Mother Strangles Austistic Son
02 Jul 2011, 8:48 pm
serenity wrote:
I don't think spending money on locking this woman up is a good way to go just to teach her a lesson. I find it unlikely she'll repeat the offense. She's too old to have more kids and her remaining 3 are all adults or in their late teens. All having a form of ASD, or something related to it, which makes me wonder if she herself wasn't on the spectrum. She also was caring for her elderly mother on top of all this. This was not a case of a socialite mother throwing her autistic kid of a bridge of smothering them and then acting as if now they can go back to their lives burden free. Those cases are about selfish horrible mothers that deserve to be severely punished. This case is quite a lot different.
I can see you point, she suffered there is no doubt, she has a psychiatric condition triggered by her circumstance. In all likelihood she is unlikely to re-offend.
There is some overlap here with euthanasia where parents of loved ones do not want to see a child suffer from terminal cancer or switch of their life support etc. Often the child may want their suffering to end, or they are in a coma and unlikely to wake up. The difference in these cases are the children are terminal. In the case of the autistic boy he was a living human being who innocently had no idea what his mother was planning.
SyphonFilter
Veteran
Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 2,161
Location: The intersection of Inkopolis’ Plaza & Square where the Turf Wars lie.
02 Jul 2011, 9:27 pm
Killing her kid wasn't the answer. I don't understand how one murders out of "love". It's confusing to think about and very illogical. Clearly, she snapped. Since the mom also tried to commit suicide via slitting her wrists, she needs to be sent to a psych ward for a while, not back out into the community. She might try to kill herself again.
03 Jul 2011, 1:05 am
I can't see how this is manslaughter. Manslaughter is where you intended to do harm but not deliberately to kill.
Then theres the insanity defence; thats for where you believe people are really demons or putting probes in your mind etc.
This doesn't seem to fit either because.
1. She intended to kill not hurt.
2. She knew she was killing, and why - she had a clear motive.
So whats this 'manslaughter by diminished responsibility'? Is that where diminished responsibility includes having a child with Autism and some problems of your own?! To me, while she seems to have been under a lot of stress and unhinged, she was still completely aware she was killing. So its murder. This young boy has been deliberately deprived of his right to live by the people that should be protecting him.
03 Jul 2011, 6:55 am
Verdandi wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
The Canadian blog post mentions Tracy Latimer most predominantly. She had severe cerebal palsy, could barely move without crying out in pain, couldn't feed herself, and couldn't take painkillers because she was on anti-seizure medicine. It's not valid to compare her to an NT child left in a car- personally, I think leaving a child in a car (even accidentally) is worse than euthanising your child who has no hope of a decent life. A valid comparison would be an NT child who was allergic to painkillers and turned out to have severe Huntington's, MS and arthiritis at the same time. In Europe, most people in that situation book an appointment with Diginitas.
I was almost willing to engage with you until you made this statement. Not anymore.
Quote:
Find an example of two children in very similar circumstances, one with a disability you can live a fairly normal life with like AS (or even Downs), one NT, where the parents received drastically different sentences. Then you might have a case.
There are a large number of such examples and they are not difficult to find. They do not simply spring into existence when they are cited.
However, I don't really trust you at this point to read them honestly. As I've seen with the above cases, you consider some lives more valuable and worth living than others, and some people's deaths more worthy than others because of assumptions about their quality of life and needs. In that circumstance, I do not believe it is possible for us to have a respectful or fruitful exchange on this topic.
In the case of Tracy Latimer, I'm not making any assumptions at all, her needs were well known and her doctor testified at her father's trial as to what they were and what sort of pain she appeared to be in.
There are hundreds of cases of terminally ill people going to Dignitas in Switzerland in order to have help committing suicide because they don't consider the remainder of their lives worth living. There are probably many more cases of people in similar situations killing themselves. Don't you respect people's right to die?
It has nothing to do with their neurological makeup, it has everything to do with the amount of pain they are visibly in and are going to be in in the future. It's probably easier to justify it with an NT or someone high functioning who can get across that they want to die, but I don't think we should force someone who cannot express that to stay alive if their parents (who know them better than anyone else and probably love them more than anyone else) think it is unfair to continue their suffering.
