3 ms·

Preface this by saying I don't know how I feel about this line or reasoning, but this is the ethical arguments I've heard against "curing" and/or preventing psy

Preface this by saying I don't know how I feel about this line or reasoning, but this is the ethical arguments I've heard against "curing" and/or preventing psychiatric disorders (ASD, Schizophrenia, Bipolar, ADD/ADHD, etc.) The argument goes - These disorders are incredibly taxing for both the individuals who suffer these conditions and for their family, friends and colleagues. There is real suffering and pain, and alleviating this pain, and potentially preventing it through germ-line edits could eradicate these conditions for ever (glossing over the incredible ethical concerns there) At the same time, these conditions _can_ provide incredible gifts to both the individual and society as a whole. History is littered with famous artists, scientists, etc., who have all made important and unique contributions to the human experience. Would they have been able to do these things without their condition? In curing the disease, are we missing these non-linear thought patterns that are common with these disorders? And what cost does that have for society?

LoganDark 4y ago
As someone with ADHD who just (about 5 days ago) discovered how magical the right stimulant is for instantly vaporizing all disordered symptoms, I'm pretty sure giving patients the choice will always be better than treating or not treating them based on ethical implications. Choosing not to treat someone because "they may contribute to society", even if they are suffering and wish not to suffer from their treatable disorder, is always unethical imho. However, forcing treatment on someone who either doesn't want to pursue treatment, or has tried treatment and decided against it, would also be unethical.
- celestialcheese 4y ago
  > Choosing not to treat someone because "they may contribute to society", even if they are suffering and wish not to suffer from their treatable disorder, is always unethical imho. I agree - it's absolute misery on the individual level and relieving that pain is a good thing. The real ethical debate comes when we have the ability to eliminate these conditions through germ-line edits. A rogue doctor in China already did this by making the CCR5 gene non-functional in embryos and the children were born. The doctor went to prison, and the scientific community roundly condemned his work, but this isn't going away. "Fixing" major genetic diseases in the embryo is possible, and it's a pretty slippery slope once we start down that path.

LoganDark 4y ago

As someone with ADHD who just (about 5 days ago) discovered how magical the right stimulant is for instantly vaporizing all disordered symptoms, I'm pretty sure giving patients the choice will always be better than treating or not treating them based on ethical implications. Choosing not to treat someone because "they may contribute to society", even if they are suffering and wish not to suffer from their treatable disorder, is always unethical imho. However, forcing treatment on someone who either doesn't want to pursue treatment, or has tried treatment and decided against it, would also be unethical.

celestialcheese 4y ago
> Choosing not to treat someone because "they may contribute to society", even if they are suffering and wish not to suffer from their treatable disorder, is always unethical imho. I agree - it's absolute misery on the individual level and relieving that pain is a good thing. The real ethical debate comes when we have the ability to eliminate these conditions through germ-line edits. A rogue doctor in China already did this by making the CCR5 gene non-functional in embryos and the children were born. The doctor went to prison, and the scientific community roundly condemned his work, but this isn't going away. "Fixing" major genetic diseases in the embryo is possible, and it's a pretty slippery slope once we start down that path.