Autistics Given Castration Drug--not cool!

Page 3 of 5 [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Todesking
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,088
Location: Depew NY

03 Aug 2010, 11:02 pm

Keith wrote:
A child shouldn't be circumcised unless there is a medical need for it.


I would rather be circumcised than not. Uncircumcised penises look horrible I am gratefull mine was done when I was a baby. :P

I wonder how many of those parents willing to chemically castrated their children are still producing children themselves? They obviously have a great potential to produce another autistic child just as much as the kid they castrating. Since they do not want another autistic child perhaps they should use some sterilization procedures on themselves.

They had a family where the mother and father had 7 kids 3 were NT and 4 were autistic. They were planning on having an 8th child in hopes the child will be another NT one so they could have an equal number of NT to autistic so the NT children will take care autistic children when the parents die off. :roll:Could you imagine growing up that your parents made you was to be a care giver to an older autistic sibling. Thats a weight I would not want to bare. 8O


_________________
There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die -Hunter S. Thompson


StuartN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,569

04 Aug 2010, 4:23 am

A lot of what parents do to their autistic children, no matter how well-intentioned, is child abuse.

I have seen exclusion diets where there is no food intolerance, excluding autistic children from all the normal interactions that children base around food. There is no scientifically validated association between autism and any food intolerance, and no evidence to support any exclusion diet except in children with intolerance identified by appropriate medical assessment.

Chelation therapy and a whole range of the so-called mercury toxicity treatments are extremely invasive and degrading.

There are parents subjecting their children to untested stem-cell therapy. This involves a) surgery to drill into leg bones and extract bone marrow, b) surgery to drill into the skull and inject cultured stem cells. Approximate cost is $50,000 and approximate benefit is zero, in addition to the direct harm and the loss of opportunity during the few months of social exclusion this involves.

It is one of the biggest examples of mass Munchausen's by Proxy you could find.



nikki191
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 143

04 Aug 2010, 4:54 am

I can understand being desperate enough to grasp at any any straw of help to help your child but this is pure abuse



Celoneth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 526

04 Aug 2010, 6:49 am

This has been going on for a while - the idea is that autism = too much "maleness" so reducing testosterone is supposed to improve it, though I believe there are some ties to the mercury theories. It is disgusting that people with medical and scientific degrees would be willing to give unproven and serious drugs to be used on young children without any research to indicate it will work.
It doesn't appear to be permanent, but there are side-effects with all drugs and something that interferes with hormones can have consequences when used in children who are still developing.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

04 Aug 2010, 8:12 am

Celoneth wrote:
This has been going on for a while - the idea is that autism = too much "maleness" so reducing testosterone is supposed to improve it, though I believe there are some ties to the mercury theories. It is disgusting that people with medical and scientific degrees would be willing to give unproven and serious drugs to be used on young children without any research to indicate it will work.
It doesn't appear to be permanent, but there are side-effects with all drugs and something that interferes with hormones can have consequences when used in children who are still developing.


I agree that the hormonal and sexual development of children ought not be interfered with. I think this kind of "therapy" may be useful in treating other kinds of problems which may or may not have anything to do with autism, and I wonder if anyone has voluntarily subjected themselves to this for those kinds of problems.

My story is that I've always had an extremely voracious libido, and for the longest time I just assumed it was a guy thing. But after being married for a few short years and having 2 children, my appetite has put a lot of stress on my wife and, with her severely diminished drive, has sent me into a horrible depression. While things have gotten much better recently, I have over the last year and a half considered getting counseling about possible Depo treatment. Chemical castration, when used on sex offenders, reportedly destroys not only the physical effects of an overactive libido, but also the psychological or neurological desire for sex. I know that if I'm less preoccupied with it I ought to be less depressed about it.

So while a lot of this "mercury mom" stuff does seem to be unethical, is it POSSIBLE that there are good reasons why this kind of treatment might be beneficial to children of certain ages? I mean, if a child develops an unhealthy preoccupation with sex, would something like this be useful for certain specific cases? It's perfectly normal for kids to "play doctor," though it's up to parents to teach kids what appropriate play is and is not. I'm talking about those who do so and are all too willing to take it too far, the kind of kids that are especially deviant about it. We don't necessarily have to be talking only about autistics here, either. Both my wife and I have discussed our childhood and certain things that went on with us--not terribly "abusive" per se, but the kind of borderline things that in today's society could get KIDS thrown in jail. I think the difference between people like me and those who go on to be child-mollesters is I at least had the conscience to recognize that certain things just aren't right, regardless of how I feel at the time, and I began isolating myself to remove myself from potentially bad situations. That's not an easy thing to live with, so I wonder about how things like chemical castration MIGHT actually be a positive thing in special cases.



activebutodd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 828

04 Aug 2010, 8:38 am

Yeah, I can see your point. Now I don't think this is right - it's done without consent, and has some pretty far reaching implications.

But I can see how parents could be desperate enough to do this.

With their lack of understanding; people with severe autism and/or intellectual disablities can often be sexually inappropriate, and are also more likely to be raped (and possibly impregnated, leaving the cares with two dependants). I think these drugs are trying to prevent all of the above by reducing libido and/or providing contraception.

