Apparently it is "World Autism Day". That means the timing of this entry may or may not be intentional. I had the idea for it a couple of days ago when reading an editorial in the New York Times written by a divorced mother of a normal daughter and autistic son who was once married to a man whose quirks she felt seemed mildly autistic.
Anyways, she was mentioning how her son was like a force of nature: destructive in his ways, but not maliciously so. Like something to endure, rather than resist and dominate. I didn't really care about her personal story but I read on anyway because the autistic state of mind is an interesting one if only as a casual curiosity. I am continually amazed at how slight differences in genetic expression can lead to such dramatically different results. The difference between a normal and autistic human must be minuscule because they look the same, but behaviorally, they're from two different worlds. I would not be surprised if even the most obvious of birth defects (like missing limbs) also arise from tiny, seemingly insignificant alterations in the genetic code.
But even that is a deviation. My Best Friend has worked with autistics so I have her experience as well, an experience which she did not share with me wearing rose-tinted glasses. Some of them, much like the boy in that article, are highly disruptive and destructive (both self- and outwardly directed); barely able to learn (while others still were utterly devoid of any signs of humanity). The people who care for them are in constant fear of what little thing will be next to set them off. Once they are set off, all sorts of containment protocol goes into effect, each tailored to the individual so it's not like there's a codebook you can buy. I'll admit I know little of the subject but it seems autistic people have difficulty dealing with changes to their environment. They're "Lords of Predictability". I don't know why this is so but any change or deviation from a routine is cause for outbursts.
I guess it's that part of the brain gone berserk. We all have it, right? That little part of us that gets annoyed when things aren't or don't go the way we had expected. But we get over it, maybe carry a little grudge or a slight tantrum depending on age...but we get over it whereas autistics apparently cannot and sometimes violently so. They're fascinated by orderly and predictable things like trains and subways and will take an absorbing interest in them.
It is this category, the one between the trainable autistics and the untreatable ones that gave me this (what will certainly be perceived of as cruel) idea.
I found myself thinking of split-brain patients. These are people who suffer from epileptic seizures who had a special surgery to help alleviate them. I'm not sure why this works (or even if the medical community knows why either), but they will receive an operation whereby the corpus callosum, the nerves linking the two hemispheres of the brain, are severed surgically. This gives the patient a new lease on life at the price of producing what amounts to two brains. Normally the effect goes unnoticed by the person, but with controlled experiments, the hemisphere's inability to communicate with the other can produce some fascinating results which I casually sum up as "your brain would rather lie to you than admit there's a problem."
Now, this mutilation isn't considered a problem ethically because it is done to alleviate suffering in the one who is suffering. No, my idea is different and almost certainly runs afoul of the Hippocratic Oath.
No, I'm not suggesting euthanasia. What I was thinking was, for this group of autistics, was deliberately paralyzing them.
Again, I'm talking about mentally disabled kids who have demonstrated that they are dangers to themselves and to others through no understanding of their own. The kid in the editorial was described as running outside to go see waxwings which had since flown off. He went out without asking, without concern for his health and safety, etc. all because he was upset he had missed out on something. All the mother could do was watch and not interrupt unless his actions became life-threatening.
But what if his legs didn't work? He wouldn't be able to run off like that. He wouldn't be able to get out of bed without assistance instead of what he normally did which was get up and make a lot of noise in order to satisfy whatever it was that was going through his deformed mind. The kid in the editorial wasn't presented as a puncher so perhaps if he were wheelchair-bound, he would be easier to control and train. Not being able to go where his legs could take him at will might get him to at least try to calm himself down.
While yes, this is medically unethical, is it morally unethical? While the patient would not be helped by such a mutilating surgery, the caretakers would be. Would not their stress levels be reduced allowing them to better care for their deficient child? Such induced-incapacitation would also make it more difficult for the child to ignorantly hurt himself or others through his actions, however lacking in intent to do so.
A more dangerous child could be fully paralyzed from the neck down. This surgical mutilation could also be applied to other types of deficient children who are ignorantly dangers to themselves and others.
I don't really have a good argument to support this idea. I don't think I necessarily need one as I know it would never be adopted. I suggest it merely out of (misplaced?) sympathy for the parents of these children. Yes, some autistics grow up to be fairly fine as their symptoms are mild and they can thus be trained to behave normally and even go on to live their lives independently of caretakers. I'm not talking about them. To paralyze such a child deliberately would be cruel.
I just think the parents of the more disabled ones, the ones which are likely never to be independent, could benefit from having some of the burden of their undue responsibility relieved. One less thing for them to have to worry about each day. I'm not calling it a solution because it is not, but until and if a cure can be found that isn't a prenatal test, is it right to force people to take on such a difficult duty with no options whatsoever?
No comments:
Post a Comment