FWIW, it is hard to find such cases. Google doesn't bring up any relevant results under "disabled child killed" or "Aspergers Syndrome child murdered by parents". As you are the one with the positive statement (these cases occur), it is down to you to find the evidence to support them. Until you do, the negative position is the one considered "true".
03 Jul 2011, 9:26 am
oddone wrote:
She's lost her child. You can't punish her any further. The only reason to lock her up would be if she presented a risk to other children which couldn't be managed any other way..
While that was a sad, difficult life, she does not deserve to go unpunished and the judges remarks show a disgusting indifference to a disabled persons life. Particularly telling wath this remark by the defending lawyer, "She needs to be reintroduced into the community and back into her family, that can't happen over night but can happen in a supervised and controled way. " Any society where this sort of thing is taken seriously, is a society that will also devalue the lives of disabled adults.
03 Jul 2011, 10:08 am
nostromo wrote:
I can't see how this is manslaughter. Manslaughter is where you intended to do harm but not deliberately to kill.
Then theres the insanity defence; thats for where you believe people are really demons or putting probes in your mind etc.
This doesn't seem to fit either because.
1. She intended to kill not hurt.
2. She knew she was killing, and why - she had a clear motive.
So whats this 'manslaughter by diminished responsibility'? Is that where diminished responsibility includes having a child with Autism and some problems of your own?! To me, while she seems to have been under a lot of stress and unhinged, she was still completely aware she was killing. So its murder. This young boy has been deliberately deprived of his right to live by the people that should be protecting him.
Then theres the insanity defence; thats for where you believe people are really demons or putting probes in your mind etc.
This doesn't seem to fit either because.
1. She intended to kill not hurt.
2. She knew she was killing, and why - she had a clear motive.
So whats this 'manslaughter by diminished responsibility'? Is that where diminished responsibility includes having a child with Autism and some problems of your own?! To me, while she seems to have been under a lot of stress and unhinged, she was still completely aware she was killing. So its murder. This young boy has been deliberately deprived of his right to live by the people that should be protecting him.
I don't know where you got your definition from, but it isn't correct.
There are 2 categories of manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter (as in this case) is where the person is charged with murder, is found guilty of that murder, but successfully pleads the defence of diminished responsibility (as in this case), provocation or suicide pact. Diminished responsibility is an abnormal state of mind affecting ones judgement but not their sanity. Or to put it another way, voluntary manslaughter is intentionally killing someone but with mitigating circumstances.
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another without intent.
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
03 Jul 2011, 6:14 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
So do you think a life of constant unbearable pain and paralysis is as worth living as the life of an able bodied, pain free person?
Was my previous response ambiguous or unclear?
I have no interest in going back and forth with you over this. I'm not going to argue with you over whether someone else's life - someone who was murdered - had a life worth living. If you had read the article (quoted below) carefully, you would see why such claims as "mercy killing" are typically a rationalization to justify murder, not a legitimate argument.
Last edited by Verdandi on 03 Jul 2011, 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
03 Jul 2011, 6:30 pm
Did you read the article I linked, or did you stop when you decided it was okay to kill Tracy Latimer because of her severe disabilities?
You probably should read more of it:
Quote:
Resnick's (1969) classic American study of parents who killed their children found that about 50% rationalized their actions as altruistic. A more recent Canadian Study of 10 fathers who killed their children also classed 50% as altruistic filicides (Marleau, Poulin, Webanck, Roy, & Laporte, 1999). Not surprisingly, a majority of parents who commit other forms of child abuse also rationalize their behavior as justified (Dietrich, Berkowitz, Kadushin, & McGloin, 1990), often as beneficial to the child. While only a few parents who kill their children rationalize their behavior on the basis of disease or disability, others kill their children because they want to spare them from poverty, family breakup, discrimination, exploitation, or a wide variety of other real and imagined social ills. In most cases, the rationales are distorted and irrational. In some case cases, the parents have clear psychopathology but sincerely believe their rationalizations which are often influenced by societal attitudes and beliefs.
