#Wouldn't it complicate the question of euthanasia?

[tuehquestionmark]

In a world with hanahaki. It would be???? Treated like it's a problem that you need to come to a therapist with. Like? It's possible?? To get over someone??? If you're in love with them??? In any case you can distance yourself. Like if the symptoms start showing?? Like if you have hanahaki and do nothing about it you are just not. Coping? It would be wildly romanticized for sure like WILDLY but it would generally be acknowledged by adults at least that dying from unrequited love is not.... Uhhh... Not. Go see a therapist don't mope and romanticize a literal disease that is killing you.

[hello-nichya-here]

I have a question that might be offensive, and I'm sorry in advance for any hurt it may cause. I've been trying to search for an answer online for a while but I'm not able to find a proper one, and hoped you could help me.

From what I have gathered, autistic people do not wish for there to be a cure for autism, which I understand because well, it would change your brain and the way you view the world. Some even insist it cannot exist (which I'm not so sure about but whatever). My main question is, there are thousands of people out there who are affected by some kinds of ASD so severe that they can never lead a proper life, will never mentally develop beyond a child, and often have to live through agonizing pain and overstimulation. When it comes to these cases, would they not prefer a cure? So wouldn't it be more ethical for a cure to exist, but taking the cure not be compulsory? Those people are obviously not on social media, so their voices go unheard. But wouldn't they and their loved ones not want them to be in pain?

Thanks in advance.

First off, here's why a "cure" is indeed impossible: autism is a neurotype, not a disease. It's not the brain or any organ/system doing something it shouldn't or being damaged by some internal and/or external factor. An autistic brain functions DIFFERENTLY, not DEFECTIVELY, though obviously there is a variety of ways in which it manifests, and it is very rare for an autistic person to be ONLY autistic, there's often one, or more, conditions affecting them at the same time (anxiety, ADHD, schizophrenia, depression, OCD, etc). It is also likely a result of multiple cromossomes working in atypical ways (unlike with Down Syndrome, which is a result of cromossome 21 and ONLY 21 working differently) - and we still don't know which ones, or even how many said cromossomes are.

What does all of that mean for a cure? It means that:

1 - To make an autistic person non-autistic it'd need to be possible to discover it when they're still a fetus and somehow force their brain and entire nervous system to form differently - both things modern science can't do and that we're not sure will EVER be possible.

2 - It is very likely that even if a cure is possible, it will NOT be a one-size-fits-all kind of deal, and it will work on some cases and be useless in others.

So it is already a far, far, FAR more complicated deal than just "If we put enough money, time and effort into it, we can find a cure." Part of the reason why many autistic people are sick of nearly every fucking charity about autism being focused on a cure is because, instead of that money going directly to us or to our caretakers (be it family or any form of hospice/home) and having a very real positive effective, that money goes into searching for a something that might genuinely not be biologically possible.

This is sadly the common history for nearly every group under the large umbrella of Disabled People. Sign Language was discouraged and even made ILLEGAL in some countries long before there were was a reliable, safe way to allow deaf people to hear. There are THOUSANDS of horror stories about people with any form of paralysis or mobility issues being just let root and die in their beds, even after all kinds of mobility aids were invented because "it's a burden to the caretakers" and a "miserable life to live anyway." A disabled athlete in Canada has recently complained about lack of accessibility and was offered EUTHANASIA as a solution because God forbid someone has to build a ramp.

The sad reality is that many non-disabled people are only interested in helping us if the help is guaranteed to make us 100% "normal." If it will gives us a decent, and sometimes fully/mostly independent life, but not make us able-bodied/neurotypical it is NEVER considerd "good enough", and is often talked about as a "set-back for the cure." Giving us ways to communicate our needs, find emotional support, employment, or at the very least multiple sources of aid that will allow our families to not be on "caretaker mode" 24/7 and to not fear what might happen to us once they pass away is considered A SET BACK. Because we're not "cured", but are also not dead.

They're focused on trying to "solve the mystery that will totally lead us to the cure IN THE FUTURE", but never on hearing our VERY basic requests for stuff that would greately improve our lives NOW - Autism Speaks, the largest autism "charity" (hate-group that literally uses "therapy" created by nazis to "help" us) literally popularized the myths that we don't know ANYTHING about autism, how it happens or how to help people with it, and making the "official autism symbol" be a fucking puzzle piece.

