Is lower functioning austim inheritable?

Post Reply New Topic

LePetitePrice, I want to change the culture. It's not fair that good people who aren't able to conform in lockstep are persecuted. As for my daughter-- I feel so much anger toward parents who haven't fought the good fight before me to get some good communities in place for people like her. The problem is the selfishness of the parents who can feel good about themselves when they say "They tried their best" and then abandon their children to whatever the government has to offer when they grow up.

We need to change the majority of parental attitudes and have them commit themselves to their kids as long as their kids need them. Why are people so passive? How can they let things that are obviously wrong continue?

I'd go further than "commit themselves to their kids." There is NO other function for a parent than to support their children. Frankly, this goes for all adults, but I know many will bridle at the suggestion. Consuming resources and living to a ripe age isn't about having some great life for yourself. It's about helping educate and bring up the next generation for an even better life. Period. There is no other legitimate function. Everything else is fluff and selfishness. We exist to serve, not take.

Jon

Again, LePetitPrince, it annoys me that you are taking what is a very difficult and personal issue and transforming it into an ethical absolute like "thou shalt not kill." Adoption is great for some people, but I have a problem with you prescribing it for everyone who falls into Scenario X. There are legitimate reasons why adoption is difficult, or expensive, or undesirable, or even ethically suspect in certain circumstances for certain people. Please do not presume to say that it is the only "ethical" choice for certain people. Again, that's just not for you to decide.

I too have been touched by the personal stories people have shared in this thread, but I find this statement to be just wrong. Newsflash: quality of life is a gamble for everyone. We don't get any guarantees coming into this world, though certainly there are advantages and disadvantages (based on (dis)ability, gender, race, class, sexual orientation, etc.) Should people not have children just because life may be difficult? Based on that logic, people living in poverty ought not have their own children either. It's all very convoluted and troubling to me, frankly. Should only rich, white, able-bodied NT people have children? Of course, even that doesn't spare the kids of all future suffering. Nothing does. I repeat that I have not yet decided whether my partner and I will have biological children, as frankly I think we're way too young to be thinking about this seriously. What I don't appreciate is some stranger who knows very little about us proclaiming that it would be "selfish" and "wrong" for us to do so. My own (admittedly optimistic) view is that most people, no matter how much suffering they endure, would prefer to have lived rather than not existing at all. Feel free to disagree, but I believe this.

Your analysis belies the fact that my partner and I probably wouldn't even have labels under the "autism" rubric if we were ten or fifteen years older, for instance. Or if we were of a lower economic status, for that matter. A "serious disorder"? That depends on who you ask and the social context, IMHO. Perhaps in another society, my (both very myopic) parents' decision to have kids together would have been "irresponsible." Are you familiar with the social model of disability, as opposed to the medical model which appears so strongly throughout your posts?

I agree with you that all people who plan on having children should think about it and discuss it thoroughly before actually going forward with it. Indeed, that may include genetic considerations. But I just don't think there can be any hard-and-fast rules about this. I respect the right of individuals to make their own decisions without the condemnation of busybody moralizers who insist on turning everything into absolutes.

^^ Having children should not be a 'personal decision' , it is a responsibility toward the future of humanity...this is what you are failing to understand.
If you have , let's say Major Thalassemia then you should be aware that breeding will inherit your Thalassemia genes not just to your future biological children but even to your grand children and your grand grand children ....increasing the chance of the affection of Thalessemia in your family line and even in your whole society , increasing the chance of suffering children to be born.

I know that no parents can be 100% sure to have healthy children , mutation might always occur but it's all about probabilities , the probability of having an autistic child from autistic parents is much higher from NT parents.

Animals are instinctively aware of this , that's why most species follow the alpha system , that's why some species leave their weak/disabled babies alone to die (as much as this sounds cruel) ...because they want to assure to decrease the probability of this in the next generation and to have a steady improvement of the genetic quality of the offspring of the next generations. Mother nature is the most wise (no , I am not pagan , "Mother nature' is just a metaphor).
Humans don't follow the rules of Mother Nature , they disobey her, they oppose her and they even created their own mating rules....and almost each human thinks that his genes are worth to spread them to the next generation ...wrong...very wrong.