There is no rational basis for endorsing some of these "altruistic" killings while condemning others. Studies of quality of life consistently demonstrate that people with severe disabilities rate their lives as positively as people without disabilities rate their own lives (e.g., Bach & Campagnolo, 1992). Excusing the killing of these children is no more rational than excusing the murder of those facing poverty, the loss of a parent, discrimination, or any of the other challenges that parents use to rationalize filicide. Decriminalization of "compassionate" homicide based only on illness or disability would be discriminatory without any rational basis. Decriminalizing homicides whenever compassion or elimination of suffering for any reason are presented as motive would effectively decriminalize most murders of children. (approximately 10 children without disabilities are murdered for every one with a disability.)
So-called mercy killings, in which the altruistic reason is related to an illness, injury, or disability, make up only about 3% of child homicides (Richards, 2000), but experts in criminal psychology suggest that these cases hide a deeper and darker motivation. According to criminology's most authoritative classification of homicides, "most often, the real motivation for mercy killing has little to do with the offender's feelings of compassion and pity for the victim" (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 1992, p. 111). The authors, FBI profilers and criminologists, consider the deeper motivation for mercy killing to be a pathological need for "power and control" (p. 111). Acts of violence typically require two factors. First, there is an instrumental motivation, such as control or desire to be free of responsibility for a child. Second, there must be a disinhibiting factor, such as the belief that it is for the child's good, to release potentially homicidal parents from normal inhibition (Sobsey, 1994). The social endorsement of mercy killing therefore acts as a disinhibiting factor to those who may have instrumental motivations, but might otherwise be restrained by inhibition.
There is no rational basis for endorsing some of these "altruistic" killings while condemning others. Studies of quality of life consistently demonstrate that people with severe disabilities rate their lives as positively as people without disabilities rate their own lives (e.g., Bach & Campagnolo, 1992). Excusing the killing of these children is no more rational than excusing the murder of those facing poverty, the loss of a parent, discrimination, or any of the other challenges that parents use to rationalize filicide. Decriminalization of "compassionate" homicide based only on illness or disability would be discriminatory without any rational basis. Decriminalizing homicides whenever compassion or elimination of suffering for any reason are presented as motive would effectively decriminalize most murders of children. (approximately 10 children without disabilities are murdered for every one with a disability.)
So-called mercy killings, in which the altruistic reason is related to an illness, injury, or disability, make up only about 3% of child homicides (Richards, 2000), but experts in criminal psychology suggest that these cases hide a deeper and darker motivation. According to criminology's most authoritative classification of homicides, "most often, the real motivation for mercy killing has little to do with the offender's feelings of compassion and pity for the victim" (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 1992, p. 111). The authors, FBI profilers and criminologists, consider the deeper motivation for mercy killing to be a pathological need for "power and control" (p. 111). Acts of violence typically require two factors. First, there is an instrumental motivation, such as control or desire to be free of responsibility for a child. Second, there must be a disinhibiting factor, such as the belief that it is for the child's good, to release potentially homicidal parents from normal inhibition (Sobsey, 1994). The social endorsement of mercy killing therefore acts as a disinhibiting factor to those who may have instrumental motivations, but might otherwise be restrained by inhibition.
Final paragraph:
Quote:
If this connection is confirmed by additional research, any continuing show of support for the "altruism" of Mr. Latimer or other parents who kill their children can only be expected to result in more deaths of Canadian children. Ethicists and others who act as experts and leaders of public opinion need to consider this risk; endorsement of altruistic homicide may be responsible for some part of increasing numbers of children killed by parents. Some ethicists argue that even if endorsing Mr. Latimer's "altruistic" homicide leads to more killing, he should not be punished in order to protect others. Mr. Latimer has the widespread support of Canadians. Approximately 170 have volunteered to sacrifice a month of their lives to secure his freedom. Of course, their sacrifice is symbolic since there is no mechanism for sentences to be served by proxy. The murders of 20 or so Canadian children each year that now appear to be associated with the endorsement of altruistic filicide, however, are not symbolic. We have a responsibility to examine this phenomenon carefully before we put any more children at risk.