The "finding a cure is more important than anything" narrative talks over the needs of EVERY autistic person in existence, including the ones that cannot express their opinion or understand their own condition enough to HAVE an opinon, and yes, including the ones that actively WANT to be "cured."

And speaking of people who do genuinely want to be "cured" of their autism: it is extremely naive of you to think there's any change a cure wouldn't be made mandatory if it existed, and that the choice would be left to the individual, or even to a parent/caretaker on the more "extreme" cases.

Like I said before, things like Sign Language were made ILLEGAL in many countries for the crime of helping disabled have a better life without curing them. We still have cases of doctors operating deaf babies/toddlers without the parents consent. Wheelchair users constantly complain that people just randomly decide to "help" them by pushing their chair towards where they assume the person wants to go, without saying a word to them, without letting them change direction and sometimes even being careless enough to fuck up the chair.

Disabled people CONSTANTLY get called stupid or selfish for not opting for long, expensive treatments that will often only TEMPORARELY make them abled-bodied because being "normal/not a burden" should be more important than anything, including the completely unnecessary and often brutal emotional turmoil of getting used to a "normal" life just go then have to get used to being disabled again. And yes, autistic peoplel, from the completely indepent ones to the ones that need constant care, who have said they would NEVER take a cure for it if one existed, ALREADY get condescending, and sometimes openly hateful, comments about it all day, every day, everywhere. For saying we don't want to take the IMAGINARY pill that can "fix" us.

Our lives are already considered lesser, our opinions are already disregarded, and our bodily autonomy is already denied constantly (see the more "harmless" things like people that think it's funny to force hugs and kisses on those of us who hate most physical contact, to doctors that have injured or KILLED us through unnecessary, often violent means of restraining us during meltdowns). If a cure existed, we'd be straight up forced, or at least constantly pressured, to take it. There's a reason WE are the only ones discussing how unethical it'd be to force us to be "cured", while most neurptypicals have not even heard of that objection, and half would get mad at us for being "ungrateful" - after all, they spent so much time, money and effort on this thing (that we've been rejecting from day one), we can't just refuse it like that!

I know you probably mean well, anon, but the sad reality is that nearly every talk of "curing" autism (and almost anything that is considered a disability) is often rooted on nothing but society's very open disgust and disdain towards our very existence, not a genuine desire to make sure we're safe and happy - and as you can imagine, we're mad that we constantly have to justify our right to be alive and actually listened to, not spoken over by people who are "trying to help" by telling us to shut up and be glad that they're trying to make us "normal."

[solaincluna]

Thoughts about Life, in general?

Life is an interesting concept to tackle as well, it is very broad. To make it simple, I'm fascinated of the fact that I existed with a tiny bit of odds to consider (1:4 Trillion). I'm unnecessarily concerned of the fact that I got the chance to be born and exist instead of others, Some Individuals may wonder the purposes and meanings of their lives, and therefore, I beg to differ and maintain the idea that life's meaningless, and no such individual has their own specific purposes in life, and it would absolutely be up to the person if they want to live without providing their lives meanings or purposes that can impact the world in any way, regardless if it's negatively or positively.

It wouldn't be a difficult thing to understand why some people end their lives abruptly even if they can potentially still proceed in life, everyone's existence is unique to each other. Making everything complicated doesn't seem to be reasonable to do when you're living, it's unpleasant for the person who commit and the person who gets affected by it. So one must finish itself to prevent more complications. It's a cowardly bold move to commit, but it takes consideration. I don't encourage suicide, but if someone I know commits it, I'd be more happy for them as they have overcome the suffering they've been experimenting. Suicide is a self-inflicted form of euthanasia to an individual.

Life can be manipulated, It can be altered, It can be ended rightfully so, life doesn't guarantee full happiness and pleasure/goodness to an individual who bears it. Life should never control, nor manipulate you, as you must be the manipulator of it. You aren't obligated to cherish it nor cherish others', as commitment to irrationality shall not be tolerated.

