New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Feddlefew
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:47 pm UTC

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Feddlefew » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:12 am UTC

....
Attachments
IncoherentRage.jpg
If you listen closely, that sound you're hearing is my teeth grinding.
IncoherentRage.jpg (91.9 KiB) Viewed 3883 times
My spelling is abysmal. Just saying.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:14 am UTC

Yes, and you are trying to convey an opinion about...?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Feddlefew
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:47 pm UTC

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Feddlefew » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:17 am UTC

You ninja'd me. I'm ASD. I've heard the "you just need to be disciplined better" sooooo many times. Still grinding teeth.
My spelling is abysmal. Just saying.

User avatar
kazvorpal
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:43 pm UTC
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby kazvorpal » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:21 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:You need to read my post more carefully. And also pose your uncertainty more clearly: Are you suggesting that undisciplined children are being mistaken for ASDs? That's news to me.
But no, my post to that other guy was saying that a gluten-free diet, as a cure for autism, is certainly less bad than not vaccinating your children, but is ultimately also a dangerous road to go down when it is used in the place of actual therapies and help for ASD children.
I'm still wondering what you mean by this:
kazvorpal wrote:What makes you think they need help?

Are you specifically referring to parents of ASD children, children with ASD, or both?

Also, I'm a guy.


I will repeat, yet again, this point:

People, as far as I know, do not avoid gluten to treat autism.

They hear that one of their friends' kids was diagnosed with Celiac Disease, which makes one sensitive to gluten, and happens to manifest itself in many kids as behavioral issues.

So they, being nitwits, look at their own misbehaving kids and, being unable to properly blame their parenting, or normal, healthy childish energy, assume THEIR kids have a gluten sensitivity, and that cutting out gluten will magically make their kids behave well.

It's slightly less stupid than diagnosing nine times as many people with AD/HD as actually have a clinical problem that could be categorized by that vague term.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:26 am UTC

That seems perfectly reasonable, because I assume I maybe missed the transition where we started talking about ADHD or behavioral problems, as opposed to ASD, of which, I'm fairly confident, ADHD is not.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
kazvorpal
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:43 pm UTC
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby kazvorpal » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:31 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:That seems perfectly reasonable, because I assume I maybe missed the transition where we started talking about ADHD or behavioral problems, as opposed to ASD, of which, I'm fairly confident, ADHD is not.


Again:

When people started talking about silly parents avoiding gluten, that is not an autism thing, per se. While there have been studies of gluten and casein-free diets for autistic people, the gluten-free parent fad is because of celiac disease.

And...try to keep up...AD/HD was just another example of a ridiculous overdiagnosis based on behavior, not an actual, clinical, testable ailment.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:35 am UTC

Yes, your point, I'm still waiting to hear it?
Because I don't think anyone was talking about over diagnosis, beyond you mentioning that gluten free was something, sometimes, attributed to ADHD children, and a fad adopted by the parents of autistic children.

I'm still wondering what you mean by;
kazvorpal wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:These kids need help, these parents need help. Filling parents with false hope and peddling snake oil is only going to result in some kids who aren't getting proper medical and psychological treatment/attention from trained professionals. I don't have a problem with trying to figure out something unique to work for you, because hey, a lot of this stuff IS a giant black box, but there's a dangerous trend that Wakefield helped start/fuel with this assumption that any idiot who reads Wikipedia is as qualified as a doctor.

What makes you think they need help?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:40 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Yes, your point, I'm still waiting to hear it?
His point is that you are wrong.

He'll figure out the how and why later.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:01 am UTC

I have a monopoly on that kind of argument Hippo, Kaz doesn't get to steal it.

Anyways, Kaz: I was specifically talking about how people avoid gluten to treater autism. There are people who avoid gluten, not just because they're afraid they have some über-rare allergy to it, but because they think it causes autism as well. I never intended to make a point about gluten paranoia in general.

And I think the "incoherent rage" post is unnecessary: my impression is that you're all just talking past each other.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Technical Ben » Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:03 am UTC

Feddlefew wrote:You ninja'd me. I'm ASD. I've heard the "you just need to be disciplined better" sooooo many times. Still grinding teeth.