This isn't an invitation to discuss this further with you. But I do wish you'd consider what it is exactly that you are saying - that some human lives are worth more than human lives - and what that ethically means. The number of people who go to Dignitas is irrelevant because people choose to go to Dignitas:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4643196.stm
Quote:
[Dignitas] engage in detailed discussion about whether the patient's determination to die falls within the legal boundaries, and whether it is indeed the declared will of the patient.
Dignitas also provides a text for patients, which states their wish for assisted suicide in terms which cannot be misconstrued and which allows them to carry out their wishes even in the face of opposition, if necessary.
Dignitas also provides a text for patients, which states their wish for assisted suicide in terms which cannot be misconstrued and which allows them to carry out their wishes even in the face of opposition, if necessary.
Murder is not comparable to voluntary assisted suicide. It's an irrelevant comparison.
Last edited by Verdandi on 03 Jul 2011, 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
03 Jul 2011, 6:41 pm
Daedelus1138 wrote:
oddone wrote:
She's lost her child. You can't punish her any further. The only reason to lock her up would be if she presented a risk to other children which couldn't be managed any other way..
While that was a sad, difficult life, she does not deserve to go unpunished and the judges remarks show a disgusting indifference to a disabled persons life. Particularly telling wath this remark by the defending lawyer, "She needs to be reintroduced into the community and back into her family, that can't happen over night but can happen in a supervised and controled way. " Any society where this sort of thing is taken seriously, is a society that will also devalue the lives of disabled adults.
If she's not going to jail, the least the court can do is require her to get a hysterectomy. Sure she might not be a risk to other people's children. But what happens if she becomes a mother again and has ANOTHER autistic child? Is it really worth the risk? She's already proven her incapability to handle a special needs child by killing her own. She should not be allowed to murder like that again let alone raise one. There is no excuse on the planet for what she did.
03 Jul 2011, 8:48 pm
MotherKnowsBest wrote:
nostromo wrote:
I can't see how this is manslaughter. Manslaughter is where you intended to do harm but not deliberately to kill.
Then theres the insanity defence; thats for where you believe people are really demons or putting probes in your mind etc.
This doesn't seem to fit either because.
1. She intended to kill not hurt.
2. She knew she was killing, and why - she had a clear motive.
So whats this 'manslaughter by diminished responsibility'? Is that where diminished responsibility includes having a child with Autism and some problems of your own?! To me, while she seems to have been under a lot of stress and unhinged, she was still completely aware she was killing. So its murder. This young boy has been deliberately deprived of his right to live by the people that should be protecting him.
Then theres the insanity defence; thats for where you believe people are really demons or putting probes in your mind etc.
This doesn't seem to fit either because.
1. She intended to kill not hurt.
2. She knew she was killing, and why - she had a clear motive.
So whats this 'manslaughter by diminished responsibility'? Is that where diminished responsibility includes having a child with Autism and some problems of your own?! To me, while she seems to have been under a lot of stress and unhinged, she was still completely aware she was killing. So its murder. This young boy has been deliberately deprived of his right to live by the people that should be protecting him.
I don't know where you got your definition from, but it isn't correct.
There are 2 categories of manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter (as in this case) is where the person is charged with murder, is found guilty of that murder, but successfully pleads the defence of diminished responsibility (as in this case), provocation or suicide pact. Diminished responsibility is an abnormal state of mind affecting ones judgement but not their sanity. Or to put it another way, voluntary manslaughter is intentionally killing someone but with mitigating circumstances.
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another without intent.
My mistake, we do not have those granular distinctions here. Under our law if you intend to cause death, or know that from your actions that death will result then its Murder - manslaughter is an action that results in anothers death that does not fit that description.
So here she would be guilty of murder; she knew what she was doing. There have been similar cases that have had that outcome.
04 Jul 2011, 4:30 am
Verdandi wrote:
Did you read the article I linked, or did you stop when you decided it was okay to kill Tracy Latimer because of her severe disabilities?
