Should we seek to screen for autism?
Reported January 12, 2009
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.