Blockland Ethics Questions: Autism Vaccine

[Rigel]

This fourth question is about curing autism, which some may argue does not need to be "cured" at all.

A world-renowned scientist creates a vaccine that cures Autism (not one that causes it). It expels the autism-causing genes from the DNA of the recipient, and quickly rewires their neurons to reflect what a "neurotypical person" would be like. The process is long, involving a lot of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and visits to psychiatrists and therapists, but it's been proven to "cure" autism. Most countries believe in bodily autonomy, so the process is opt-in for most people. But there are some people on the autism spectrum who cannot care for themselves, and are required to have a legal guardian that makes decisions for them. This "Autism Vaccine" has been proven to work for even the least capable autists, allowing them to speak, dress, feed, and clean themselves. Eventually with therapy, they could even find jobs. A common side effect is major depression from both the rapid rewiring of the brain, from simple mourning over lost time and lost opportunities, and a difficulty in comprehending and embracing the new way their brain works.

However, these low-functioning autists cannot willingly choose to take the vaccine themselves, nor can they understand the implications of what it does. Is it ethical for their legal guardians to force a life-changing drug on their wards? If a low-functioning autist is seemingly happy the way they are (watching cartoons, being spoon-fed, and wearing diapers), should their guardian force them to take a drug that would let them take care of themselves at the possible cost of their happiness? Explain why or why not.

https://strawpoll.com/eNg6vXo6AgA

[Ad Bot]

[Nicepoint]

These are some good questions. But yes, make them take the vaccine.

[Master Matthew²]

Didn't X-Men have an entire plot for this?

[Rigel]

Didn't X-Men have an entire plot for this?

They also handled it poorly. Storm could control the weather, while Rogue can potentially hurt or even kill anyone she touches. They aren't going to have the same opinion on curing their mutations. Besides that, they're capable adults who can make decisions for themselves. I don't remember clearly, but didn't that plotline end with mutants who don't want their powers being unable to get rid of them, because of the actions of other mutants? Correct me if I'm mistaken, please.

If that's the case, then it's like a sort of inverse of the question that I posed. If enough high-functioning autists decide that such an autism vaccine is a threat to their unique "culture" and "lifestyle", is it okay for them to lobby to make the vaccine and the application of the vaccine illegal? A similar sentiment is sometimes echoed in other disabled communities, like deaf people shaming others for getting cochlear implants.

[Conan]

i think yes, guardians should be able to decide for specifically low functioning autism, because said caretakers cant take care of them forever and life for the "adult kid" would be more tragic if they couldnt take care of themselves if circumstances ever force them to have to. the only counterargument i can think of for that is society could in theory bear the cost of caring for low functioning autists, but i think thats an unsafe assumption to depend on if you truly care about your child's well being. and regardless parents are for better or worse given authority over their kid when it comes to medical decisions until the kid reaches adulthood - and in the case of low functioning autism, one could see that as the kid being unable to mature into an adult.

[Trymos]

Some low functioning autistic people can understand the implications of the autism "vaccine" (more like a cure the way you describe it) but not be able to communicate their understanding to the doctor or whoever is giving them the decision.

I also have a more interesting question to pose: What if the cure only works so long as the child is under 8 years old? How would this decision making process work for high functioning autistic people then?

[Ladios]

If it is allowed to be given without consent to those under a certain threshold of being able to communicate whether they want it or not, who gets to decide that threshold? Would an autistic savant who is well-versed in mathematics or some other preferred activity, but requiring a speech-board to convey needs such as hunger, be forced to take the vaccine, even if it means losing the ability to do their preferred activity at the level they desire?

I feel like this is a troublesome proposition all too reminiscent of the conversation around CRISPR, genetic selection, and designer babies.

[ultimamax]

Lets say you are some kind of a NEET but you're neurotypical, and you live with and rely on your parents, would they have the right to give you some kind of vaccine that makes you into some kind of math savant who could work at the NSA/some cryptography research place/etc, if it also made you incredibly socially inept or even antisocial? (Is it different if that side effect isn't guaranteed?)

To me this is almost the same question. Can you make a medical decision for somebody else that literally changes how they perceive and interact with the world, just because they are a financial burden to you?

I kinda agree with Conan that making them take the vaccine could be in their best interest if they were about to be driven to homelessness or something.

This question is also kinda similar to one that people really deal with all the time - is it okay to put your ailing parents/grandparents into a nursing home instead of taking care of them yourself? There's a good chance they'll experience some kind of elder abuse, even if you spend a lot of money

[Rigel]

If it is allowed to be given without consent to those under a certain threshold of being able to communicate whether they want it or not, who gets to decide that threshold? Would an autistic savant who is well-versed in mathematics or some other preferred activity, but requiring a speech-board to convey needs such as hunger, be forced to take the vaccine, even if it means losing the ability to do their preferred activity at the level they desire?