I agree it's wrong, but at times mistakes are made. I have 2 brothers. One brother diagnosed with a condition within the spectrum, and my younger brother who who is not. I'd say my younger brother imitated his older brother. So at times, it did apply. IE my younger brother just needed discipline. My older brother needed other types of assistance.

But all people need consistency. That's what would have helped both really. :?

PS, there are lots of "quacks" out there tricking people into thinking they are "professionals". So I feel for the parents given confusing informations.
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
Aiea
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:43 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Aiea » Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:16 am UTC

I find the 'big bad gluten' theory interesting. The number of different things it is being blamed on is astounding. I have a degenerative neurological condition that may or may not be hereditory and I've heard some people bandy about the 'try gluten free, it worked for me' theory. I just don't understand how gluten can be the blame for such a wide variety of conditions.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby nitePhyyre » Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:12 am UTC

Aiea wrote:I just don't understand how gluten can be the blame for such a wide variety of conditions.
The theory is that humans didn't eat a lot of grain until late in our development, so we never/have yet developed the ability to digest it properly. Because we can't digest it properly, it causes inflammation. Continually suffering from inflammation can cause all sorts of bad things.

I have no idea if it is all bullshit, if there are nuggets of truth in the shit, or if I should stop eating gluten if I want to live forever. But I LOVE bread so I can't be bothered to care.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:27 pm UTC

kazvorpal wrote:I will repeat, yet again, this point:

People, as far as I know, do not avoid gluten to treat autism.

You are mistaken. Google "autism gluten link". It's pretty much self-treatment, but it really is a thing that people do. As I said earlier in the thread, my sister tried it with my nephew with severe autism under the theory that it couldn't hurt. God knows he's a picky eater with GI issues. (Which is actually quite common for individuals with autism, and I would guess where this idea came from.) She didn't alter his schooling or therapy in any other way while she cut gluten out of the family's diet, so no harm done. But I'll offer no resistance to the idea that it's a potentially hazardous slope to start down.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:23 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:GI issues. (Which is actually quite common for individuals with autism, and I would guess where this idea came from.)

The Andrew Wakefield paper in the Lancet, the one that got him limelighted and his medical license eventually revoked, was about treating GI tract issues in autistic patients; as far as I know, there is a link between autism and GI tract issues.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:23 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:GI issues. (Which is actually quite common for individuals with autism, and I would guess where this idea came from.)

The Andrew Wakefield paper in the Lancet, the one that got him limelighted and his medical license eventually revoked, was about treating GI tract issues in autistic patients; as far as I know, there is a link between autism and GI tract issues.

I think I'm doing a terriblebad job of explaining myself. I apologize. I am definitely not claiming a link between autism and GI diseases of any sort. I am claiming that it's not uncommon for individuals with autism to wind up eating very wacky diets as a byproduct of their autistic behavior, which can result in some very unpleasant GI issues. This actually goes along pretty well with what I'm trying (but failing) to say:

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/ ... link-found

with the added possibility that there may be individuals who have tried to latch onto the possiblity that the *real* problem was a gluten intolerance (possibly augments by cases of individuals who really did have an incidental intolerance) because that would be a whole lot easier to address. That is, I grant you, not a particularly good thing, except insofar as it shouldn't actually hurt the child, and if it gets them eating a new food or two, so much the better. (Seriously, there are subgroups of children with autism where getting them to eat a new type of food is a major victory.)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:00 pm UTC

Ah, whoops. I was under the impression there was a link; if it's behavioral, as this paper demonstrates, then never mind.
JudeMorrigan wrote:That is, I grant you, not a particularly good thing, except insofar as it shouldn't actually hurt the child, and if it gets them eating a new food or two, so much the better. (Seriously, there are subgroups of children with autism where getting them to eat a new type of food is a major victory.)

Right, I don't think there's any harm in trying to improve the quality of a child's life through diet, but, and I feel we're in agreement here, that treating a change of diet as a potential cure for an ASD child, in leui of actual therapies, is the problem.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:11 pm UTC

Aiea wrote:'try gluten free, it worked for me'


Stop the presses! Alert the APA! We have an anecdote! The cure for autism has been found!

Seriously, I don't get how people can actually recommend things because it supposedly "worked for them." The amount of logical fallacies that people take for granted as okay in everyday conversation really baffles me. As an exercise, point out every instance of people passing anecdotes off as legitimate evidence or thinking that correlation implies causation, and tell me how long it was before you stopped getting invited to parties.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Aiea
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:43 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Aiea » Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:28 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Aiea wrote:'try gluten free, it worked for me'


Stop the presses! Alert the APA! We have an anecdote! The cure for autism has been found!

