The "Autism family": Is this acceptable?

[daemon37]

The vast majority of autistic individuals do not form deep interpersonal interactions or reproduce. So if it is genetic, that gene is highly unlikely to be passed on.

But I have another question: Should people with sickle cell trait reproduce? How about cystic fibrosis carriers? Women who are BRCA positive? People who are FAP positive (familial adenomatous polyposis, pervs)? People with a family history of color blindness? Hemophilia? Huntington's disease? How about people with achondroplasia? Where do you draw the line?

Well, I don't know anything most of the diseases you mentioned, and I was simply responding to the original poster's commentary... BUT, if I had to draw the line somewhere between what is acceptable to pass on to future generations, and what should be prevented if possible, I would say the following.

Genetic diseases that are either treatable, or not profoundly disabling (i.e. color blindness), so that the person can function without any major need for medical care are acceptable to potentially pass on to future generations. People with disabilities should be accommodated for. Yet with the technology we have today, which can be used to screen for diseases, it just seems wrong for someone to reproduce when there is a high risk for the child to have a serious disability. Especially when you can adopt a perfectly healthy child instead.

The problems with this statement are that I don't know how to properly define "profoundly disabling" or "major need for medical care".

 

[rynocerator]

I actually work with children, and the is a family of 3 kids that come in and all are autistic. I feel that if the parents can't produce a child in a healthy state of mind and body, they should stop for the sake of the unborn children. Its not fair to the kids to have to live a life that isn't all it could be because the parents couldn't practice safe sex or whatever.

 

[Angerwing]

That non-autistic kid dodged one hell of a bullet. They must feel like Superman.

 

[Grounogeos]

It's bad enough that taxpayers already have to lose more of their hard-earned money to pay for those with mental handicaps.

Now, I have nothing against helping such people, but it gets on my nerves when you have some mentally handicapped guy in your town who has a pocketful of money whenever you see him (yes, there's someone just like that in the town I live in).

 

[PhiMed]

The vast majority of autistic individuals do not form deep interpersonal interactions or reproduce. So if it is genetic, that gene is highly unlikely to be passed on.

But I have another question: Should people with sickle cell trait reproduce? How about cystic fibrosis carriers? Women who are BRCA positive? People who are FAP positive (familial adenomatous polyposis, pervs)? People with a family history of color blindness? Hemophilia? Huntington's disease? How about people with achondroplasia? Where do you draw the line?

What I hear from a lot of people in this thread, apparently to the point where you can't take care of yourself.

I'm not against euthanasia, but there's a BIG difference between "not being able to take care of yourself" and "having a terminal illness wich causes you constant agonizing pain". If you're going to kill people because they can't take care of themselves, you're doing so only because they're a bother to you not because it's in their best interest.

I'm no Mother Theresa, but if you have a kid who can't take care of himself you take some fucking responsibility and care for the child.
I already get pissed off if I hear Animal Cops talking about euthanazing a dog because their not usefull anymore, but to hear people on this forum talk that way about human beings is what really makes me lose faith in humanity.

I'm not sure why you're cursing at me, and I'm not sure why you're talking about euthanasia. If you just need to rage, please direct it at someone else.

I was saying that it's unethical to judge people for reproducing simply because they are carriers for a genetic disorder. In this case, autism hasn't even been established as a purely genetic syndrome, so it's doubly true.

So I guess what I'm saying is... What are you talking about, dude?

 

[Mcupobob]

Nobody should be having six kids to begin with, in my opinion. The world is already overpopulated. But hey, what can ya do?

http://www.maps.com/ref_map.aspx?cid=679,1037&pid=12880

See all that space! worlds not as overpoplated as you say, there is alot of space most of Australia and Canada are clear and not to mention the mid-west in America, there is lots of livable room in the world and how do you know that her next child won't be the next Stephen Hawkings or Huxly?

