An email I received

Post Reply New Topic

A.S.W.C
Free Speech Press

Prenatal Testing For Autism

The declaration of war against autism has come. Is the declared war and weaponization
of medical professionals by means of aborting developing children in the womb with
autism a crime? Is prenatal testing for autism the attempt at genetic cleansing
by the United States of America? Are the facts correct, you decide!

http://simplecomplexities.org/community ... .php?t=440

Nathan:

Are you worried about the development of a prenatal test for autism, if so why?

Bonnie: Yes, I am very concerned about the development of a prenatal test for autism.
In an interview earlier this year, one of America's leading autism researchers,
Dr. Joseph Buxbaum, who directs the Autism Genome Project at the Mount Sinai School
of Medicine, stated that there could be a prenatal test within 10 years. Others
estimate that prenatal testing will begin even sooner. Bioethics professor Arthur
Caplan expects to see the first prenatal test for autism in three to five years.
He is the author of an article urging society to consider the potential consequences
if the unique perspectives of autistic people were to be lost.

I created a web page in May of this year, Autism Research and Prenatal Testing,
which discusses the social and ethical implications of autism genetic research.

Nathan:

Who is funding the development of a prenatal test for autism?

Bonnie: In the United States, much of the funding for autism genetic studies, including
Dr. Buxbaum's research, comes from the National Institutes of Health. In other words,
Americans' tax money is being used to fund eugenics research. Some private groups
are also funding these studies, including Cure Autism Now (CAN) and the National
Alliance for Autism Research (NAAR).

Researchers funded by CAN already have developed a genetic test for autism, which
is expected to be made available in 2006 and will be used initially for the purpose
of early diagnosis in young children.

Nathan:

Does the war on autism have anything to do with prenatal testing for autism?

Bonnie: Prenatal testing research is part of today's widespread climate of intolerance
toward the autistic population, manifested not only in eugenics funding, but also
in "cure" campaigns that use military rhetoric. Autism Diva discusses
how the well-funded groups that are promoting the dangerous fad treatment of chelation
(which has killed one autistic child already) routinely use extreme "war on
autism" language.

Frank Klein writes that the cure mentality "creates a dynamic in which nearly
any risk is acceptable in fighting the autism, because living with autism, as they
see it, is a fate even worse than death."

In such a social climate, prenatal testing becomes the next logical step in saving
the world's people from a condition that is viewed as a tragic calamity. Putting
the issue in historical perspective, Kathleen Seidel describes how a similar mass
hysteria led to the formation of the eugenics movement in the early twentieth century.

In short, the "war on autism" is just another of history's many outbreaks
of genocidal prejudice against a minority group; our world has seen it before, all
too many times.

Nathan:

Do you think autism prenatal testing might result in the destruction of developing
life by means of abortion for those tested with autism spectrum differences (A.S.D’s)?

Bonnie: Autism prenatal testing would have no purpose other than abortion. Such
a test would stand in stark contrast to other prenatal tests that have legitimate
medical purposes. For example, there is a prenatal test for neural tube defects,
which makes it possible to cure or greatly reduce spina bifida by performing surgery
on a fetus while it is still in the womb. The Down's Syndrome test, although it
has come to be used for abortion, was originally developed with funding from the
March of Dimes to improve the odds of survival for Down's babies, who often have
heart defects and other problems and can benefit from specialized prenatal care.

No such medical considerations exist with regard to autistic babies, who do not
require any unusual prenatal care or treatment. Moreover, because autism is a broad
diagnostic category that encompasses children with many different needs, a prenatal
diagnosis would not enable a parent to make early arrangements for therapies or
other services.

Nathan:

With all of the negative publicity concerning autism in general do you believe a
parent is more likely to fear having a child with any form of autism?

Bonnie: Fear of the unknown is one of the most powerful motivating forces in human
society. With so much ignorance and negativity surrounding autism spectrum differences,
many people are terrified by the thought of having a child with any form of autism.
Parents often react to an autism spectrum diagnosis as if they had just learned
of the child's death.

The fear of autism is so extreme that some parents are now putting their young children
at risk of contracting dangerous childhood diseases by refusing to vaccinate their
children, although there is no sound scientific evidence that vaccines have anything
to do with autism.

