[ SECRET POST #3243 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3243 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08. [SPOILERS for Longmire]



__________________________________________________



09. [SPOILERS for Arrow]



__________________________________________________



10. [WARNING for dub-con/non-con]



__________________________________________________



11. [WARNING for rape]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #463.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

What is the stance on "forcing" the cure on someone who can't consent? My cousin has severe autism. He can't communicate at all beyond some physical expression (things like banging his head when upset and such).

I'm not being sarcastic or...troll-y. I just wanted to know if you knew what the vague census on that is. Though, I guess other replies will tell me as well!

[(Anonymous)]

Abloobloo hdu selfish neurotypical "allistic" something something etc.

I think I've adequately covered the pro-any-mental-disorder side of things that completely neglects the fact that frankly, quite a few mental disorders negatively affect quality of life and would be extremely maladaptive behaviors in almost any environment.

My feeling is that consent given for someone like that should be given with an eye to whether it would improve his quality of life, which it probably would.

[(Anonymous)]

Way to completely brush off the "other side".

The fact is that autism does affect people in different ways. Some people are affected mildly and some not so much.

It's not so much about "autism is great and EVERYONE should have it and love it" (for sensible people anyway) and more about the right to autonomy over one's own mind and body. For people who can live on their own and communicate, they should have every right to say "yes I do want this" or "no I don't want this" and have that respected.

Then again if you're one to sum up other people's feelings and arguments as "abloobloobloo" you're probably not mature and intelligent enough to have a discussion with.

AYRT

[(Anonymous)]

I mean people who can speak who are autistic. Autism is a very big spectrum ranging from mild to very severely affected.

Some people are affected less in the communication department and more in other departments.

There are plenty of people who manage to be autistic and go about their daily lives. Some may want a cure, and some may not. But if they can support themselves independently they have the right to decide whether or not they would want the cure.

[(Anonymous)]

Does he have a legal guardian that makes the medical decisions on his behalf? I guess they would decide then, like with any other procedure.

[(Anonymous)]

this. people already make decisions for him.

a speculative "cure" probably would have more of a sliding effect as well. you could give someone the ability to consent and then let them decide, although there would be a dire social pressure if they can't live independently without "curing".

[(Anonymous)]

That is life for you, it is always going to come with prejudices and consequences.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm with anon from above. If your cousin (or anyone else) is at that level then he'll have a legal guardian that already makes decisions for him. In that case, it would be up to the legal guardian to decide on the cure.

[(Anonymous)]

Your cousin probably has a guardian or guardians who make decisions for him now, including medical ones. After all, what if he broke his leg? You wouldn't leave that untreated just because he's unable to consent to getting x-rays and a cast.

[(Anonymous)]

If they are suffering so badly they cannot understand the concept of informed consent then it is 100% ethical for a guardian to decide for them. Same as with any other condition or disease. The gray area is somewhere a little higher on the scale, at the Chris Chan level where the concept of informed consent is understood but the full benefits of a cure and downsides of the condition might not be. Again, same with any other condition.

[(Anonymous)]

Why did you have to use Chris Chan as an example?

That guy would be an asshole regardless of whether he had autism.

[(Anonymous)]

Because he is a well known figure with autism and thus provides a handy shortcut of an example.

[(Anonymous)]

The easy way isn't always the right way.

Congratulations, you're lazy. and you're probably misinforming people in your laziness.

[(Anonymous)]

DA. But he still is autistic and can be used as an example for cognitive state, even if he isn't a nice person.

[(Anonymous)]

True, but he shouldn't be used as an example of "being autistic will make you like this" or even "loads of autistic people are like this"

There are a lot of things in his life aside autism that contribute to the way he is, including abusive or negligent parents.

If you're going to talk about Chris Can's case specifically consider all the unique factors not just those that fit your current argument.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like we are having two different conversations. The original anon did not claim that "being autistic will make you like this" or even that "loads of autistic people are like this".

They only used Chris Chan as an example of a person who might be able to consent to some things, but not understand others:
at the Chris Chan level where the concept of informed consent is understood but the full benefits of a cure and downsides of the condition might not be

I understand that you might not like to be grouped with Chris Chan at all, but in this case he was a valid, demonstrative example.

[(Anonymous)]

Having worked with some severe cases, I'm pretty sure they would all give up being "special" in a second if it meant gaining the ability to go to the bathroom alone or choose by themselves what they want to eat.

But that's really for their legal guardians to decide, since hopefully they know them well enough to.

It's super frustrating that the the "NO CURE" movement ignores these people and is quite happy to let them suffer just so they can continue to use autism to make themselves feel special.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes the people on tumblr in the like who insist there should never be any kind of cure are being terrible.

But in this thread, all I've seen is some people arguing that if there is a cure people who are differently affected and independent should be able to choose and have the right to choose that they don't want one.