You probably should read more of it:
Final paragraph:
This isn't an invitation to discuss this further with you. But I do wish you'd consider what it is exactly that you are saying - that some human lives are worth more than human lives - and what that ethically means. The number of people who go to Dignitas is irrelevant because people choose to go to Dignitas:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4643196.stm
Murder is not comparable to voluntary assisted suicide. It's an irrelevant comparison.
You probably should read more of it:
Quote:
Resnick's (1969) classic American study of parents who killed their children found that about 50% rationalized their actions as altruistic. A more recent Canadian Study of 10 fathers who killed their children also classed 50% as altruistic filicides (Marleau, Poulin, Webanck, Roy, & Laporte, 1999). Not surprisingly, a majority of parents who commit other forms of child abuse also rationalize their behavior as justified (Dietrich, Berkowitz, Kadushin, & McGloin, 1990), often as beneficial to the child. While only a few parents who kill their children rationalize their behavior on the basis of disease or disability, others kill their children because they want to spare them from poverty, family breakup, discrimination, exploitation, or a wide variety of other real and imagined social ills. In most cases, the rationales are distorted and irrational. In some case cases, the parents have clear psychopathology but sincerely believe their rationalizations which are often influenced by societal attitudes and beliefs.
There is no rational basis for endorsing some of these "altruistic" killings while condemning others. Studies of quality of life consistently demonstrate that people with severe disabilities rate their lives as positively as people without disabilities rate their own lives (e.g., Bach & Campagnolo, 1992). Excusing the killing of these children is no more rational than excusing the murder of those facing poverty, the loss of a parent, discrimination, or any of the other challenges that parents use to rationalize filicide. Decriminalization of "compassionate" homicide based only on illness or disability would be discriminatory without any rational basis. Decriminalizing homicides whenever compassion or elimination of suffering for any reason are presented as motive would effectively decriminalize most murders of children. (approximately 10 children without disabilities are murdered for every one with a disability.)
So-called mercy killings, in which the altruistic reason is related to an illness, injury, or disability, make up only about 3% of child homicides (Richards, 2000), but experts in criminal psychology suggest that these cases hide a deeper and darker motivation. According to criminology's most authoritative classification of homicides, "most often, the real motivation for mercy killing has little to do with the offender's feelings of compassion and pity for the victim" (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 1992, p. 111). The authors, FBI profilers and criminologists, consider the deeper motivation for mercy killing to be a pathological need for "power and control" (p. 111). Acts of violence typically require two factors. First, there is an instrumental motivation, such as control or desire to be free of responsibility for a child. Second, there must be a disinhibiting factor, such as the belief that it is for the child's good, to release potentially homicidal parents from normal inhibition (Sobsey, 1994). The social endorsement of mercy killing therefore acts as a disinhibiting factor to those who may have instrumental motivations, but might otherwise be restrained by inhibition.
There is no rational basis for endorsing some of these "altruistic" killings while condemning others. Studies of quality of life consistently demonstrate that people with severe disabilities rate their lives as positively as people without disabilities rate their own lives (e.g., Bach & Campagnolo, 1992). Excusing the killing of these children is no more rational than excusing the murder of those facing poverty, the loss of a parent, discrimination, or any of the other challenges that parents use to rationalize filicide. Decriminalization of "compassionate" homicide based only on illness or disability would be discriminatory without any rational basis. Decriminalizing homicides whenever compassion or elimination of suffering for any reason are presented as motive would effectively decriminalize most murders of children. (approximately 10 children without disabilities are murdered for every one with a disability.)
So-called mercy killings, in which the altruistic reason is related to an illness, injury, or disability, make up only about 3% of child homicides (Richards, 2000), but experts in criminal psychology suggest that these cases hide a deeper and darker motivation. According to criminology's most authoritative classification of homicides, "most often, the real motivation for mercy killing has little to do with the offender's feelings of compassion and pity for the victim" (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 1992, p. 111). The authors, FBI profilers and criminologists, consider the deeper motivation for mercy killing to be a pathological need for "power and control" (p. 111). Acts of violence typically require two factors. First, there is an instrumental motivation, such as control or desire to be free of responsibility for a child. Second, there must be a disinhibiting factor, such as the belief that it is for the child's good, to release potentially homicidal parents from normal inhibition (Sobsey, 1994). The social endorsement of mercy killing therefore acts as a disinhibiting factor to those who may have instrumental motivations, but might otherwise be restrained by inhibition.