When a young child is diagnosed as autistic, the parents often choose not to have
any more children because the possibility of having another autistic child is so
frightening to them. Parents make this decision so frequently that it even has a
name, stoppage. Although a child may be only two or three years old at the time
of diagnosis, and thus his future strengths and difficulties cannot be predicted
accurately, the parents may be so strongly influenced by popular stereotypes that
they automatically assume the child will never be able to leave home.

As the child grows, any difficulties are seen as confirming the parents' worst fears,
even if similar problems would have gone almost unnoticed in a non-autistic child.
One mother wrote about how much she worried that her autistic teenage son would
not be able to live independently because he did not know how to prepare food. She
never thought about the fact that there are millions of men who do not know how
to cook.

Nathan:

Do you believe that discrimination could exist as a result of prenatal testing?

Bonnie: When prenatal testing is used for purposes of abortion, it reflects a social
value judgment on whether or not a particular group of people has any intrinsic
worth as human beings, on who should and who should not inhabit the world. Prejudice
and discrimination are already a fact of daily life for many people on the autistic
spectrum. It is an unfortunate fact that many autistics have been excluded from
various aspects of public life for no other reason than because they are different.
If abortion of autistic children were to become routine, such attitudes would no
doubt be strengthened.

Nathan:

In what ways do you believe autism should be differently understood and presented
in society? Such as on television, newspapers, and other general sources of information
made available to the public.

Bonnie: Replacing disease terminology and sensationalistic language with neutral
and accurate descriptive terms is the most important change that needs to be made
in the way autism is presented in the media and elsewhere. The language used in
"autism awareness" campaigns has been so relentlessly negative that some
parents feel compelled to hide news stories about autism from their autistic children.

Autism researcher Simon Baron-Cohen points out that the routine use of disability
language and other value-laden terminology in describing autism spectrum differences
is pejorative; he argues that, instead, autism should be described as a different
cognitive style and as a natural part of human diversity. Another respected autism
expert, Tony Attwood, who has written extensively on Asperger's syndrome, suggests
rewording the diagnostic criteria in positive terms and even replacing the term
"diagnosis," which itself has medical and disease connotations, with a
neutral term such as "discovery."

The negative social value judgments inherent in medical and disability labels can
cause significant emotional damage to many children. It is very important for professionals,
educators, and the media to be aware of the potential for harm when language is
used carelessly.

It really would be horrible if mothers started aborting their spectrum babies (my stance on abortion aside). However knowing ahead of time could be helpful in dealing with the child.

But the problem here is that abortion itself is a given right. Regardless of whether or not abortion should be legal, do we have the right to stop women from aborting an unwanted baby no matter what the reason for that is? [Personally I'm against abortion myself but willing to accept it for the time being only because we lack the only real alternative.]

If a couple is legally allowed to abort all their girl babies if they only want boys (babies which are completely healthy and "normal" mind you), how hard do you think it will be to block abortion of autistic babies - babies which many "professionals" are arguing as unhealthy?

I am all for a petition against this, but I don't think it will be that easy at all. One major factor in classifying autism as a 'diease' is the misconception that an overwheming number of ausitics have mental retardation - so if a test was developed to detect autism AND a test was developed detected to mental retardation caused by autism AND a treatment was developed to prevent mental retardation, our odds will be a lot better. A lot of ifs, I know, but afaics that is the only realistic option. Test for and treat the known disabiling symptoms of autism but don't treat the autism itself - recognize what the real problem is and fix that. (I know I'm going to get a lot of bashing for saying that last sentence.) Also, figure out what autistic babies are like and how they learn, and write books to teach their parents how to connect and bond with them, lest the parents think that their own child has no love for them (I believe this is what drives most of them for the most desperate and dangerous "war on autism" and "cure now" thing - because they don't believe their own child is capable of loving them - just my impression though, I'm sure others will know a lot better than me).

This won't be good enough to make any autistic's life easy or discrimination as they are, and after they have grown up. But it will at least give many a better chance.

Requiring education about what autism is before deciding whether or not to abort such a baby should be a must as well, I feel.

Sophist: Not to make any word plays about your avatar, but I'm betting that they will never promote a genetic test to find and eliminate royal bastards. I'm convinced that "neurotypical" is not a good thing to be. We know how they behave. We know how people who are "acceptable" to modern society behave.

So you want to use genetic screening to eliminate us through abortion ehh? Well I think we should do the same for all of you

If Aspergers parents aborted NT babies there would be hell to pay.
We are different but EQUAL.