The world of autism is filled with complex and controversial issues. In my opinion, though, this question is among the most difficult. For some, the idea of an in-utero test for autism is intriguing, offering as it does the possibility of therapeutic intervention from the moment of birth. For others, the idea is terrifying, as it raises the possibility that parents would choose to abort a fetus identified as autistic.
Personally, before seriously considering such a test, I would want to know that genetic testing is 100% accurate in its ability to predict not only an "autism spectrum disorder," which right now is a very broad term, but specific phenotypes within the autism spectrum. If a parent can't determine what "autism" is likely to mean, or which types of treatments might be appropriate, I find the idea of such a test quite scary.
What's your opinion? (You can click one or more button on this poll if you like, or share your thoughts as comments.)
I find the idea of a test very very scary. I look at my own children-and think about how much better the world is because of them. Yes they are different and yes they struggle-yet,their worth is immeasurable… What testing really boils down to-at least to me, is the message that says that people like my boys are undesirable. That is as honest as I can be-I really don’t know how I would answer if I didn’t have kids…especially because of the way autism has been portrayed in the media…
My AUISTIC BOY HAS CHANGD ME AND MY HUSBAND FOR THE BETTER.
I’ve learnd more about my self because of his Autism. My confidencehas risen; I’MINTO DOING PUPPET SHOWS FOR CHALLEDGEDKIDS; and I’m a Advocate making school districts enforce the laws for their challenged students.
LIFE HAS BEEN TOUGH THESE PASS 10 YEARS LIVING WITH AUTISM BUT, I’VE
BECOME A MUCH WISER AND BETTER HUMAN BEING!
KATHY
Why can’t Generic testing be developed for couples to determine the chance of having an autisti Child?
Sure as long as they also come up with a test that tells you if your kid will be an obnoxious brat. How about a test that might tell you if you kid might vote the opposite political party. Just think if they could figure out if the fetus would grow up to clean their room and be naturally polite then we could clone them!!!
JUST KIDDING
I think that its a personal choose and none of my business.
I was shocked to see the poll results register a tie of a whopping 21% for Category #1, which states, “Yes, because it allows parents to decide whether or not they want a child with autism” and Category #4, which states, “No, because such a test implies that it’s okay to abort an autistic fetus.”
This is a sad statement on our society and very surprising to me, that we still seem unable to recognize the achievements and advancements autistic individuals have given our world and society.
If we had no autism, we would have far less out-of-the-box thinking, we would have less creativity, less art, poetry, expeditions and inventions. Our world would be duller and dimmer as well as less developed.
Why are those two “solutions” to the “problem” of autism the most popular answers to the question of genetic testing for autism in the womb?
I had thought that in the last 10 years much progress had been made in the field of autism research and understanding, but these poll numbers leave me questioning whether or not this is true.
While Autism Spectrum Disorders bring, along with the diagnosis, some issues to be dealt with, the gifts far outweigh the difficulties, and with early – or even – prenatal diagnosis, the parents would have the ability to know what they’re facing and be pro-active.
I wouldn’t change any of my ASD relatives for anything, but I wish I’d had the knowledge and understanding years ago, that I feel I now have.
I hope it is developed because I worry about that for when I have kids. I’m willing to devote 20 years to raising my child and making him or her the best person he or she can be. I’m not willing to devote my entire life and every waking moment at the expense of my other children, my life, my husband, to take care of an autistic kid. If the test proved positive, I most definitely would abort the fetus.
I believe that ASD is not a condition but rather a different way of being. ASD itself is not a significant factor and covers a broad range within a spectrum. ASD is, however, often accompanied by other features that cause difficulty to some degree. An ASD individual with higher cognitive function will likely have far less difficulty than one with very low cognitive function. The factor of this disability is intellectual impairment, not Autism.
I oppose the development of such a test because it has no real purpose other than to abort the child (genetic research can be done after birth, and whether any interventions for treatment would be of worth before the child would naturally display indicators is arbitrary). A test for ‘autism’ will not offer any real indication of the developmental potential of the child, which would lead to most of any terminations of children who would not be so disabled. I also oppose simply because it promotes a ‘mail order child’ ethic. All children cost time, money, energy, effort, concern, inconvenience and heartache. If you’ve got something better to do then get a cat and don’t have children. I don’t mean to belittle the experiences of those with children with sever difficulties; I know that it’s very hard, but the fact is life has no guaranties. Greater support is the answer, not killing a thousand babies in the hope of avoiding one or two difficult ones.
However, most ASD individuals develop secondary conditions (depression, anxiety, isolation, etc.), and often these conditions are quite severe. I don’t believe that the onset and severity of these conditions is due directly to ASD but significantly to environmental factors; the primary definition of autism is social and communicative deficiencies. If an ASD child is in the care of ‘high social functioning’ parents who inherently regard their child with contempt or resentment, the onset of these secondary conditions would likely be significantly promoted. In short, if a parent would kill their child on such a limited premise then there is likelihood that the child is better off rather than left to suffer their influence.