Struggles faced by autistic people are attributed to discrimination rather than deficiencies. Proponents of the anti-cure perspective believe that quirks and uniqueness of autistic individuals should be accepted and that efforts to eliminate autism should not be compared, for example, to curing cancer but instead to the antiquated notion of curing left-handedness.[15][16] Therapies that attempt to restrict autistic behaviors, particularly applied behavior analysis (ABA), have been challenged on ethical grounds. Autism rights activists argue that ABA therapy and restriction of stimming "and other autistic coping mechanisms" are mentally harmful, that aversion therapy and the use of restraints are physically harmful, and that alternative treatments like chelation are dangerous.[17] Michelle Dawson, a Canadian autism self-advocate, testified in court against government funding of ABA therapy.[16] An autistic person named Jane Meyerding criticized therapy which attempts to remove autistic behaviors because she says that the behaviors that the therapy tries to remove are attempts to communicate.[15]