Prenatal Autism test

Post Reply New Topic

Had there been a prenatal test for Autism that was safe, we would have had it I guess prior to the birth of our Autistic child. They did the usual standard Down syndrome examination (I think they look at the mucul folds on the neck or something..), you can also do an amniocentesis but since that involves risk, from our perspective there was no point in that risk because we would have had the baby regardless.

Same for Autism, and you couldn't have changed our minds on that, before or now.

But if we had known about our childs Autism (unable to talk now but could when he was 2) we would have started the right education/therapy call it what you like to give him skills - beneficial to him - a lot earlier than we did. And most likely a lot more effectively than waiting for the 'professionals' to pontificate and waste time till he was over 3 years old and then decide 'oh yeah he has Autism, we better do something now'.
Also it would have saved a lot of stress, time, money and general angst.
So I think it would have been good to have known.

Is anyone opposed to that scenario?
Or is it just the termination of pregnancies based on a hypothetical test for Autism that people are opposed to?

What about Down syndrome, is that a different case? And would there be a difference for you between higher functioning Autistics and those who are severely affected, i.e. where do you draw the line (assuming it could be determined in vitro)?

A prenatal autism test is going to result in fetuses being aborted that wouldn't have been otherwise. I don't believe that's moral. I also don't believe it's any of my business.

From http://carijean.hubpages.com/hub/Please-Dont-Abort-Your-Imperfect-Baby

I can see people saying these same things about autistic fetuses even though here we all know that there's really no comparison.

There is actually a company now that markets a post natal genetic test to provide some type of statistical probability for autism. Which is designed for this exact purpose, the ability to screen earlier for potential earlier use of beneficial therapies and treatment.

I would agree that if there is any potential to make a life's child better that all scientific means should be used.

Any mention of any type of genetic test, or even sequencing individual genomes for the genome library, provides eugenics fears for some.

There really is nothing that is going to stop these private companies from developing prenatal or postnatal genetic tests for autism to provide statistical probabilities, even if there is no definitive probability that can be gained from the tests.

They can market it for early intervention, the companies can't stop someone's decision to have an abortion whether there is a one percent or 25 percent probability that could be gained as an understanding from the test.

I think some people are more concerned about the potential choice of an abortion more than any apparent benefits that could be gained, so they are against any type of genetic test for autism.

The precedent has already been set though, genetic tests to screen for autism are already being used by the general public, post natally, it's only a matter of time before some type of indefinite prenatal test will be developed and marketed for the same purpose.

It's a complex issue, because it's mixed with legal rights, potential consequences, and the availability of the best course of treatments for children.

If potential consequences were a concern of science, there would be no medical advances at all; realistically decisions can't be made on potential consequences, however some hold the opinion that from an ethical perspective they should be limited. From a different perspective the question becomes would it be ethical to withold the potential of a better life for a child.

It comes down to a personal opinion I think, on what people consider as more important of an issue, a potential better life for a child, or a potential consequence of abortion.

Realistically most people aren't going to determine an abortion based on a 15% chance of autism. On the other hand someone out there will. I don't think that this is a risk that some are willing to get behind.

Beyond this it has already been determined that there is a 15% chance of having a second child with autism if one has had their first child with autism, so no test is even required for that indefinite probability, that one could use in a decision for an abortion.

A prenatal test that showed a lower probability through genetic markers could result in a decision not to have an abortion in this case.

There is alot for one to consider to form an opinion on this. The opinions that really are going to make a difference is that of potential parents. Medical science is likely going to keep moving in the direction that it is moving.

i flat out have to say that eugenics scares me. our species relies on diversity to survive. its not just autistics that are in trouble, everybody has a stake in our survival and prosperity. a pre natal test for any disease would be fatal. post natal i see nothing wrong with.

I don't support prenatal testing of any kind. I believe in the sanctity and protection of all human life from conception until natural death. That includes the lives of all people who have disabilities.