 

[Rathy]

I, in this case, believe they should not be having any children, if its 5/6 of them with autism, and in this case is likely genetic. It just takes too many resources, and I partly feel the well being of the child is already partially compromised.

Now I say this coming from a family with a lot of odd connections in this area. My sister has Down's, and as such we meet a lot of people who either have Down's Syndrome or some kind of extreme autism. One family I know has a similar case, where all three of their kids have autism. One child was born with it, and two of the children actually had their case set in later, after getting ill with something, and not making sense. And its all very taxing when they can't participate as active members of society.

Now if its not extreme autism, thats different. As autism is overly broad right now, and can range from not being able to interact at all, to just being a bit more tunnel-minded and argumentative. The way the family speaks, it sounds like at least some of their kids had lighter cases, and I think that is fine, and is part of what I see as an over-diagnosing of autism patients. But the article is also a bit vague on the specifics of the kids.

 

[PhiMed]

The vast majority of autistic individuals do not form deep interpersonal interactions or reproduce. So if it is genetic, that gene is highly unlikely to be passed on.

But I have another question: Should people with sickle cell trait reproduce? How about cystic fibrosis carriers? Women who are BRCA positive? People who are FAP positive (familial adenomatous polyposis, pervs)? People with a family history of color blindness? Hemophilia? Huntington's disease? How about people with achondroplasia? Where do you draw the line?

Well, I don't know anything most of the diseases you mentioned, and I was simply responding to the original poster's commentary... BUT, if I had to draw the line somewhere between what is acceptable to pass on to future generations, and what should be prevented if possible, I would say the following.

Genetic diseases that are either treatable, or not profoundly disabling (i.e. color blindness), so that the person can function without any major need for medical care are acceptable to potentially pass on to future generations. People with disabilities should be accommodated for. Yet with the technology we have today, which can be used to screen for diseases, it just seems wrong for someone to reproduce when there is a high risk for the child to have a serious disability. Especially when you can adopt a perfectly healthy child instead.

The problems with this statement are that I don't know how to properly define "profoundly disabling" or "major need for medical care".

My first sentence related primarily to your suggestion that she is polluting the gene pool. Most autistic people do not reproduce, so if there is a gene for it, they would not propagate it. Even assuming that they would, just because she believes it is genetic in her childrens' case doesn't mean it's so. In fact, most behavioral psychologists and geneticists agree that Autism exhibits a complex inheritance pattern (i.e. not strictly genetic).

As for ACTUAL genetic syndromes, all of those I listed are treatable. All of them allow for productive lives, but some (Huntington's, FAP, BRCA) have late onset, and others (achondroplasia, hemophillia, sickle cell) require lifelong treatment but do not require that the afflicted person become a helpless ward of the medical community.

While I agree that it is unfortunate that these diseases exist, we can't be in the business of dictating whom we allow to reproduce, because everyone's definition of "profoundly disabling" differs. So does the need for medical care one would designate as "major". You seem to recognize that, but you judged this woman, despite her stated opinion that Autism should not be categorized as pathological. One of her autistic children was even able to progress in therapy to a point where she no longer needs special education. So I guess I just don't understand why there was a rush to judgement here but not in other cases.

 

[Phoenixlight]

It's morally irresponsible for anyone to have more than 2 children, so no a mentally challenged person shouldn't drag more mentally challenged people into this world to drain it's limited resources.

 

[blalien]

Having more than two biological children is in and of itself irresponsible. The world's population is high enough already. There are plenty of babies up for adoption.

EDIT: Hah hah I got ninja'd.

 

[GruntOwner]

I have my right to share my opinion and you have the right to disagree with it and try to claim it as false. However, turning it into a personal attack is uncalled for and against the rules. You can feel free to disagree with my statement, but do not fallow it up by making claims against me. Its very low of you.

It is not an attack on you, it is an attack on your short sightedness. I'm not calling your opinion false, since that's impossible, just very poorly thought through.