Dying is more important that Living as we already have the grasp and idea what happens when we live, and how we live, but no one dares to explain how death works, and what could possibly happen if it once occur on someone else. Let the critical thinkers cherish and value their lives as they provide more questions, philosophies, and answers to the mystery and concept of life which could be entertaining and helpful for others.

Life doesn't need to have a meaning, nor purpose, and it's just a shitty phenomenon and chances that were given to certain individuals like us.

[omg-snakes]

Why is feeding snakes frozen mice better for them opposed to live ones (aside from ethics)? Wouldn't the act of catching their prey be better for their bodies? I'm not trying to debate, I'm just curious why frozen would be better over not

This is a really great question and thank you for asking it!There are many reasons to choose frozen/thaw mice over live besides the ethics involved with watching an animal kill another animal and eat it when it’s really not necessary for the health or happiness of your predatory pet.

1. It’s more convenient to buy 500 frozen mice in bulk than it is to buy 500 live mice and keep them alive for the span of 500 reptile meals. 

2. It is cheaper to buy 500 mice all at once for bulk pricing than it is to buy a single mouse 500 times and pay full price each time.

3. Live mice grow bigger, get older, change nutritionally over time as they age. Frozen mice stay the same size for as long as they are frozen and will, if properly stored, retain the same nutritional content as the day they were frozen.

4. Live mice may carry live internal parasites. Frozen mice only carry frozen and dead internal parasites, if any at all.

5. Live mice generally want to stay alive and will do anything within their small mousey power to not become dead. This can include attacking and injuring or even killing their predator. While in the wild we might consider a mouse who severely injured or killed a snake a bit of a badass, in the reptile keeping hobby a $3 mouse who kills a treasured and potentially very expensive pet snake is a nightmare.

6. Being grabbed by a mouth full of sharp teeth and then squeezed to death hurts a very lot. Proper CO2 euthanasia, while not without its own set of complicated ethics questions, is relatively less painful and considered generally quite humane. Cervical dislocation, when done properly, is almost completely painless and very humane (though less convenient and requiring more effort and skill than CO2). Everything deserves a humane death, regardless of why they’re dying.

7. Some people believe that feeding live prey promotes aggression in reptiles. I personally have not seen any evidence to support this but I think if I were given the conscious choice of teaching my snake that “wiggling and moving” = FOOD versus “lying relatively still” = FOOD and “wiggling/moving” = PROBABLY MAYBE NOT FOOD I’d prefer the latter for the sake of my wiggly hands.

8. Reptiles sometimes don’t eat their food right away. It’s not unusual for even very well cared for animals to refuse a food item for various reasons, especially if they’re conditioned to expect that food will appear again at the next regular interval. If you were to, say, drop a live mouse into your pet snake’s tank and the snake wasn’t hungry and decided not to eat, how long would you wait to take the mouse out? Like, a few hours? A day? What would you do with this live and now unwanted mouse? I may occasionally be in a rush and put a thawed mouse in my snake’s enclosure overnight and if it doesn’t get eaten by morning it’s no huge hassle to take a slightly smelly thawed mouse out of the enclosure and toss it to my carnivorous roach colony. I can’t say that I would feel as comfortable leaving a live animal with gnawing teeths and claws and will to survive in an enclosed space with my rather derpy reptile pet who lets me touch their eyeballs without seeming to notice, let alone care.

9. Body condition-wise, having constant access to various forms of enrichment is going to be better for your snake’s health and well-being than maybe two minutes of “exercise” once every week or so before they eat. If they do already have constant enrichment opportunities, then that two minutes of “hunting” is really not necessary.

10. I can’t actually think of any situation in which live feeding is easier, safer, cleaner, cheaper, or more convenient than frozen/thaw feeding. Sometimes a reptile will only eat live and refuse frozen/thaw, which I do understand, but that’s the animal’s preference and not the preference of the keeper. The only reason I’ve ever seen people genuinely prefer it as a means of feeding their reptile pets is for the gross spectacle of watching a living thing kill another living thing, which is honestly bad for all parties involved and bad for the image of the hobby in general. We need to be portraying reptile keepers as ethical, humane, caring and nurturing people who happen to care a lot about animals that don’t necessarily have fur or feathers.…

And who also care about animals who do have fur and feathers, which is one of many very valid and carefully considered reasons why we feed frozen/thaw.