Adding in: I see that you were referring to the little boy that was killed as the "poor thing" ...so you aren't completely without sympathy.
However, he's the victim of bigotry and, ultimately, murder. Sympathizing with people whose hatred for non-harmful differences leads them to inject a child with poison (or subject him to abusive 'treatments' designed to make him look like something he isn't), let alone murdering him...nope, sorry, not cool at all. Murder is murder, abuse is abuse, and that the victim was disabled shouldn't mean the crime was any less heinous; it certainly doesn't make it any less terrible for the kid.
Unfortunately, they won't be punished as the abusers or killers of a 'normal' child would be. People that attack or murder the disabled rarely are in our society.
Not that it matters in the final analysis, but so many of these parents, I believe, don't mean any harm... they've just been woefully misguided by the 'experts'. Not that that excuses anything; they can, presumably, do their own research, after all... but I think another tragedy here is that so many parents/members of the general public just are that uneducated, and that makes me sad.
To think that a parent would knowingly subject their child to a treatment that has a higher than average chance of killing him or her... that's pretty much unthinkable.
(I say "higher than average" because my parents signed off on a fair bit of surgery for me, and as they tell you, any surgical procedure *could* end in death... but it's pretty rare in the main, from what I can tell. At least for the surgeries I've had, most of which have not been particularly dangerous, as far as I know.)
Ah, but I'm not saying it's acceptable, but a child had died and my sympathies were lying more with the fact that a life had been taken, as opposed to the morals of the treatment. This isn't making sense, I'm not very good at wording things.
I guess what I was trying to say was that, in the eyes of the parents perhaps, it was a 'cure' and suddenly they lose thier child. I wasn't thinking clearly, I was more upset that a child had been killed, to be completely honest with you.
And I didn't mean 'cure' to be insulting at all, apologies if it seemed like that, I've not got the vocabulary to use words which would have meant what I, well, meant.
Not necessarily... If autism is as strongly tied to VATER/CHARGE as I've been thinking it is, they could find genetic patterns up the wazoo and never be able to do anything about it.
The same results are showing up in genetic research for those two associations. They've managed, at this point, to track down a "maybe" for one gene, but have no idea what the gene is doing or why it's doing it or even whether others are involved. It appears that the gene might be changed in some subtle undetectable way totally at random, probably as a form of natural population control. (They do know with a fair amount of certainty that both autistics and VATER/CHARGE people initially have at least one identical sibling, tend to have absorbed another fetus' genetic code early on, and that attempts at cloning live animals has an extremely high rate of producing exactly the same anomalies seen there.)
Even in the event that they figure out a way to pinpoint what the gene is doing, and develop a method of identifying it, the resulting test -- unlike that for Down Syndrome, for example -- is going to be so incredibly expensive that very few people will make use of it. They likely will also, in the process, figure out (as we already know) that the same genetics are required to produce certain kinds/degrees of talent. While *we* don't particularly care about that, society sure does...
So my guess is that they *might* find a gene implicated in autism, but it's not going to be any more useful in getting rid of us than finding a gene for VATER has been -- or when it is, it will be too expensive in financial or social terms to be put to serious use. I could be wrong, but that's my current theory.
Heh, riiiiiiight. When people who more blatantly kill their kids and admit it get off scot-free, you think they're going to get any blame or punishment?
Well, let's see. Subjecting your kid to an unproven and dangerous "medical" treatment could (and should be, imho) be considered child abuse and reckless endangerment. Since the kid died, I think a case could also be made for manslaughter.
But yeah, realistically I doubt anything's going to actually happen to the parents.
Adding in: I see that you were referring to the little boy that was killed as the "poor thing" ...so you aren't completely without sympathy.
However, he's the victim of bigotry and, ultimately, murder. Sympathizing with people whose hatred for non-harmful differences leads them to inject a child with poison (or subject him to abusive 'treatments' designed to make him look like something he isn't), let alone murdering him...nope, sorry, not cool at all. Murder is murder, abuse is abuse, and that the victim was disabled shouldn't mean the crime was any less heinous; it certainly doesn't make it any less terrible for the kid.
Unfortunately, they won't be punished as the abusers or killers of a 'normal' child would be. People that attack or murder the disabled rarely are in our society.
