The news about the latest autism research, which raises the possibility of
screening to test for autism, has kicked off the expected debate about
whether parents should be screening their children for autistic spectrum
disorders. Proponents of autism screening (which is not available yet) say
it would allow parents to prepare and educate themselves for the challenges
ahead. Opponents say it could lead down the nasty path of eugenics, even
depriving us of autistic geniuses (a pretty rare occurrence - only 1 or 2
out of 200, according to this story in the Guardian). But arguing against
screening because the unborn baby may be the next Rain Man misses the point.
The impact of screening is important - in America, about 90 per cent of
pregnant women given a Downs syndrome diagnosis have chosen to terminate. In
Britain, the percentage is not so high and may be reversing, Magnus
Linklater writes in the Times today. Sobering numbers.
The problem with screenings isn't that parents know the health (or gender)
of their baby beforehand, but that they hold attitudes and are worked on by
factors that make coping with the child unbearable. Being female isn't
considered a disability (unless, maybe, you're Howard Stern) yet in certain
communities or parts of the world, people regularly abort girl fetuses
because of dowry demands or the relative "worthlessness" of girls.
It's better to change the attitudes that rank some people less valuable from
birth than pretend that by withholding that information until after birth
somehow benefits both child and parents. It's also important to recognise
what some people believe: "a damaged baby is a damaged family" as Minette
Marin argues and that for some families a disabled child will be too much
for it to bear.
Let's work on supporting families coping with disabilities - with money,
services and understanding. That includes promoting scientific advances that
teach us more about those conditions.
