication therapy; various nutritional approaches (such as those for food allergies and Vitamin B) are briefly raised and then dismissed. Her extreme prejudice towards holding therapy belies her own statement that she believe it to have some "real" if "limited" worth. She paints Dr. Martha Welch as a dangerous flake, a gross libel. Dr. Welch may well have been a bit New-Agey for her tastes, but I have seen children benefit enormously from it.

Even more dishonestly, she viciously pans Virginia Axline's seminal "play therapy," which has stood the test of time and which, again, I have personally seen the benefits of. It is true that behavioral therapy has an excellent track record in terms of helping children become higher-functioning, but no one therapy is a "magic bullet." In my experience, children benefit from an integrated program which includes behavioral, speech, play, and nutritional therapy (and very often also medication, though the author does not explain her animosity toward it.)

Lastly, though I am not indicting the author for being rich, she blithely ignores the fact that the average parents (not working on a Wall Street, not a nonworking wife who has a full-time nanny anyway, not living in a fancy Manhattan prewar co-op, etc.) cannot afford to have this type of intensive treatment brought into their homes, and must instead become advocates for their children within the local school system. Maurice does supply some valuable information on the appeals process with schools and HMOs. But if you are the parent of an autistic child, think again before reading this book. It will likely hurt your feelings, and what good information it provides is readily available elsewhere.