Here is a very interesting link to a discussion with Andy Shih of Autism Speaks, who I had the opportunity the to interview for Autism Talk TV. This article is a frank discussion of what genetic research can and cannot provide...

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v17/n1 ... 1-1336.pdf

well idk. there are a lot of opinions out there. i don't have a problem with at birth tests. before birth would scare me. at the end of the day its a matter of risk. do you risk backing something that will lead to eugenics. how high is the price? is it worth the benefits? what is the chance that it will go astray?

Thanks. Its obviously very complex.
The prenatal issue aside, it would be really nice one day to know with a DNA test or something and I hope we get to that point.

Yeah a post natal test would be great.
But then with the underlying knowledge of the mechanisms that might lead to prenatal test perhaps could also lead to a way to provide treatment in the womb - it may not be genetic at all but to do with the environment for the fetus for example in some cases.

In the end I don't think much good comes out of hiding knowledge, it can be used for good and bad thats up to us, I think we should find out everything we can about Autism.

This whole thing is really a slippery slope? Abortion politics? Why don't we just outlaw abortion?

Of course, I'm joking. Why is no one raising a fuss about Down Syndrome fetuses?

When this prenatal test debate enters mainstream politics it will have enormous baggage attached to it. A woman's right to choose is a BIG and heated issue.

This is very unsteady ground.

well. the down syndrome battle is already lost. i would make a stink but it would be shutting the gate after the horse went. i don't think it is a woman's right to choose. even so they wouldn't have the factual basis on which to make a good decision.

Hello nostromo,
even if there's not a post natal test, a good specialist can diagnose Autism when a child is about 1 year old. I agree, early intervention makes a huge difference, it really changes everything! I'm pretty sure that my son's autism is genetic since my husband and me have Aspie traits. The main problem for me, if i will have another child, is money... in my country I can provide appropriate education to my son only if I can pay for it.

Same. The fact is that people are making stupid comparisons between autism and down's syndrome. In the end autism isn't clear cut anyway. An autism prenatal test would kill not only absolutely fine children with isabled children but would basically be nothing more than self-centred eugenic in quite a few cases.

@claudia unfortunately that is the case in most countries.

Speak for yourselves. Im not sure what your getting at there, but the comparison is meaningful for me because my autistic child is lower functioning than down syndrome children I have seen - and while that may not be palatable to you - there it is and it's what's relevant for him and for me.
Perhaps you could explain why you think Down syndrome and Autism are not valid comparisons in that context?

I consider myself to be moderately pro-choice as well as pro-neurodiversity. I am opposed to prenatal testing research for all high-functioning conditions whether it be autism, Asperger's, ADHD, bipolar disorder, depression, dyslexia, schizophrenia, personality disorders and learning disorders. I think if these conditions were allowed to be prenatally tested for then it would demean the value of human life. However, these conditions are indistinguishable from personality itself, and are only considered "disabilities" as a social model: since they do not conform to societal standards they are considered to be "disabilities".

Just as well, if autism were used as the basis for an abortion, it would be the same as a prenatal test for Myers-Briggs personality types. In essence, it would also discount the benefits of having these people in society: people who have anti-social personalities make good lawyers and businessmen just as those with autism are good with technical work. On the issue of Down's syndrome, I think that it is a justifiable reason for abortion.

Although I might be accused of making a double standard for autism and Down's syndrome I disagree: it should be based on the needs of the mother, the needs of society in relation to the utility of the child's intellect and the likelihood of the child to have a meaningful life. For example, anencephaly, a condition in which the fetus is born without a forebrain therefore negating the child's probability of ever gaining consciousness, would be justifiable for an abortion, as the child has no utility toward society and it would be pointless to keep the child alive.

Justifying abortion for Down's syndrome would be no different than allowing abortion for those born in lower-income, crime zones: because these children are more likely to be involved in crime, it should be at the mother's discretion to decide for an abortion to be performed. In fact, statistics show that the 1990s crime epidemic was stalled as a result of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.