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

Miltenberger et al. (2013) asked families, self-advocates, and clinicians what ethical problems they meet in autism services. They ran town-hall talks and online surveys on Long Island. The team wrote the Stony Brook Guidelines from those voices, not from lab data.

The paper lists eight rules. Key points: drop cure talk, respect family choice, and share power with autistic adults. It gives real-life stories that show why each rule matters. No numbers—just community wisdom.

Hull et al. (2021) later checked world-wide surveys and found the same wish: research should help daily life, not just lab scores. Their review covers the 2013 guide, so the guide sits inside the bigger picture.

Anonymous (2024) goes further. That team asked autistic people to co-lead studies, not just comment. The 2024 call upgrades the 2013 plea from 'listen' to 'share the chair'.

Veneziano et al. (2023) zooms in on ABA. It says the old goal of making kids 'indistinguishable' clashes with the Stony Brook ethic. The 2023 paper turns the broad 2013 rules into a clear action: drop indistinguishability from treatment plans.

You can tape the eight guidelines inside your session binder. When a parent asks, 'Will this cure my kid?' you can flip to the page that says shift from cure to support. When you write a treatment plan, cross out 'indistinguishable' and write 'autistic client sets the goal.' The guide gives you ethical back-up that comes straight from the community you serve.