My dad calls me the best mistake he ever made. I was also considered (by doctors) for abortion and they rejected that option immediately. I don't consider it insulting, I just wasn't planned, but once I existed they wanted me or I wouldn't be here.

My mother planned to abort me too but the doctors objected and abortion rules here are very strict.

My mother didn't plan to, she was just advised to. She was about 35, had chronic health problems (including ones affecting the uterus), and my oldest brother's birth had nearly killed both her and my brother. But once she knew I was there she wanted me, so she kept me. She told me this once to make sure I knew I'd always been wanted.

Autism is autism and it can all be genetic. In families where all of the children have autism, there's usually a pretty broad spectrum. An example was a family I saw recently in the news. Six kids, all diagnosed, ranging from profoundly autistic to high functioning Asperger's.

Despite having strong feelings of my own in all this, ones likely to draw fire towards my own quarter, my gut feels comfortable with both srriv345 and LePetitPrince. Which I think means we are somehow in some triangular formation or perhaps I'm in between you two folks and close enough to both to not worry too much about either.

Let me start out with LePetitPrince's lead comment, most recently:

• Having children should not be a 'personal decision' , it is a responsibility toward the future of humanity

This is a new and developing viewpoint among the younger generation (I'm just 52) who see a world where humans represent more than 99% of the sheer weight of land vertebrates today, world forest systems well more than 30% reduced from their earlier size a few centuries ago, global warming on an exponential curve, and no one seriously talking about how to have stable civilizations in the face of what must soon become at least a stable population and probably one that must get smaller still. My own view here is that regardless of how one feels about that (and I agree with our youth in their concerns, by and large), I still hold that there is no other function for adults than to serve the world's children in their education and good development. In any case, while in the past it was probably more reasonable to see having children as a personal choice, that concept is no longer tenable. The single most difficult problem ahead and the massive elephant in the room is a change in view that MUST now take place in everyone's minds -- an acceptance that for our very survival we must accept that having children is not and cannot any longer be a solely personal decision.

It will be personal, of course, in the obvious sense that the process is physically invasive and highly personal. But it is also nothing less than the single most important society-wide issue, as well. It literally is also about whether or not we survive -- the future of humanity, itself. And my attitude which isn't quite so extreme as, but not too far from the idea that adults have a right to consume resources only so long as they contribute to the future of their children, is congruent with this.

It's no less than quite literally whether or not we make it for another few centuries and we are at the tipping point, today, so decisions made now will determine a future that our grandchildren will no longer have any control over.

We have to start thinking bigger and not just selfishly.

But this comment from srriv345 is true enough:

• I agree with you that all people who plan on having children should think about it and discuss it thoroughly before actually going forward with it. Indeed, that may include genetic considerations. But I just don't think there can be any hard-and-fast rules about this.

It's not seeing things in black and white while also taking a bigger picture in mind and thinking about it. And let me add some considerations for LePetitPrince to consider, here.

I haven't researched this idea, but it crosses my mind from reading some recent research on mirror neurons and taking that together with someone else's comment about the high frequency of autism found in the San Francisco bay area (which I have heard directly from one researcher in the field, too) that autism and aspergers spectrum issues may be in some odd way related to how creativity occurs. (If someone else has read some material on mirror neurons, I'd love to discuss that subject, separately.) It may be the case that if we were to eradicate (through rigorous eugenics to expunge autism sufficient to actually pretty much get rid of it) that we would be also removing an important source of creative impulses just when we may need them the most.

To LePetitPrince's comment:

• I know that no parents can be 100% sure to have healthy children , mutation might always occur but it's all about probabilities , the probability of having an autistic child from autistic parents is much higher from NT parents.

