If a cure was forced upon you

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not in the US, but if I was, I'd move the [] out the country before they could catch me. If they did get me, I'd kill myself before they could cure me.

The only problem here is that once we do get officially diagnosed we are then medically labeled for the rest of our lives. If you are teenager or in you twenties that runs for the next sixty years. Your choice depends on how you predict conditions are going to be. If you think they are going to be benign then it's OK . If you think there may one day be a pharmocracy, run by a small economically powerful group who enforce medication and related regimes, or a non democratic Eugenics Party then perhaps you would no want to be diagnosed and labeled and take that chance.

Also it depends how comfortable you feel with your state of consciousness as it is. I have grown to like mine and do not wish to change. Nor do I want to alert any government health care or other agency to my condition because I do not totally trust them. They have a big record of screwing this sort of stuff up, and they swing in and out of care policy . If they decide against community care, again, and start rounding us up I do not want to be put into secure environment from which I will want to escape.

If you do wish to change and they can genuinely change you to be what you want , then there is no problem.

I'd fight, and keep a poison tablet in the back of my mouth, so if they caught me, I could kill myself rather than take the cure.

Cure, in what regard, pre or post birth?
I may ask how anyone would think this possible post birth but for the sake of argument, least say it's possible. Considering that I was exposed as a child to some nut job doctors who seemed to think that I was somehow defective and could be cured, I would class any "cure" as hostile act and would respond as if trapped by any other means, this would be translated in to violence and mild obsession, a crime of that I am most guilty, in regard to my past tormentors.

Well, at my house there are at least 15 guns and and boxes and boxes of ammuntion, and I can't imagine trying to move and learn a new language (Britain is obviously out of the question, the way the legislation is in that country I imagine this would crop up there first). So, I guess you have your answer. If they went that far, obviously the time for being concerned how that would affect public opinion is long past.

But, thankfully, I don't see this ever being something but a hypothetical situation.

Edit: Also, the mention of Obama and health-care reform was completely unnecessary, unfounded, and makes this into a sort of political statement (and no, I did not vote for Obama).

Cure me or shoot me in the head, I don't care which.

I would refuse a cure. Legal action would almost certainly strike down any hypothetical "compulsory" treatments, especially ones that extreme.

Umm ... the Supreme Court has determined that competent persons have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment. Several cases have covered this, but it culminates in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990). Thus, unless you are going to either a) change the Constitution to take this right away; or b) declare all autistic people incompetent, which would have to be done through individual hearings that are expensive and time-consuming because constitutionally a person cannot simply be declared incompetent and have his/her liberty taken away on a whim, we are not going to be forced into a cure.