{"id":4190,"date":"2025-09-17T01:56:14","date_gmt":"2025-09-17T09:56:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/?p=4190"},"modified":"2025-08-27T08:58:22","modified_gmt":"2025-08-27T16:58:22","slug":"reprint-blaming-health-problems-on-personal-choice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/2025\/09\/17\/reprint-blaming-health-problems-on-personal-choice\/","title":{"rendered":"Reprint: Blaming Health Problems on Personal Choice"},"content":{"rendered":"

How federal officials talk about health is shifting in troubling ways \u2013 and that change makes me worried for my autistic\u00a0child<\/h1>\n
\n
Blaming poor health outcomes on lifestyle choices can obscure public health issues.
\nAnadolu via Getty Images<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Megan Donelson<\/a>, University of Dayton<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

The Make America Healthy Again movement has generated a lot of discussion about public health<\/a>. But the language MAHA proponents use to describe health and disease has also raised concerns<\/a> among the disability and chronic illness communities.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m a researcher studying the rhetoric of health and medicine<\/a> \u2013 and, specifically, the rhetoric of risk. This means I analyze the language used by public officials, institutions, health care providers and other groups in discussing health risks to decode the underlying beliefs and assumptions that can affect both policy and public sentiment about health issues.<\/p>\n

As a scholar of rhetoric and the mother of an autistic child, in the language of MAHA I hear a disregard for the humanity of people with disabilities and a shift from supporting them to blaming them for their needs.<\/p>\n

Such language goes all the way up to the MAHA movement\u2019s highest-level leader, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It is clearly evident in the report on children\u2019s health<\/a> published in May 2025 by the MAHA Commission, which was established by President Donald Trump and is led by Kennedy, as well as in the MAHA Commission\u2019s follow-up draft recommendations<\/a>, leaked on Aug. 15, 2025.<\/p>\n

Like many people<\/a>, I worry that the MAHA Commission\u2019s rhetoric may signal a coming shift in how the federal government views the needs of people with disabilities<\/a> \u2013 and its responsibilities for meeting them<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Personal choice in health<\/h2>\n

One key concept for understanding the MAHA movement\u2019s rhetoric, introduced by a prominent sociologist named Ulrich Beck<\/a>, is what sociologists now call individualization of risk. Beck argued that modern societies and governments frame almost all health risks as being about personal choice and responsibility<\/a>. That approach obscures how policies made by large institutions \u2013 such as governments, for example \u2013 constrain the choices that people are able to make.<\/p>\n

In other words, governments and other institutions tend to focus on the choices that individuals make to intentionally deflect from their own responsibility for the other risk factors. The consequence, in many cases, is that the institution is off the hook for any responsibility for negative outcomes.<\/p>\n

Beck, writing in 1986, pointed to nuclear plants in the Soviet Union as an example. People who lived near them reported health issues that they suspected were caused by radiation. But the government denied the existence of any evidence linking their woes to radiation exposure, implying that lifestyle choices were to blame. Some scholars have identified a similar dynamic in the U.S. today<\/a>, where the government emphasizes personal responsibility while downplaying the effects of public policy on health outcomes.<\/p>\n

A shift in responsibility<\/h2>\n

Such a shift in responsibility is evident in how MAHA proponents, including Kennedy, discuss chronic illness and disabilities \u2013 in particular, autism.<\/p>\n

In its May 2025 report on children\u2019s health, the MAHA Commission describes the administration\u2019s views on chronic diseases in children<\/a>. The report notes that the increased prevalence in \u201cobesity, diabetes, neurodevelopmental disorders, cancer, mental health, autoimmune disorders and allergies\u201d are \u201cpreventable trends.\u201d It also frames the \u201cmajor drivers\u201d of these trends as \u201cthe food children are eating, the chemicals they are exposed to, the medications they are taking, and various changes to their lifestyle and behavior, particularly those related to physical activity, sleep and the use of technology.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"A<\/a>
Extensive research shows that genetics accounts for most of the risk of developing autism, but the MAHA Commission report discussed only lifestyle and environmental factors.<\/span>
\nDusan Stankovic\/E+ via Getty Images<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Notably, it makes no mention of systemic problems, such as limited access to nutritious food<\/a>, poor air quality<\/a> and lack of access to health care<\/a>, despite strong evidence for the enormous contributions these factors make to children\u2019s health<\/a>. And regarding neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, it makes no mention of genetics, even though decades of research<\/a> has found that genetics accounts for most of the risk of developing autism<\/a>.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s nothing inherently wrong with studying the environmental factors that might contribute to autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders. In fact, many researchers believe that autism is caused by complex interactions between genes and environmental factors<\/a>. But here\u2019s where Beck\u2019s concept of individualization becomes revealing: While the government is clearly not responsible for the genetic causes of chronic diseases, this narrow focus on lifestyle and environmental factors implies that autism can be prevented if these factors are altered or eliminated.<\/p>\n

While this may sound like great news, there are a couple of problems. First, it\u2019s simply not true. Second, the Trump administration and Kennedy have canceled tens of millions of dollars in research funding for autism<\/a> \u2013 including on environmental causes \u2013 replacing it with an initiative with an unclear review process. This is an unusual move if the goal is to identify and mitigate environmental risk factors And finally, the government could use this claim to justify removing federally funded support systems that are essential for the well-being of autistic people and their families \u2013 and instead focus all its efforts on eliminating processed foods, toxins and vaccines.<\/p>\n

People with autism and their families are already carrying a tremendous financial burden<\/a>, even with the current sources of available support<\/a>. Cuts to Medicaid and other funding<\/a> could transfer the responsibility for therapies and other needs to individual families<\/a>, leaving many of them to struggle with paying their medical bills. But it could also threaten the existence of an entire network of health care providers<\/a> that people with disabilities rely on.<\/p>\n

Even more worrisome is the implication that autism is a kind of damage caused by the environment rather than one of many normal variations in human neurological diversity<\/a> \u2013 framing people with autism as a problem that society must solve.<\/p>\n

How language encodes value judgments<\/h2>\n

Such logic sets off alarm bells for anyone familiar with the history of eugenics<\/a>, a movement that began with the idea of improving America by making its people healthier and quickly evolved to make judgments about who is and is not fit to participate in society<\/a>.<\/p>\n