 

[Citrus]

Nobody should be having six kids to begin with, in my opinion. The world is already overpopulated. But hey, what can ya do?

http://www.maps.com/ref_map.aspx?cid=679,1037&pid=12880

See all that space! worlds not as overpoplated as you say, there is alot of space most of Australia and Canada are clear and not to mention the mid-west in America, there is lots of livable room in the world and how do you know that her next child won't be the next Stephen Hawkings or Huxly?

You're kidding, right? So you think that the world won't be overpopulated until there's a person living on every inch of it?

The world may not be physically overpopulated, but when you consider how many resources a single person uses up, you'll realize that it is populated beyond (or approaching beyond) the threshold of sustainability. We don't need people bringing in these massive families; two kids should be more than enough for the average family.

 

[Tdc2182]

If she is not a bad mother, than she can go ahead. If she was bringing them into this world just to put them up for adoption than I would say no, but I wouldnt deprive her of her freewill to have children

 

[RicoADF]

Depends on the grade of autism. I myself have ADHD and well, i turned out ok. I do not think that someone should be prohibited of having kids, even if it's almost sure the kids you have have autism. two friends of mine have it. One has is still on highschool while the other is doing HAVO wich isn't college in my country but one grade higher then highschool.

Autism is in some case a stop on living a normal life, but in most cases people with autism live an ok life.

True, but the article says they have servear autism. It really does depend on how it affects the kids, if their having lots of trouble handeling society then personally I would find it irresponsable to keep having kids, especially with that rate of developing it. Having said that, as stated above, if they didnt pick up on it till later then I can understand having more then the first one, but once its discovered I'd consider it immoral to have more.

If its at a managable level, then theres no problem, as long as the parents can handel it financially and emotionally.

 

[Downfall89]

I'd first like to start out by saying that this is possibly a very unpopular opinion that I'm about to share. I'd like to first say that I am not insensitive to autistic kids, nor do I mock them, nor am I a fan of population control methods from governments.

The O'Donnelles​

Somewhere in Texas, lives a 49-year-old mother of 6 named Jeanette O'Donnell. Five out of the six children are in fact autistic. Even J-O has admitted herself that " I believe that in my family, it's genetic". Jeanette has been in the public's eye a long time for her stance against possible therapy that improves conditions for autistic children. This thread is about none of that.

What I'm asking, is that is it morally responsible for Jeanette to have more children? I'm not all that into biology, but for the sake of discussion lets assume that if Jeanette had another child, it would most likely be autistic. While I have nothing against autistic children, being mentally handicapped means that they will most likely forever be taking more away from society than they can possibly put back. Regardless, Jeanette already has 5 autistic kids, is it responsible for her as a parent to have more, because frankly, the time and dedication that needs to be applied to a special needs child seems almost impossible to apply to five or six of them.

So, is it morally responsible for a woman like Jeanette to have more children?

More info on Jeanette's family [http://www.aolhealth.com/2010/03/04/caring-for-autistic-children-jeanette-odonnell/?icid=main|main|dl3|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolhealth.com%2F2010%2F03%2F04%2Fcaring-for-autistic-children-jeanette-odonnell%2F]

I agree with you.
She should not have any more children.
Also, why on earth is she against treatment?!

Agreed, six children is a lot anyway, most parents can't take care of six NORMAL kids..

 

[WolfThomas]

No, not because of the autism, I simply believe people should only have 1-2 children, basic maths says if everyone in the world did this we wouldn't have overpopulation (I know it's a bit more complicated).

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Given some of the families around, I'm sure that Jeanette has more right than some other families to have children. If that line goes down here, what about hairloss, eyesight??

 

[Brad Shepard]

You shouldent have more kids after the first 3 or so are autistic, im going by the law of avarages here, i know a family at my Girlfriend's church that has 19 kids, and there last one was born at 28 or so weeks and might not make it, AND THEY WANT MORE! im a bit off topic here, but my point is that you need to think before you have kids.