In the cases where people are kept as children, it may be that sexual development could be traumatic to the person, ie blood from menstruation, stress breakdown from undergoing puberty because they don't have the coping skills to handle it, unwanted sexual attention and sexual abuse etc.

Or the fact of their sheer growth could make it hard for carers to lift them, turn them, wash them - or even be threatened by their disabled client/child. This is especially a worry if puberty and sex hormones make a disabled person without normal capability aggressive or even sexually predatory.


This is not condoning it or saying it's a good solution. It's still horrible that we have to deal with such issues. But I just wanted to say that parents may do this when they're absolutely desperate and having trouble looking after their child.

It's not all OMG EVIL NTS ALL HATE THE ASPIES AND WANT TO HURT THEM!! !!!111one one one

Sometimes people really don't know what to do when their child or client will never develop the ability to care for themselves or make decisions, and they have very limited and questionable options in coping with them.



Last edited by activebutodd on 04 Aug 2010, 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Callista
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

04 Aug 2010, 8:40 am

Yes, it can be beneficial to some children. It's used to treat precocious puberty, to stop children from getting adult development at three to eight years of age. (Would you like to be a five-year-old girl with menstrual cycles, or a six-year-old boy whose body is trying to force him into a growth spurt and teenage boy's sex drive? Yeah... not exactly happy for the kid. Tiny bodies are not meant to take that kind of stress.) These kids can usually have children when they stop the medication and go through puberty at the usual time.

But it's horribly unethical to use on autism. As has been mentioned, it's a much higher dose; and they'll only start increasing the dose when they see it doesn't work. It hasn't been proven to work; it has side effects; and the only reason it's used for precocious puberty is that the benefits outweigh the risks. Here, there are no benefits. And forcing a child NOT to go through puberty--when he should be going through it--may create problems in and of itself. They would probably end up with their growth stunted at the very least, and their endocrine systems messed up if they're unlucky.

Stopping puberty is not a good option for caregivers. While the child may remain smaller and easier to "handle", these aren't drugs you take lightly. (Google "Ashley Treatment" for an example of parents who did exactly that, to a severely disabled girl.)

Those of you who are worried that "chemical castration" means "permanent": No, thankfully, it doesn't. When the kids go off the medication, they will go through puberty as normal and become able to have children.


_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com


activebutodd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 828

04 Aug 2010, 8:48 am

Fair enough, my post wasn't meant to be a blanket statement.

I just saw the posts until the last one were unanimous, and wanted to say to the people that it's not always black and white. There's cases in which it could help, and as you said there's also cases in which it can do so much harm.

Ps. I was referring not to all autistics, but to the really disabled people with ASDs that include intellectual disability, the ones that can't comprehend bodily functions/contraception/rules about sexual behaviour --->or aggression<---. The cases where even worse things would happen if the person had uninhibited libido or anger and it wasn't nipped in the bud.

But you're quite right.
I've never felt that eugenics* or drugs without consent were conducive to human rights, and in most cases I think it would be better to have more care and supervision available instead of chemical restraints.


*Oh, and the Ashley treatment was covered in the previous 'pillow angel' link - it says that sterilisation is not the goal, but only the byproduct.
So no; they are not trying to breed us out, as some had thought.

But I still think there should have been more deliberation and weighing up of her rights. Scary how few rights you have if you don't have the ability to fight for them.



anbuend
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2004
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,039

04 Aug 2010, 9:44 am

Doing something like this to disabled women in case we get raped has a long and disgusting history. The fact is that making someone sterile makes it so that the rapist gets away with it easier. It doesn't help the person themselves, it doesn't prevent rape, it doesn't do anything actually good. And if people really wanted to simply prevent pregnancy, they could use less destructive and invasive methods to do so. Moreover, this is not why autistic children are given Lupron. Autistic children are given Lupron because of a couple highly unethical doctors who began doing this a few years ago claiming that it affected mercury or something like that. I can remember the mercury moms trying to tell me I belonged on it because I had a small beard. The other excuse used to be that autistic people who were on it experienced precocious puberty, but that was never true, and that excuse has been shed with time and now autistic people of all ages are being given it. (And Lupron doesn't do a thing for actual mercury toxicity. Which of course the people being given it don't have anyway. It all falls apart.)

Moreover, justifying this kind of thing because someone seems to have a severe cognitive impairment (whether or not it's actually possible to prove whether they do or not) has an even longer and more disgusting history. Severely disabled people are not guinea pigs. And just because someone either can't understand (which is a huge assumption on your part) or have trouble controlling (often the actual explanation) their responses sexual urges does not mean it's okay to tinker with that person's sexuality. Ever. There's been a good deal of disability rights work done in this area by people with all sorts of developmental disabilities, and we don't need to go backwards in time, thank you.

