Do you support the development of prenatal screening for autism? Is it eugenics disguised as better science?

Question

As a parent of one and family member to others on the autistic spectrum, I am concerned with the ethics of trying to develop such a test. Since the test was developed for Downs, 90% have been aborted. I am concerned that there are enough uninformed mothers who only know the stereotypes of autism and would choose to terminate their pregnancy because they would view that child as a tragedy.
Also, what message does that send the autistics that are here already? Is it right to tell them indirectly that they should be prevented from existing? How does that make us more human?
Wouldn't these resources be better spent developing better ways for autistics to live and have better access to services? Receiving the right kinds of services and supports can greatly increase the quality of life for all who need it.
It seems that in the name of progress, we have regressed 100 years to the (thankfully) short lived, shameful eugenics movement in America. Yes, we beat the Germans to it!

Here's a link that shows a wonderful example of the eugenics movement in early 20th century America

http://www.autistics.org/library/thenandnow.html

Thanks for the answer Smart Kat. Researchers are, however, developing a prenatal test for autism. As of now, the test is not a reliable one but they are trying to come up with one. Please view this link.

http://www.bcm.edu/cma/autism.html

I am all for earlier detection in infants-I was just questioning the ethics involved with a prenatal test specifically because I see no reason besides eugenics for it.

I'm aware of the Spartans as well as other cultures from way long ago who killed those deemed unfit for survival. I wanted to focus mainly on occurance since the industrial revolution as it is more relevant. In today's world, the quality of life for autistics has greatly improved if given the right supports and services.

What useful purpose would a prenatal test serve?

Answer 1

I'm with you on this one. As Smartkat said, there would be no benefit to knowing during a pregnancy that a baby had autism... so, why go that route? Why develop a test for it? It's not like Down's where it might be lifesaving to know prior to birth that the baby might have it, so a medical team could be prepared in case of heart problems, etc. Autism isn't life-threatening. And, if the test they're developing is anything like the test for Down's, it'll be a crock anyway, scaring the living daylights out of parents for nothing. I know, my baby was tested as positive for having Down's, but I refused the amnio. It didn't make a difference to me, I wouldn't have aborted, but I didn't appreciate going through that for nothing. But, like you said, there's a lot of people out there that would, just out of fear, and what if that test was wrong? And, from what I've learned since then, that test is wrong more times than it's right. Very sad.
And, yes, Smartkat, he's right. That's exactly what the combating autism act is trying to accomplish, a test to check for autism while in utero. And, what does it matter if the U.S. isn't the first to perform eugenics, it still doesn't make it right. There's enough excuses out there to have an abortion without adding to the list, it's just sick. I'm all for EARLY testing, AFTER birth, but that's not what Combating Autism is about. Instead of raising money through fundraisers and getting govnt. funding to find another excuse to abort a child, to KILL a child, it would be better directed at learning earlier signs. I knew something was wrong with my child, but there simply wasn't anything I could find in doing my research on detecting autism in a newborn, and that's just wrong. I could have helped my child even sooner than I did.

Answer 2

So far there is no screening other than observation for autism. The average child isn't diagnosed until age 3.

If they discovered a better method of screening, infants could be screened before symptoms become evident. Then treatment could begin at a much earlier age. This is what I think researchers are striving for.

And, yes, that would open the door for prenatal screening & the eugenics you are refering to, but I doubt that is the primary interest in developing better ways to diagnos at an earlier age.



America was not the first to practise eugenics. The Spartans (approx 650 BC to 400 BC) regulary killed "inferior" babies so the stronger surviving babies would grow up to be better, stronger soldiers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta

+++ Edit +++
The site you linked us to said 90% of all autistic children will test normal. Most of that 10% would be those with Rett syndrome. Basicaly, any genetic test that could diagnos someone outside of the womb, could diagnos them inside the womb. The fact that some doctors would use good science for evil purposes is nothing new.

Our society seems to support abortion for any reason a woman might have. It isn't surprizing there is apparently demand for a test to diagnos autism in the womb so the mother can abort before she gets a chance to see the child & fall in love with him.

How early in the pregnancy can this kind of test be given? I support very early term abortions, but it seems to me this kind of test could only be done mid to late term.

Answer 3

I have a beautiful daughter with Rett Syndrome (ASD) and wouldn't trade her for the world. I really hope they don't test for this prenatally...RS is the only ASD that can be tested for at this point. For Autism there is no test so maybe many many years away. Its very sad that people abort their babies because they are "flawed". I think it is a great gift to have a disabled child.

Answer 4

I would absolutely support it. I am googling it now in hopes of finding a research facility to send a check to. It would be fantastic if this were the last generation of feral, shrieking, flapping, poo-smearing mentally retarded autistics.