Not that it matters in the final analysis, but so many of these parents, I believe, don't mean any harm... they've just been woefully misguided by the 'experts'. Not that that excuses anything; they can, presumably, do their own research, after all... but I think another tragedy here is that so many parents/members of the general public just are that uneducated, and that makes me sad.
To think that a parent would knowingly subject their child to a treatment that has a higher than average chance of killing him or her... that's pretty much unthinkable.
(I say "higher than average" because my parents signed off on a fair bit of surgery for me, and as they tell you, any surgical procedure *could* end in death... but it's pretty rare in the main, from what I can tell. At least for the surgeries I've had, most of which have not been particularly dangerous, as far as I know.)
Ah, but I'm not saying it's acceptable, but a child had died and my sympathies were lying more with the fact that a life had been taken, as opposed to the morals of the treatment. This isn't making sense, I'm not very good at wording things.
I guess what I was trying to say was that, in the eyes of the parents perhaps, it was a 'cure' and suddenly they lose thier child. I wasn't thinking clearly, I was more upset that a child had been killed, to be completely honest with you.
And I didn't mean 'cure' to be insulting at all, apologies if it seemed like that, I've not got the vocabulary to use words which would have meant what I, well, meant.
Not necessarily... If autism is as strongly tied to VATER/CHARGE as I've been thinking it is, they could find genetic patterns up the wazoo and never be able to do anything about it.
The same results are showing up in genetic research for those two associations. They've managed, at this point, to track down a "maybe" for one gene, but have no idea what the gene is doing or why it's doing it or even whether others are involved. It appears that the gene might be changed in some subtle undetectable way totally at random, probably as a form of natural population control. (They do know with a fair amount of certainty that both autistics and VATER/CHARGE people initially have at least one identical sibling, tend to have absorbed another fetus' genetic code early on, and that attempts at cloning live animals has an extremely high rate of producing exactly the same anomalies seen there.)
Even in the event that they figure out a way to pinpoint what the gene is doing, and develop a method of identifying it, the resulting test -- unlike that for Down Syndrome, for example -- is going to be so incredibly expensive that very few people will make use of it. They likely will also, in the process, figure out (as we already know) that the same genetics are required to produce certain kinds/degrees of talent. While *we* don't particularly care about that, society sure does...
So my guess is that they *might* find a gene implicated in autism, but it's not going to be any more useful in getting rid of us than finding a gene for VATER has been -- or when it is, it will be too expensive in financial or social terms to be put to serious use. I could be wrong, but that's my current theory.
Heh, riiiiiiight. When people who more blatantly kill their kids and admit it get off scot-free, you think they're going to get any blame or punishment?
Well, let's see. Subjecting your kid to an unproven and dangerous "medical" treatment could (and should be, imho) be considered child abuse and reckless endangerment. Since the kid died, I think a case could also be made for manslaughter.
But yeah, realistically I doubt anything's going to actually happen to the parents.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Poor thing. =(
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Hey, can I call ya tomorrow like... after 10 your time?
no subject
no subject
no subject
However, he's the victim of bigotry and, ultimately, murder. Sympathizing with people whose hatred for non-harmful differences leads them to inject a child with poison (or subject him to abusive 'treatments' designed to make him look like something he isn't), let alone murdering him...nope, sorry, not cool at all. Murder is murder, abuse is abuse, and that the victim was disabled shouldn't mean the crime was any less heinous; it certainly doesn't make it any less terrible for the kid.
Unfortunately, they won't be punished as the abusers or killers of a 'normal' child would be. People that attack or murder the disabled rarely are in our society.
no subject
To think that a parent would knowingly subject their child to a treatment that has a higher than average chance of killing him or her... that's pretty much unthinkable.
(I say "higher than average" because my parents signed off on a fair bit of surgery for me, and as they tell you, any surgical procedure *could* end in death... but it's pretty rare in the main, from what I can tell. At least for the surgeries I've had, most of which have not been particularly dangerous, as far as I know.)
no subject
I guess what I was trying to say was that, in the eyes of the parents perhaps, it was a 'cure' and suddenly they lose thier child.
I wasn't thinking clearly, I was more upset that a child had been killed, to be completely honest with you.
And I didn't mean 'cure' to be insulting at all, apologies if it seemed like that, I've not got the vocabulary to use words which would have meant what I, well, meant.