Seriously, I don't get how people can actually recommend things because it supposedly "worked for them." The amount of logical fallacies that people take for granted as okay in everyday conversation really baffles me. As an exercise, point out every instance of people passing anecdotes off as legitimate evidence or thinking that correlation implies causation, and tell me how long it was before you stopped getting invited to parties.


Well to be fair, that was in regards to Essential Tremor where as like many conditions there is no cure, so many people are of course trying to come up with their own and are trying to be helpful in recommending ways to reduce the symptoms.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:36 pm UTC

The fact that there is no cure to me is even more damning for the person passing off an anecdote as evidence.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:30 am UTC

Aiea wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
Aiea wrote:'try gluten free, it worked for me'


Stop the presses! Alert the APA! We have an anecdote! The cure for autism has been found!

Seriously, I don't get how people can actually recommend things because it supposedly "worked for them." The amount of logical fallacies that people take for granted as okay in everyday conversation really baffles me. As an exercise, point out every instance of people passing anecdotes off as legitimate evidence or thinking that correlation implies causation, and tell me how long it was before you stopped getting invited to parties.


Well to be fair, that was in regards to Essential Tremor where as like many conditions there is no cure, so many people are of course trying to come up with their own and are trying to be helpful in recommending ways to reduce the symptoms.


I have Essential Tremor as well and I just have to say that I tried Propranolol and Primidone and that worked for me, so, I dunno, maybe it'd work for you!

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Technical Ben » Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:07 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:GI issues. (Which is actually quite common for individuals with autism, and I would guess where this idea came from.)

The Andrew Wakefield paper in the Lancet, the one that got him limelighted and his medical license eventually revoked, was about treating GI tract issues in autistic patients; as far as I know, there is a link between autism and GI tract issues.


Not sure if anyone has noted it yet, but even if it was the case... correlation =/= cause. It could be the cause causes both, still not the diet, but from other unrelated things (genetics etc).
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:38 pm UTC

Yeah, look at my post about... half a page up.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Brickmack
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:48 am UTC

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Brickmack » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:11 am UTC

Interesting that they may have found what causes autism in at least some cases, though I worry about the potential impacts of this. For example, if parents start having their unborn children tested to see if they have the "autism gene", or test themselves before having children to see if they have a chance of passing these genes onto offspring. Then, because of having this extra information, they decide to have an abortion/not have kids. Though some severely autistic people do seem to have limiting issues with various cognitive and communications abilities, higher functioning individuals seem to have equal or greater intelligence than "normal people" and thus potentially equal or greater positive impact on society. I'd worry a bit that this could eventually end up causing a massive reduction of a group of people from society. It would be like if someone discovered a "gay gene" and resulted in the elimination of homosexuality (bad example because of the unlikeliness of genetics being a primary component of being gay due to the rareness of procreation by gays, but the point is the same).... Anyway, anyone have any thought on this?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby sourmìlk » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:45 am UTC

Can't we identify Down's Syndrome prenatally? If so, the existence of people with Down's Syndrome shows that people are willing to carry severely defective (for lack of a better word) fetuses to term. Also, depending on the illness (I am not necessarily saying that Autism qualifies), I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if parents abort so their child doesn't have to suffer.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:57 am UTC

Brickmack wrote: Then, because of having this extra information, they decide to have an abortion/not have kids.

I think this is a very good thing. If you can detect serious life changing illnesses in a child earlier in pregnancy, or, feasibly, before delivering, you allow parents to make a rational decision about having a child. This isn't 'designer baby' fears, it's not 'Will my baby be blue eyed? Heterosexual? Good at sports?', it's 'Will I have to dedicate potentially the rest of my life caring for someone who is incapable of caring for themselves, and never enjoy many of the milestones that parenting a healthy child brings? Is that something I'm prepared for?'.
Personally, I'm all for making the decision to raise a child under the most rational as possible pretexts, with the maximum amount of influencing data as possible. This isn't an ethical quandary.
sourmìlk wrote:Can't we identify Down's Syndrome prenatally?

