What do you have in mind specifically? I can think of some mild issues that are similar for any behaviour-affecting drugs, but it sounds like there's more?
Anti-epilepsy drugs are frequently similar to benzodiazepines and other "downers" in that they tend to "switch off" all kinds of behaviors. I'm sure the average autist who took three Klonopin would be laying down appearing to be asleep and wouldn't be exhibiting "autistic behaviors" for a day or so.
You should do some research on the drug they’re actually citing, Lamictal (lamotragine), if this is the impression you have/share with others.
It in no way is a “downer”, and is often given semi-offlabel interchangeably with standard SSRIs for depression. Also the article quotes $3/pill but is widely available as generic for < $.10/pill.
If this deeply studied—in humans—and readily accessible drug provides an option for those who seek treatment, wonderful.
You may be right. According to Wikipedia: "Lamotrigine is a member of the sodium channel blocking class of antiepileptic drugs" and "Lamotrigine does not have pronounced effects on any of the usual neurotransmitter receptors that anticonvulsants affect (adrenergic, dopamine D1 and D2, muscarinic, GABA, histaminergic H1, serotonin 5-HT2, and N-methyl-D-aspartate)"
Funny thing, it is probably not going to work in many people with autism anyway. Or work in a way where the side effects are worse than the "mild autism".
Hence, it needs to be actually phase 2 trialled properly for this indication.
If the indication requires a genetic test beforehand, that's a minor ethical problem right there, in terms of privacy.
There are no troubling ethical issues. This is completely manufactured outrage. No one is forcing anyone to take such a drug. And autism isnt a slur for special neurodivergent geniuses, it's a syndrome, a set of symptoms associated with a continuum of dysfunction, which can range from mild to profound. It has genetic components and can be diagnosed before birth, frequently.
There are different manifestations of autism and some also have some slight benefits (the mild forms of ASD of course). I also wouldn't necessarily call it an disorder in that case, but just different thought processes.
It's odd to think what impact this would have on those taking it, as autism is part of their personality. For some, it could end up being a net negative for them.
Maybe for high functioning, fully self-sufficient autists whose condition is more of a personality trait. But I can't imagine it being the case for those who essentially can't survive without assistance.
It would be like the "net negative" of someone in a wheelchair who can now walk again and therefore lose access to welfare benefits and handicapped parking spots. Now maybe some people in wheelchairs think their handicap is part of how they are and want to keep it, but I would be surprised if it wasn't at best a tiny minority.
Preface this by saying I don't know how I feel about this line or reasoning, but this is the ethical arguments I've heard against "curing" and/or preventing psychiatric disorders (ASD, Schizophrenia, Bipolar, ADD/ADHD, etc.)
The argument goes - These disorders are incredibly taxing for both the individuals who suffer these conditions and for their family, friends and colleagues. There is real suffering and pain, and alleviating this pain, and potentially preventing it through germ-line edits could eradicate these conditions for ever (glossing over the incredible ethical concerns there)
At the same time, these conditions _can_ provide incredible gifts to both the individual and society as a whole. History is littered with famous artists, scientists, etc., who have all made important and unique contributions to the human experience. Would they have been able to do these things without their condition? In curing the disease, are we missing these non-linear thought patterns that are common with these disorders? And what cost does that have for society?
As someone with ADHD who just (about 5 days ago) discovered how magical the right stimulant is for instantly vaporizing all disordered symptoms, I'm pretty sure giving patients the choice will always be better than treating or not treating them based on ethical implications.
Choosing not to treat someone because "they may contribute to society", even if they are suffering and wish not to suffer from their treatable disorder, is always unethical imho.
However, forcing treatment on someone who either doesn't want to pursue treatment, or has tried treatment and decided against it, would also be unethical.
> Choosing not to treat someone because "they may contribute to society", even if they are suffering and wish not to suffer from their treatable disorder, is always unethical imho.
I agree - it's absolute misery on the individual level and relieving that pain is a good thing.
The real ethical debate comes when we have the ability to eliminate these conditions through germ-line edits. A rogue doctor in China already did this by making the CCR5 gene non-functional in embryos and the children were born.
The doctor went to prison, and the scientific community roundly condemned his work, but this isn't going away. "Fixing" major genetic diseases in the embryo is possible, and it's a pretty slippery slope once we start down that path.
One cannot stress the significance of that. Our minds are not like mice. We understand dogs, but we don't get cats. Their mind works differently. Rodents differ at least as much as cats from us. Autism in mice, regardless of similarties in behavior or name, cannot be compared to autism in humans.