That and I'm a dimwit. *shrug*
no subject
no subject
no subject
The same results are showing up in genetic research for those two associations. They've managed, at this point, to track down a "maybe" for one gene, but have no idea what the gene is doing or why it's doing it or even whether others are involved. It appears that the gene might be changed in some subtle undetectable way totally at random, probably as a form of natural population control. (They do know with a fair amount of certainty that both autistics and VATER/CHARGE people initially have at least one identical sibling, tend to have absorbed another fetus' genetic code early on, and that attempts at cloning live animals has an extremely high rate of producing exactly the same anomalies seen there.)
Even in the event that they figure out a way to pinpoint what the gene is doing, and develop a method of identifying it, the resulting test -- unlike that for Down Syndrome, for example -- is going to be so incredibly expensive that very few people will make use of it. They likely will also, in the process, figure out (as we already know) that the same genetics are required to produce certain kinds/degrees of talent. While *we* don't particularly care about that, society sure does...
So my guess is that they *might* find a gene implicated in autism, but it's not going to be any more useful in getting rid of us than finding a gene for VATER has been -- or when it is, it will be too expensive in financial or social terms to be put to serious use. I could be wrong, but that's my current theory.
no subject
Like a lack of evidence ever seems to stop people. Nor a lack of sense...
Still, it's a cheery thought.
no subject
no subject
no subject
But yeah, realistically I doubt anything's going to actually happen to the parents.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Poor thing. =(
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Hey, can I call ya tomorrow like... after 10 your time?
no subject
no subject
no subject
However, he's the victim of bigotry and, ultimately, murder. Sympathizing with people whose hatred for non-harmful differences leads them to inject a child with poison (or subject him to abusive 'treatments' designed to make him look like something he isn't), let alone murdering him...nope, sorry, not cool at all. Murder is murder, abuse is abuse, and that the victim was disabled shouldn't mean the crime was any less heinous; it certainly doesn't make it any less terrible for the kid.
Unfortunately, they won't be punished as the abusers or killers of a 'normal' child would be. People that attack or murder the disabled rarely are in our society.
no subject
To think that a parent would knowingly subject their child to a treatment that has a higher than average chance of killing him or her... that's pretty much unthinkable.
(I say "higher than average" because my parents signed off on a fair bit of surgery for me, and as they tell you, any surgical procedure *could* end in death... but it's pretty rare in the main, from what I can tell. At least for the surgeries I've had, most of which have not been particularly dangerous, as far as I know.)
no subject
I guess what I was trying to say was that, in the eyes of the parents perhaps, it was a 'cure' and suddenly they lose thier child.
I wasn't thinking clearly, I was more upset that a child had been killed, to be completely honest with you.
And I didn't mean 'cure' to be insulting at all, apologies if it seemed like that, I've not got the vocabulary to use words which would have meant what I, well, meant.
That and I'm a dimwit. *shrug*
no subject
no subject
no subject
The same results are showing up in genetic research for those two associations. They've managed, at this point, to track down a "maybe" for one gene, but have no idea what the gene is doing or why it's doing it or even whether others are involved. It appears that the gene might be changed in some subtle undetectable way totally at random, probably as a form of natural population control. (They do know with a fair amount of certainty that both autistics and VATER/CHARGE people initially have at least one identical sibling, tend to have absorbed another fetus' genetic code early on, and that attempts at cloning live animals has an extremely high rate of producing exactly the same anomalies seen there.)
Even in the event that they figure out a way to pinpoint what the gene is doing, and develop a method of identifying it, the resulting test -- unlike that for Down Syndrome, for example -- is going to be so incredibly expensive that very few people will make use of it. They likely will also, in the process, figure out (as we already know) that the same genetics are required to produce certain kinds/degrees of talent. While *we* don't particularly care about that, society sure does...
So my guess is that they *might* find a gene implicated in autism, but it's not going to be any more useful in getting rid of us than finding a gene for VATER has been -- or when it is, it will be too expensive in financial or social terms to be put to serious use. I could be wrong, but that's my current theory.
no subject
Like a lack of evidence ever seems to stop people. Nor a lack of sense...
Still, it's a cheery thought.
no subject
no subject
no subject
But yeah, realistically I doubt anything's going to actually happen to the parents.