And the "we're doing this for people with severe impairments" thing is said to people who advocate for their rights as members of any disability group that people can get away with saying this about. It doesn't make it ethical. In fact, the more severe someone's impairments, the more (they/we) need to be protected from practices like this, because (they/we) are more vulnerable in certain ways. Think about it. If someone is able to tell people what's wrong with what's being done to them, there's a chance people will do it anyway but that chance lessons. If the person is not able to tell people, it's more likely people will keep on doing it to them. It's irresponsible to argue that things that shouldn't be done to supposedly mildly impaired people (supposedly because first off you don't know all of us or our histories, and second off you can't judge all of a person's impairments by one or two abilities), then it's several times more irresponsible to do it to people who have even less chance to fight back in ways that are recognizable. People with severe impairments are more vulnerable to bogus medical treatments, quackery, and unethical behavior of all kinds. Therefore, (they/we) need more protection, not less, from things like this. So next time think a little harder before you go "But you don't understand what it's like for people with more severe impairments" when people are objecting to something. It's really not a valid objection in most cases, just an excuse to keep on doing destructive things to people with the least chance of being able to successfully fight back.


_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

04 Aug 2010, 9:53 am

Why does that article mention mercury when the drug lowers testoterone levels? Those are two entirely different theories.
That article is mish mashing theories, sounds like.



Callista
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

04 Aug 2010, 9:54 am

Yes, exactly. Severely impaired people need more protection, not less.

As for the idea that it might "reduce aggression"... well, so does finding out why the person is pissed off and doing something about it (establishing some kind of communication goes a long way, and is always possible, if only by watching and listening to the person's actions/vocalization). If it's purely chemical, there are medications that will help without the systemic effect that messing with the endocrine system tends to have. There's just no excuse, unless someone with autism has precocious puberty, in which case, sure, that's what it's meant for. I'm not sure about people with uncomfortably high sex drives; I think that they should decide themselves, and definitely try something meant to reduce but not eliminate it... People with severe disabilities are not asexual, and they're not children. (Well, some are asexual, but then, so are some NTs; it's an orientation, not something you should assume of them. Other people with severe disabilities are straight, gay, bi, etc.)


_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com


activebutodd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 828

04 Aug 2010, 10:05 am

You're right anbuend.

I meant theoretically, in the extreme cases that would barely ever happen, when other people required protection from the disabled person.

Like in the Sky Walker case. (Google it, and tell me reason would've worked)

It would be irresponsible to suggest chemical castration as a valid solution. (Except for serial sex offenders.)

But don't judge me for thinking something over well, and looking at both sides of the issue before I make a decision about what I think. I don't blindly go along with the majority - I assume nothing. Whatever you say, I do think a little harder.

And you don't know my history either, so that makes us equal.

Anyway, I do not think that it's right so don't get offended.

I just wanted to drop a different point of view into discussion, as this was being talked about overwhelmingly as an attack on autistics, and as if NTs were trying to breed us out when that isn't the case .



Celoneth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 526

04 Aug 2010, 10:08 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Why does that article mention mercury when the drug lowers testoterone levels? Those are two entirely different theories.
That article is mish mashing theories, sounds like.

The use of Lupron for autism was started by doctors who believed that high testosterone levels bind to mercury, lowering the testosterone levels would make mercury easier to remove through chelation.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

04 Aug 2010, 10:16 am

Thanks for the info, Celoneth. I thought the two were seperate theories. One states autism is caused by high levels of testosterone, the other, it's caused by high levels of mercury. I didn't know some doctors combined the two theories.



AnonymissMadchen
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 51
Location: Fredericksburg

04 Aug 2010, 10:16 am

whitetiger wrote:
Ok, the "mercury moms" have now found a new way to eliminate the evil mercury they feel is the cause of their children's "problems" despite all scientific research to the contrary: Lupon, a chemical castration drug.

http://www.theautismnews.com/2010/08/03 ... m-therapy/

God help us all!


Those people are already irrational.

The only way that this drug could possibly be justified is if the child is very old and has a very, very, very strong chance of doing an extremely horrific unwanted sexual act. Just because a middle school boy is touching himself DOES NOT mean that he should be given this.


_________________
Aly


Callista
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

04 Aug 2010, 10:18 am

activebutodd wrote:
You're right anbuend.

I meant theoretically, in the extreme cases that would barely ever happen, when other people required protection from the disabled person.

Like in the Sky Walker case. (Google it, and tell me reason would've worked)

It would be irresponsible to suggest chemical castration as a valid solution. (Except for serial sex offenders.)

But don't judge me for thinking something over well, and looking at both sides of the issue before I make a decision about what I think. I don't blindly go along with the majority - I assume nothing. Whatever you say, I do think a little harder.

And you don't know my history either, so that makes us equal.

Anyway, I do not think that it's right so don't get offended.

I just wanted to drop a different point of view into discussion, as this was being talked about overwhelmingly as an attack on autistics, and as if NTs were trying to breed us out when that isn't the case .
But that makes sense. If a sex offender happens to be disabled, then the disability is a peripheral issue--the main problem is that s/he's a sex offender. They're not being given the stuff because they're disabled.

re. Sky Walker: I don't think that case had a sexual element... Nor do I think that pre-emptively administering Lupron would have stopped what happened. Females can kill, too, just like males can, despite having a lot less testosterone; and if someone decides to kill, not having a sex drive isn't going to stop them.


_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com