Final paragraph:
Quote:
If this connection is confirmed by additional research, any continuing show of support for the "altruism" of Mr. Latimer or other parents who kill their children can only be expected to result in more deaths of Canadian children. Ethicists and others who act as experts and leaders of public opinion need to consider this risk; endorsement of altruistic homicide may be responsible for some part of increasing numbers of children killed by parents. Some ethicists argue that even if endorsing Mr. Latimer's "altruistic" homicide leads to more killing, he should not be punished in order to protect others. Mr. Latimer has the widespread support of Canadians. Approximately 170 have volunteered to sacrifice a month of their lives to secure his freedom. Of course, their sacrifice is symbolic since there is no mechanism for sentences to be served by proxy. The murders of 20 or so Canadian children each year that now appear to be associated with the endorsement of altruistic filicide, however, are not symbolic. We have a responsibility to examine this phenomenon carefully before we put any more children at risk.
This isn't an invitation to discuss this further with you. But I do wish you'd consider what it is exactly that you are saying - that some human lives are worth more than human lives - and what that ethically means. The number of people who go to Dignitas is irrelevant because people choose to go to Dignitas:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4643196.stm
Quote:
[Dignitas] engage in detailed discussion about whether the patient's determination to die falls within the legal boundaries, and whether it is indeed the declared will of the patient.
Dignitas also provides a text for patients, which states their wish for assisted suicide in terms which cannot be misconstrued and which allows them to carry out their wishes even in the face of opposition, if necessary.
Dignitas also provides a text for patients, which states their wish for assisted suicide in terms which cannot be misconstrued and which allows them to carry out their wishes even in the face of opposition, if necessary.
Murder is not comparable to voluntary assisted suicide. It's an irrelevant comparison.
I did read that section of the article. I thought the most telling sections were "While only a few parents who kill their children rationalize their behavior on the basis of disease or disability" and also "(approximately 10 children without disabilities are murdered for every one with a disability.)" That doesn't imply that there is a "disparity between how TAB (temporarily able-bodied)/NT children are viewed in comparison to disabled children, when their parents kill them".
Your argument was presented as "legally and socially, murdered disabled children are not treated as well as murdered NT children when both are murdered by their parents". I challenged that because your evidence was flimsy- you provided examples of healthy children of unspecified neurological makeup who died as results of their parent's carelessness, with the parents facing a range of further actions from "none" to "charged with murder but not found guilty"; a girl with cerebal palsy whose mother was charged with second degree murder but was offered a plea bargain and accepted charges of manslaughter; and Tracy Latimer, about whom the Supreme Court said "It is undisputed that Tracy was in constant pain." and her doctor said that "the biggest thing I remember from that visit is how painful Tracy was,", and whose father served about 15 years in prison.
Find a valid comparison. Find two people, one NT, one non-NT, who were killed in similar circumstances, were in similar amounts of pain, and so forth, whose killers received drastically different sentences with little or no public outcry. Then you might have a point.
04 Jul 2011, 8:36 am
SyphonFilter wrote:
Killing her kid wasn't the answer. I don't understand how one murders out of "love". It's confusing to think about and very illogical. Clearly, she snapped. Since the mom also tried to commit suicide via slitting her wrists, she needs to be sent to a psych ward for a while, not back out into the community. She might try to kill herself again.
I agree.
_________________
Proud mother to Hannah and Joseph.
whirlingmind
Veteran
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
08 Jun 2013, 12:56 pm
Janissy wrote:
I wish that poor boy could have been in the care of his father.
Are you joking? The same father who proudly admitted to social services that he was a wife beater and that she deserved it. As the mother was the sole carer of the boy, how long would it have been before he turned his beatings onto the boy if he was left to do all the caring, including changing nappies and washing him!
_________________
*Truth fears no trial*
DX AS & both daughters on the autistic spectrum