I think amniocentesis can test for it, but because the procedure itself carries the potential for risk to the fetus, it is not always administered.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Rorgg » Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:46 pm UTC

Yeah, but Down's has an easily-identifiable genetic marker. It's a lot trickier for ASD, there's no single anomaly.

I'm a moderately aspie adult with a 6-year-old daughter, and knowing my own pathology (and how I managed to pretty well disguise my neurotypology socially) really helps dealing with her, both in terms of patience, and in helping her normalize behaviour. She's probably not diagnosable, but it's there.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:04 pm UTC

Rorgg wrote:Yeah, but Down's has an easily-identifiable genetic marker. It's a lot trickier for ASD, there's no single anomaly.

Yes, which is why the finding is cool and potentially helpful. I'm not sure how it corresponds to the severe side of ASDs, but the point is it's another diagnosis tool.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:12 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:it's 'Will I have to dedicate potentially the rest of my life caring for someone who is incapable of caring for themselves, and never enjoy many of the milestones that parenting a healthy child brings? Is that something I'm prepared for?'.
Honestly, though, if you aren't prepared for this eventuality, you might want to reconsider the decision to have kids at all. No amount of screening can really exempt you from this possibility, and once you have the kid, you're solely responsible.
Izawwlgood wrote:I think amniocentesis can test for it, but because the procedure itself carries the potential for risk to the fetus, it is not always administered.

They actually can look for indicative physical abnormalities in an ultrasound, and I think they can do amniocentesis. Of course, screening for Downs babies is its own ethical debate. I, for one, wouldn't screen, but that's because I wouldn't abort a Downs baby, or an ASD baby, for that matter.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:23 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Honestly, though, if you aren't prepared for this eventuality, you might want to reconsider the decision to have kids at all. No amount of screening can really exempt you from this possibility, and once you have the kid, you're solely responsible.

Eh, not really. There's a difference between 'my kid might not like sports, and I should prepare myself to not play catch in the park' and 'my kid might have a life altering disability'. If you want to play the 'but even mentally disabled people can live full lives', you'll get no argument from me; I personally would rather abort my unborn child if I discovered it was going to be 'significantly impaired', for whatever I decide upon reflection constitutes 'significant impairment'.

The point isn't to say 'all children who have these gene abnormality should be aborted', but 'parents now have another tool that lets them make an informed decision about whether or not to carry a child to term'. I would absolutely screen my child, because barring fertility issues, I feel I should raise my child with every possible advantage I can give it, from reading about proper diaper changing techniques to making informed decisions about whether or not to raise a 'severely' mentally disabled child.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:33 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I personally would rather abort my unborn child if I discovered it was going to be 'significantly impaired', for whatever I decide upon reflection constitutes 'significant impairment'.
My point is that no amount of screening will ensure that your child isn't 'significantly impaired,' whether that's from a genetic abnormality, a rare disease in infancy, or from some moron doing 90 with a bottle of Jack Daniels in his cupholder. So ideally, anyone planning to have a child should be willing to raise an impaired child.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:36 pm UTC

And even if it's not for the parent's sake, what about the child's? There are certainly disabilities that dramatically reduce the quality of life of a child (and some that make them die very young), and I don't really see a problem of making sure a hypothetical person doesn't have to go through that.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:52 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I personally would rather abort my unborn child if I discovered it was going to be 'significantly impaired', for whatever I decide upon reflection constitutes 'significant impairment'.
My point is that no amount of screening will ensure that your child isn't 'significantly impaired,' whether that's from a genetic abnormality, a rare disease in infancy, or from some moron doing 90 with a bottle of Jack Daniels in his cupholder. So ideally, anyone planning to have a child should be willing to raise an impaired child.

Honestly, I fail to see your point here. You're effectively suggesting that because one can never be prepared for all of life's contingencies, one should abandon all hope of making informed decisions. Is it possible my kid will test negative for this gene abnormality but still, say, fall off their bike and become permanently brain damaged? Of course. That's not really the point.
EDIT: Ah, I see, you're suggesting that you should be prepared for the contingencies. Yes. I agree. That's still not really the point; if you can make informed decisions and reduce the likelihood of being faced with these outcomes, having the tools to do so is a good thing.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

marky66
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:11 pm UTC

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby marky66 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:03 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:And even if it's not for the parent's sake, what about the child's? There are certainly disabilities that dramatically reduce the quality of life of a child (and some that make them die very young), and I don't really see a problem of making sure a hypothetical person doesn't have to go through that.

