Warning about new study to find a potential cure for autism

Post Reply New Topic

Something that's being glossed over here: there's also a social aspect of eugenics. While it doesn't SOUND bad to want to get rid of potential genetic disorders, what it does create is further stigma for those who already exist with said undesired traits.

Not to mention there are plenty of world governments, organizations, etc. around the world that are not above forced sterilization. Eugenics has been applied in many different scenarios, one of the most common ones being racism.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129063/

Eugenics is the pursuit of a perceived version of human perfection, at its very core. Perfection is incredibly subjective from one person to the next, and has several factors, many of which are cultural and socially influenced. I'd suggest reading that article further and following up on the sources listed in it, as well as taking a hard long look at your own internal biases. Personally, my conclusion is that eugenics is more harmful than good. It's much easier to make cultural and social adaptations to incorporate neurodivergent people into society better, than it is to try and just wipe the person out before they've even had a chance to be conceived.

There`s enough strawman arguments here to fill a field of scarecrows for the next jeepers creepers movie.

No one is trying to create an army of blue eyed aryan designer babies, just cure disabilities

Gene therapy is already being developed for neurodevelopmental disorders (link) its all perfectly legal because its not eugenics as explained prev.

https://www.angelman.org/for-parents/an ... therapies/

Funny thing is all the criticism is usually from a position of privilege, would anyone here like to have seizures everyday, waking up battered and bruised worrying about the possibility of dying if their head hits the concrete out on the street the next time it happens.

Would anyone like vision problems associated with SYNGAP1 mutation? what about intellectual disability, think you`ll still be able to use the internet to give your opinion and advocate for yourself with an IQ below 50, think again.

If you are unwilling to accept such disability why should anyone else?

I mean its not even like I'm the only one on this site that`s not liking being autistic.

viewtopic.php?t=417039

And that's from people lucky to live in quite wealthy mostly English speaking countries where there is some help, whats like being autistic in Africa or India i dread to think

My hesitation about this technology is whether high-functioning autistic people would be stronger without autism.
If this genetic mutation simply created poor communication and high concentration at the same time I would support keeping it, and it would obviously have some contribution to human genetic diversity.
If it's just causing unnecessary pain, why not get rid of it as soon as possible?
Here's a other question, I guess: Do people have the right to remain stupid or disabled? On the one hand, if they have it, they will live a life that others think is painful; on the other hand, if they don't, it will easily breed tyranny.I don’t have an answer to this question, or even an inclination

Be it pre birth sterilization, pre birth gene editing, or post birth gene editing individuals who chose not to be treated/cured or parents who chose not to have their child treated/cured will face a variety of pressures to conform. In authoritarian countries it will probably be illegal to refuse. Besides those countries those that chose for themselves or their children to be “diseased” will be ostracized. Beyond that the attitude will be you chose to be diseased, that is your right, it is our right to chose not to employ you, not to insure you, and most certainly no give you accommodations. A lot will reluctantly give in to these pressures. The remaining autistics will face even more pressure to conform. Despite it all there will be some who will still refuse no matter what there always is.

There are ND advocates who if they got their way would make taking these treatments illegal. There are a bigger group of ND advocates who would put social pressure on people not to treat because they will dismiss the choice as ableism/internalized ableism. We see that with ND advocates who accuse parents who enroll their children in ABA of being Nazis. That extremism is thankfully a lot less then it was in the 2010’s but it is still very much around especially in certain social media spaces.

I think at this point most supporters of the ND movement while personally disagreeing with a choice to treat do not want to deny the right and agency of those chose to treat/cure. They see the hypocrisy in denying others what so many have denied them. That said they do fear the possible consequences I laid out above which can lead to hesitation.

Some important caveats:
There is not accurate polling on these questions. While I have taken a deep dive to try and understand Autistic opinion I am subject to my own cognitive dissidence and my own bubbles.

What are we talking about a cure, treatments that be effective enough so that a person will lose their diagnosis, a cure for one aspect of autism?. When I first started he I did a poll that asked would you take a cure, would you take something that would cure one trait. By a large margin said they would take a cure for executive dysfunction. I suspect that still is true.

You're going to have to link that original post to me, it's been a little over ten years since you joined. And you also gotta bear in mind that not everyone is going to agree on the same things. I also know a vast majority of autistic folks are against a cure, because it's so intrinsic to who we are as people. And like I said, getting into the ethics of gene editing and deletion plays into the ethics of Eugenics, which has historically not been ethical in the slightest. I strongly encourage you to read the link I sent before.

On a side note its interesting that the author of the website refers to the condition as just SYNGAP1 rather than autism.

I've mentioned this before where in the future the condition will be likely broken up into various genetic conditions and be simply referred to by the impacted gene.

That may or may not have autism as a symptom.

Its pathology fault known and potential therapy identified

https://curesyngap1.org/what-is-syngap1/

That seems like eugenics to me plain and simple. It doesn't surprise me that this woman has that attitude. I don't think that anybody's genes should be messed with that way. I also disagree with anything that could lead to the aborting of unborn autistic babies. I feel that every life is worth living, even the lives of the severely disabled. You don't kill someone just because their handicapped, whether they're outside of the womb or inside the womb.

This debate desperately wanting a word to mean something else which it is not reminds me of vegans who say meat is murder.

The legal definition of Murder is the unlawful killing of another human but they so desperately want it to be attached to slaughtering and eating animals for food.

Gene medicine is not eugenics I can only advise read a dictionary, it’s perfectly legal where eugenics is not

Treating a medical disorder like autism via gene therapy is no different from any other official medical disorder like sickle cell disease.

Something which is happening now.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/ ... treatment/

Many people don't really like having autism, myself included. Many autistics also want to see the back of it.

there no cure for Autism. you can't catch Autism. There are worse health issues than Autism, I think.

It seems to me that people that express a lot of bad feelings about their Autism often refer to the suffering that comes from their co-occurring conditions rather than from Autism in it self.