I feel like this is a troublesome proposition all too reminiscent of the conversation around CRISPR, genetic selection, and designer babies.

Troublesome propositions are at the heart of ethical debates! At least, when the proposition isn't 100% evil, there's room to have a conversation. Yes, like CRISPR, this is pretty much an argument involving an aspect of eugenics. Discussing where to draw the line, or if one should be drawn at all, is very interesting to me. Especially when it comes to personal choices in relation to eugenics. I don't support the idea of designer babies, or forced sterilization. But I have been considering getting a vasectomy so that I don't pass down my own genetic ailments. I do not enjoy living with these flaws, so I would not want to father children with these flaws. But I still want children. If I could edit out my EDS and Glaucoma and Asthma from my sperm, I would. Otherwise, I'll settle for adopting.

I agree with Conan in that a guardian should only force their ward to take this "cure" (@Trymos: calling it a "vaccine" was mostly inflammatory on my part, to get more people to engage with the topic, vaccines cause autism ha-ha and all that) as an act of desperation. Ideally our society would be able to care for people no matter how crippled they are, but that is not the case. If someone with low-functioning autism is at risk of losing their support group, then their options are either the cure so that they could hopefully stand on their own, or be institutionalized or homeless. It's hardly a choice at that point.

But if they are allowed to act "in desperation," then what determines a desperate circumstance? A judge? Some arbitrary rules? If there are rules and guidelines about the acceptable criteria to force this cure onto someone, then people will lie and cheat to make it appear as if their ward fits when they don't. Caring for the mentally disabled costs a lot of mental willpower and money, a lot of people would rather be rid of the burden by any legal means.

This question is also kinda similar to one that people really deal with all the time - is it okay to put your ailing parents/grandparents into a nursing home instead of taking care of them yourself? There's a good chance they'll experience some kind of elder abuse, even if you spend a lot of money

This is a very good relation that I hadn't thought about. Thinking for myself, I really love my parents and would want to help them, but it's taken me a long time to truly get out into the world myself, and they had me when they were already old. I have an older brother and sister, but they've both moved out to take care of their own lives and do their own thing. I still live with my parents, but I yearn to leave the nest and do my own thing as well. I help them as much as I can while I live with them, but in only a few years they may truly need assisted living. Can I do that while I work? What if I have to travel? What if I run into long-term opportunities out of the country, and I can't take them with me?

If I agree to take care of my elderly parents, I would be putting all of my out-of-country (or even just out of state) ambitions and opportunities on hold. I have about 25 years or less of decent vision left, and probably fewer years of being out of a wheelchair due to my other disability (EDS). The years I spend taking care of them reduces the amount of the very limited time I can take to enjoy life on my own. If I refuse, then they would have to impose themselves on my brother, or my sister, and their already established families. Hell, they might live long enough to see me needing some assisted living, at which point I won't be able to take care of them regardless.

They gave up on opportunities and fun to take care of us. Does that make it unfair to them if we don't want the burden of taking care of them when they're old? But they chose to have us, having to take care of them is an obligation, not a choice. Does that make it unfair to us? Thinking about it makes me feel very self-centered and selfish. Like, OF COURSE I want to take care of them and keep them comfortable in their old age! I want to spend more time with them! But at the same time, I want to go out and live my life! I feel very conflicted about this.

[Trogtor]

there's an entire movie about this dilemma

actually there's like several

[Foxscotch]

it would obviously be wrong to do this for your own benefit as the caretaker. that doesn't sound like a real question to me. particularly if you're the parent, like you made the choice to have a child knowing anything could happen, you don't get a pass now cus you changed your mind lol

[Conan]

if your child was brain damaged due some injury from an unfortunate accident, would it be wrong to want to fix it with some miracle cure? i dont think theres a functional difference between being born with issues and experiencing injuries that cause similar ones. plenty of babies undergo surgical intervention early in life to resolve issues that arent literally life ending, but would create health or even just social issues later in life, eg cleft lip. you dont see cleft lip in the states not cause it doesnt happen but because its a surgery relatively easily available to people here (health insurance aside)

its hard to judge parental intent behind a choice but i dont think theres an issue when theres clear benefits to both the child and parent for the parent choosing to make life easier for themselves here. if it was something like giving the kid up for adoption or worse, thats a different question entirely, as it doesnt benefit the child in a clear way.

[PhantOS]

constraint breeds creativity

[Rigel]

constraint breeds creativity

What do you mean by this, regarding the topic?

[Satan From Wreck-It-Ralph]

yeah I'd take it I'm sick of these predators coming after me for being autistic