> To me, what's evil is the desire to make everyone the same for the sake of being the same.
No such desire here. In fact, I'd not be opposed to a treatment that made people autistic, or, for a (perhaps) more attractive proposition, synesthetic.
As long as there is informed choice by an adult.
You can want neurodiversity, and think it is a good thing. Maybe it is. But imposing it on others, for me, is not defensible.
Now, setting diversity aside for a moment...
> Medicine is not the Wild West...
No. In general, we only allow people treatment when we think they have a disease(1).
This idea has merits: for example, it seems "obviously better" to treat the hypocondriacs hypocondria than to allow them to take unnecessary surgery.
But it also has problems: the definition of disease becomes a matter of consensus (i.e.: a political matter, even if the politics just happens amongst doctors - or worse, philosophers or politicians) and individuals are disallowed choosing what and who they want to be, by themselves.
Perhaps the best way to go is to have a "waiting period", to force you to consider and seek alternative treatment before undergoing procedures that are dangerous. I dont know, and I fear this is one of those "really no good answer" questions.
(1) This might be a circular definition, "disease" being a thing we can treat for
No such desire here. In fact, I'd not be opposed to a treatment that made people autistic, or, for a (perhaps) more attractive proposition, synesthetic.
As long as there is informed choice by an adult.
You can want neurodiversity, and think it is a good thing. Maybe it is. But imposing it on others, for me, is not defensible.
Now, setting diversity aside for a moment...
> Medicine is not the Wild West...
No. In general, we only allow people treatment when we think they have a disease(1).
This idea has merits: for example, it seems "obviously better" to treat the hypocondriacs hypocondria than to allow them to take unnecessary surgery.
But it also has problems: the definition of disease becomes a matter of consensus (i.e.: a political matter, even if the politics just happens amongst doctors - or worse, philosophers or politicians) and individuals are disallowed choosing what and who they want to be, by themselves.
Perhaps the best way to go is to have a "waiting period", to force you to consider and seek alternative treatment before undergoing procedures that are dangerous. I dont know, and I fear this is one of those "really no good answer" questions.
(1) This might be a circular definition, "disease" being a thing we can treat for