The probabilities vary and the depth of the "problems" vary. You've read my comments about Athena. I'd probably change my decision in her case. I love her so much but she also suffers so much, too. And although once alive I have no question at all about helping her have as good a life as possible and no question at all that she is such a joy for me as a matter of really enjoying so much about who she is... the suffering part of it that she also experiences a lot and the lousy state of our inhuman culture in the US towards the severely disabled makes the decision easier. But Lee? No way. If I knew beforehand about how he'd turn out, I wouldn't change a thing. He is such a great person -- better then I was in terms of his generosity and selflessness -- and otherwise "sees" things like I did. We share mathematics and physics with each other and that is such a joy for both of us in that. I had worse problems than he did, in school, and probably suffered more because of my similarities with Lee at a time when no one understood... but since we're around to help and figure things out I think we've got that part covered pretty well. He is NOT suffering, personally. And eventually, he will be such a creative spirit in his own right for the world's benefit.

Which greatly complicates the question. It kind of flummoxes me. If I knew that both Lee and Athena were possible (and obviously, they were both possible) but I had to wait until months after they were born to find out (which is the case, since it takes at least that long and in Athena's case it wasn't until she hit puberty that she started having grand mal seizures that tear her physically apart and is killing her), would I choose to have children at all? When I put myself into that frame of mind together with my lack of skills and preparation and understanding I also had at the time, the younger "me" should have probably said, "no, let's not take the risks and adopt." Partly, because I was a very different person back then and there are so many different directions my life could have gone then and I was a lot more selfish back then, too, and would have wanted a more "normal" future, I think. On the other hand, the modern "me" is much more ready for such risks. So today, I'm left with diffidence about what I should want to do if this were about the today-me. And I'm not ready to say how others _must_ judge this.

What I can say is this. My experiences have changed us so completely. I might not have learned nearly so much as I have about the importance of our children, all our children, and about the ideas of what community must and will mean to us as we go into the future. Becky and I have dedicated ourselves to helping forge some of that and maybe that kind of direction and, if we are successful, that kind of result for others too will mean that all of this has meant something. And perhaps with that view, that my love for Athena and Lee and Kip together with all my pain for Athena's suffering and for Kip's suffering from his own operations for hydrocephalus (a subject I have not brought up here, before) has resulted in something of a greater good and so... how can I say, today?

In some sense, really, suffering is what makes us understand the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, better and worse. It is what educates and improves our morals. Suffering changes us and if we can accept it not as an evil that twists us up in grotesque ways to make us into monsters but instead as a way to bring out courage, inspire growth in our morality, and to train our strengths, then suffering is something not to be necessarily shirked away from but taken as an inevitable part of our evolution towards a more moral and less selfish species.

But it is also NOT something one foolishly embraces, either!! If you face it, you should face it with courage. But only a fool plays with matches near a gunpowder magazine. There is such a thing as senseless and needless suffering. Too much suffering distorts and mangles and twists a society and people.

Jon

Last edited by jonk on 11 Feb 2008, 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top cap off what Jon is - in the video game of life, when you fight the battles as well as you can, you level up. We've been given a challenging life video game, I guess. Someone find the cheat codes!! !! !!

I agree with jonk that there are environmental considerations to be taken into consideration when having kids, and that's one of the reasons why I plan on having no more than two. (So that I don't actually add to the population.) However, I disagree entirely with LePetit's ideas about childrearing. As long as the process of creating a child involves two people, in my view those two people should be free to make their own decisions without outside influence or condemnation. I consider myself strongly pro-choice and anti-eugenics. There are some pretty appalling stories in this country (the US) about women of certain ethnic groups or with certain disabilities being sterilized "for the good of the human race." I reject that. Absolute free choice is the only way to avoid entering the messy realm of arbitrary value judgments.

The elephant in the room is if you become a parent, WILL YOU STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND DO THE RIGHT THING AS A PARENT?

Everyone is just talking so self-centered about choice and not the rest of the story. I hate parents. I'm done with this thread.

At last someone got the idea! Didn't expect it to be by an older man!