Who are you to judge the quality of life of someone else?

People may say that they don't want their child to suffer with a disability, or to die very young. It can be heartbreaking, for example, to know that your child cannot read. But that is your heartbreak, not the child's. Such decisions are just code for "I don't want to have to deal with the hassles of having a disabled child, or with the fact that I know they'll die young."

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:13 pm UTC

marky66 wrote: But that is your heartbreak, not the child's.

I find your claim to be more presumptuous than his. You don't know what these children are feeling/thinking. Making a judgement based on your experiences as a non-autistic human being is the only context from which you can judge this; as pointed out numerous times in this very thread, some ASD kids become extraordinarily stressed at minor changes to their life. If you don't think this is indicative of a lower quality of life, I think you're the one being irrational.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

marky66
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:11 pm UTC

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby marky66 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:41 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
marky66 wrote: But that is your heartbreak, not the child's.

I find your claim to be more presumptuous than his. You don't know what these children are feeling/thinking. Making a judgement based on your experiences as a non-autistic human being is the only context from which you can judge this; as pointed out numerous times in this very thread, some ASD kids become extraordinarily stressed at minor changes to their life. If you don't think this is indicative of a lower quality of life, I think you're the one being irrational.

You also don't know what they are feeling/thinking. Are they extraordinarily stressed, or is what we can observe simply an overreaction to the same stress we all feel?
Let's say that stress lowers the quality of life. I know one ASD kid who, from all apparent outward signs, derives ecstatic pleasure from bouncing a basketball. Using your measure, I could judge his quality of life higher than average.
(Yes I know that an anecdote =/= data. But neither does it make sense to judge "quality of life" by the low points.)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Autistic children don't stay children forever physically, so if you are trying to suggest that an autistic individual has a quality of life that's just dandy, because, why look, they have the equivalent competency of a toddler, than you've already demonstrated yourself to be arguing a ridiculous stance.

Extreme pleasure at something extraordinarily intellectually simple does not make for a high quality of life; if anything, it marks a significantly lower standard of life.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:35 pm UTC

I really don't see how aborting a child who will die early is selfish, especially if it will involve a painful life and the parent taking care of the child at great expense. Anyways, autistic people operate on a much higher stress level than the average person. Ask a psychologist.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Jessica » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:31 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Autistic children don't stay children forever physically, so if you are trying to suggest that an autistic individual has a quality of life that's just dandy, because, why look, they have the equivalent competency of a toddler, than you've already demonstrated yourself to be arguing a ridiculous stance.

Extreme pleasure at something extraordinarily intellectually simple does not make for a high quality of life; if anything, it marks a significantly lower standard of life.
ASD and intellectual disabilities are not the same thing. Most people with ASD are very intelligent, they just have difficulty communicating. I feel this statement you were making is implying that someone with autism is necessarily mentally disabled. Some need help, sure, but that doesn't mean they have an intelligence comparable to a toddler.

Autism is currently diagnosed by specific patterns of behavior, and the diagnosis does not include intellectual disability.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:33 pm UTC

Jessica I'm not sure what you're getting at; if you are claiming that 'some ASD individuals have normal intelligence' I'm not disagreeing. If you are claiming 'autism has nothing to do with intellectual disability' then I'm going to ask you to provide some evidence supporting this claim; according to the wikipedia entry on Autism, mental retardation affects between 25% and 70% of those diagnosed with ASD disorders. Are you specifically objecting to me lumping autism with all ASD, because that was not my intent. I understand that individuals who fall on the 'light' end of the ASD's may have normal intelligence. People who fall on the autistic side of the ASD more often than not, do not have normal intelligence.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: New Research: Autism is likely Genetic

Postby Jessica » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:47 pm UTC

What I'm saying is that those with autism don't automatically have mental retardation. As you said between 25% and 70% (which is a horribly large spread of numbers, and could very well be more of a problem with diagnosing then anything else) also can be diagnosed with mental retardation. What I'm saying is that being autistic does not mean you're mentally retarded. They are often co-morbid (though, maybe not as often as we get better at recognizing the disorder) but they aren't the same.

That's what I'm saying.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests