5 ms·

So what, deprive these kids of the possibility of choosing something? Why not give them the choice? Let them become adults, and if they want to later inflict

So what, deprive these kids of the possibility of choosing something? Why not give them the choice? Let them become adults, and if they want to later inflict neurological damage upon themselves, then fine. But don't neglect them treatment.

nicoburns 5y ago
Autistic people also often have capabilities that neurotypical people don't. So treating them would also be denying them opportunities. I think any treatment would have to be taken on a case by case basis. This particular one sounds like it doesn't work anyway.
- thepasswordis 5y ago
  Blind people also have capabilities that sighted people don’t have. Give the kids the treatment. If they want to choose later in life to blind themselves, fine, they’re adults. Don’t make them part of a crusade that they didn’t consent to. I say this as somebody who had several major surgeries as a child to save my eyesight.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > I say this as somebody who had several major surgeries as a child to save my eyesight. The moral calculus here depends on how severe the impairment is and the potential risks / harms associated with the treatments. At one end of the impairment/risk ratio, it is certainly ethical. Somewhere in the middle, I think you need to obtain the minor's consent. At the other end the treament isn't ever ethical ever to conduct on a minor. What if the "sight saving" treatment has a high risk of them losing their sight at an older age when developing the abilities to navigate as a blind person are harder? The issue here is an ongoing debate about which ASD differences are impairments (and about the severity.) and which are just stigmatized. I think to make this determination ethically you MUST listen to the range of opinions from adults who faced similar situations. If there isn't a clear consensus, I think we should be hesitant to impose treatment without consent.
    - thepasswordis 5y ago
      Is it "horrific" or comparable to gay conversion therapy to make sight-saving treatments available?

nicoburns 5y ago

Autistic people also often have capabilities that neurotypical people don't. So treating them would also be denying them opportunities. I think any treatment would have to be taken on a case by case basis. This particular one sounds like it doesn't work anyway.

thepasswordis 5y ago
Blind people also have capabilities that sighted people don’t have. Give the kids the treatment. If they want to choose later in life to blind themselves, fine, they’re adults. Don’t make them part of a crusade that they didn’t consent to. I say this as somebody who had several major surgeries as a child to save my eyesight.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > I say this as somebody who had several major surgeries as a child to save my eyesight. The moral calculus here depends on how severe the impairment is and the potential risks / harms associated with the treatments. At one end of the impairment/risk ratio, it is certainly ethical. Somewhere in the middle, I think you need to obtain the minor's consent. At the other end the treament isn't ever ethical ever to conduct on a minor. What if the "sight saving" treatment has a high risk of them losing their sight at an older age when developing the abilities to navigate as a blind person are harder? The issue here is an ongoing debate about which ASD differences are impairments (and about the severity.) and which are just stigmatized. I think to make this determination ethically you MUST listen to the range of opinions from adults who faced similar situations. If there isn't a clear consensus, I think we should be hesitant to impose treatment without consent.
  - thepasswordis 5y ago
    Is it "horrific" or comparable to gay conversion therapy to make sight-saving treatments available?