Feedback | 19 March 2005

A Liddle simplistic

I read Rod Liddle’s article (‘A question of breeding’, 12 March) with dismay. It appears that my son has autism because I found my husband’s company congenial and we married and had a child. As an explanation for a complex neurological disorder this seems slightly simplistic. In fact it seems only just better than the blame-the-mother argument that was popular in the 1950s. Those people who married and had children with disorders such as Hunter’s syndrome, cystic fibrosis or haemophilia undoubtedly found their partner’s company appealing as well, but all these disabilities have identified genetic causes. What is different about autism is that the genes responsible have not been fully pinned down, and that there may well be environmental factors in addition to genetic predisposition.

I have yet to meet the parent of a child with autism who is a computer programmer, engineer, mad scientist or keen ‘systemiser’. They tend to be perfectly average people doing their best to cope with little help with children who have very significant neurological disabilities.

Catherine Munro
London SW14

Shame on Patten

Shame on Chris Patten for misrepresenting my report of what he said in order to deny it (Letters, 12 March). What I actually wrote was: ‘There was a need, he [Patten] said, to satisfy China’s “amour-propre”. Beijing, he said, was “humiliated” by being bracketed with the likes of Sudan and Burma.’

This was an entirely accurate report of Chris Patten’s words.

Andrew Gilligan
London SE10

Unlucky duck

Charles Moore draws attention to the RSPB’s refusal to permit the culling of magpies (The Spectator’s Notes, 12 March). This contrasts with that body’s position on the unfortunate ruddy duck. The RSPB supports the lunatic Defra scheme to shoot or trap and kill every ruddy duck in Britain to stop them flying off to Spain and mating with the Spanish white-headed duck, lest the Spanish white-headed duck is hybridised into extinction.