Autism Screening
I have mixed feelings about the new Autism Screening that is to be done on every child under the age of 2. I just learned about this on the news this morning, then watched a clip of it on the news tonight.
In a way, the new screening procedure is good. I've seen way too many children come into the school system and they could be the poster child for Autism, but have gone undiagnosed and, as a result, without services. I believe wholeheartedly in early intervention, especially for this group of children. On the flip side, I have seen more and more children lately who have been diagnosed with "high-functioning" Autism where the diagnosis is in doubt. Why does this happen? With increased awareness of the disorder comes more concern from professionals and parents. Now there are checklists on the internet of behaviors to watch for in your children. I think it's a normal thing to see something in your child that may not be there if your senses are heightened about it.
Another aspect to the over-diagnosis or mis-diagnosis of Autism is that savvy parents know that a diagnosis will get them the Cadillac of services. If you know this from the start, what's to keep you from seeking second and third opinions in order to obtain a diagnosis for your child? You're bound to run into at least one professional who caters to the parent, especially since there is big money involved in both assessment and treatment of children with Autism. I hate to be so jaded, but no where in the news are these trends mentioned, and they happen regularly.
How many behaviors need to be present for a child to fail a screening, and how objective is this screening? How are therapeutic services going to be funded? How will this screening trend affect the multitude of lawsuits that already happen in school districts over "appropriate" services? Who determines what appropriate services look like? These are just a few questions and concerns that I find myself asking about the new screening procedure.
In a way, the new screening procedure is good. I've seen way too many children come into the school system and they could be the poster child for Autism, but have gone undiagnosed and, as a result, without services. I believe wholeheartedly in early intervention, especially for this group of children. On the flip side, I have seen more and more children lately who have been diagnosed with "high-functioning" Autism where the diagnosis is in doubt. Why does this happen? With increased awareness of the disorder comes more concern from professionals and parents. Now there are checklists on the internet of behaviors to watch for in your children. I think it's a normal thing to see something in your child that may not be there if your senses are heightened about it.
Another aspect to the over-diagnosis or mis-diagnosis of Autism is that savvy parents know that a diagnosis will get them the Cadillac of services. If you know this from the start, what's to keep you from seeking second and third opinions in order to obtain a diagnosis for your child? You're bound to run into at least one professional who caters to the parent, especially since there is big money involved in both assessment and treatment of children with Autism. I hate to be so jaded, but no where in the news are these trends mentioned, and they happen regularly.
How many behaviors need to be present for a child to fail a screening, and how objective is this screening? How are therapeutic services going to be funded? How will this screening trend affect the multitude of lawsuits that already happen in school districts over "appropriate" services? Who determines what appropriate services look like? These are just a few questions and concerns that I find myself asking about the new screening procedure.
posted by Notta Wallflower at 5:34 PM
7 Comments:
I saw the same thing last night. I agree with you. Its terrible on what they are doing. I mean what gets me is if you have a child that isnt accustomed to be around strangers and they dont smile at the Dr and such does that mean that child is Autistic?? I dont get it really. It could just mean you have a very shy child. Then again I could be just spouting out my mouth for no reason too. but its disturbing to know that they are going to be doing this. Some children just dont like strangers. I know Bri didnt.
Tweety - I think the screening is good and bad. Like most things, it's not clear cut. But you bring up a good point, which is valid. A lot of kids, aside from just being shy and not liking new people have a fear of going to the doctor. I've seen a lot of reports from professionals diagnosing a child with Autism, and how they describe the child is nothing like what I see. On the flip side, I've seen kids who really should have been diagnosed, and it makes me sad that they've gone a long time without the services they need. I don't think there's a perfect answer at this point.
True. You are the professional here so I was just stating my opinion but I do agree with you. Well I hope it gets better in the years to come for what they are going to do with this test because if so Bri would have been diagnosed as Autistic. She is my three year old. She wouldnt smile at strangers. Esp the dr. She cried the last time she was in the drs office.
I've been wondering what your views on vaccines and autism are. I have no idea whether there's truth to that or if it's just another conspiracy theory.
ZS - I don't believe that Autism is caused by vaccinations. It's just one of the theories that floated around out there a while back. Basically, no one still knows what causes it. I've never had parents of any student I've worked with blame vaccinations for their child's diagnosis. Although, I think it's interesting that, to be safe, flu shots that are given to pregnant women and children under 3 are legally mandated in CA to be "preservative free". They say it's because of the mercury, but I never take what is told to me at face value. Did Junior get all his vaccinations? What have you heard about Autism and vaccines?
Notta - I heard from some more reliable sources that it's possible, but highly unlikely.
I've heard so many varying theories on autism, like not enough time spent with children in the first few years, which would explain why it's so prevalent in Silicon Valley.
I've also heard genetics. I've also heard it's much more common among intelligent people.
I have no idea which one is correct, whether it's a mixture of several, or whatever. This is something I was hoping you knew more about, because I'm pretty ignorant about it.
ZS - Well, I think the problem is that no one knows for certain what causes Autism. The most plausible theories I've heard have to do with environmental factors and some genetic predisposition. I'd love to see a straightforward cause determined, then maybe more could be done in the way of prevention and/or intervention. We'll see.
Post a Comment
<< Home