Thanks LePetitPrince-about the MR. sister has said am should write a book. [she is on spectrum herself,but not diagnosed].
Am was assessed for autism and other things at two but hope hospital said because there wasn't brain damage showing,it wasn't autism,instead they gave other labels [such as disturbed,disruptive,uncooperative....],and was classed as MR in childhood by teachers,they tried speech therapy with am using restraining,as am had very little outside awareness back then,didn't work and am forced back the more they held down,they used rough restraining [with hands,arms and bodies] throughout infants and junior school] and also used wooden rulers like canes [it was illegal then,and parents would not have missed the bruises].
Looking back,am think am did fit MR,but at the milder end of it-it is hard to know though,because am diagnosed with multiple learning difficulties,infants school [the first school children go to] wanted am to go to the local special school,and said to parents,they can't cope,there's something seriously wrong and they wanted am taken to the docs again-they both denied anything was wrong,and said what the original 'diagnosis' was.

Am finally went to special high school [age elleven onwards]mum believed am was possessed by a devil [and refused to believe what teachers had said],they still tried to get am into childrens homes but the EWO said am in the best place,and would get worse if moved.
Sister was studying pyschology,and had learnt about autism,she immediately recognised am in it,and got gp a appointment,the gp wasn't the same one am saw as a child,it was in a big medical centre,he told them that am looked like an obvious case of it and what was originally told by Hope,isn't believed in anymore........and to present,am not living with family,something they said they never thought would happen even with support.

When the diagnosis happened,mum couldn't wait to start blaming the schools,she wanted to sue them,for not doing anything,
they had done as much as they could have done,and more back then,but it was mum who didn't listen and chose to believe in life ruining stereotypes that Hope gave am instead.

Am think most LFAers do have some MR,but not all-Temple Grandin said it all depends on which wires get connected in the brain on what gets affected in the autistic,that might be why autism and aspergers very different in everyone.
Am agree it shouldn't be related to IQ,it means very little,there is much more going on in autism that has a bigger effect,
and seeing as autistics are often unreliable for IQ testing,they cannot really judge who is and who isn't 'ret*d'.

There is a weighing of competing "goods" going on in my mind that causes me to conclude against your point here. I lean very much towards the idea that each of us should be free to choose how to live and end our lives. For example, I think that no one has any right to tell me when and if and how my death must take place or to tell me how I must spend my time at home. This is MY life and no one else's! But there are social mandates, as well. For example, US society has come quite some distance in the right direction (and in some cases perhaps too far, but that is yet another discussion) in terms of the rights of children. Even parents cannot have unfettered reign over their own kids and I agree with that change in society here. There are lines reasonably drawn.

A century ago, before our modern state of knowledge existed regarding our collective future on a tiny planet we only have one of to play with existed, there would be no argument. A century ago, before our growing state of knowledge existed regarding genetic causes of some diseases, there would be no argument.

But the sad thing is we know more. And knowing more both places a greater burden for a more comprehensive view upon individuals claiming personal rights, because individual decisions can now be seen in a larger context more clearly, as well as informing a compelling argument for a conflicting social/society position.

One of the interesting things about reality and time is that knowledge increases and can lead to the recondensation of new, markedly different tentative conclusions. A far more comprehensive viewpoint places earlier conclusions based on far less knowledge into new contexts.

Your point about ethnic groups doesn't in any way settle the issue, either. It just greatly complicates finding meaningful and fair answers.

Jon

Last edited by jonk on 11 Feb 2008, 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

These two people must be responsible and if they are aware of having serious genetic diseases they must be aware that these disease-causing genes will be spread to the next generation of humans ...contributing in more suffering.

A couple of two having Major Thalessemia would surely have childrens with Thalessemia . and they'll suffer like their parents. Is this fair? Is because they are free then they have the right to cause more suffering in humanity? They could adopt children , there are millions of poor children who need parents out there and people can love adopted children and die for them as if they are their biological children , this will be a better contribution to humanity.