freediver wrote on Jun 10
th, 2012 at 3:17pm:
Sounds like a good idea for me, especially if there are early intervention type treatments or therapeutics that could improve their life. There are also a lot of genetic disorders that are no immediately apparent at birth that should be screened for, once the technology is sufficiently advance. This is especially true for the ones that are treatable.
I agree 100%.
My wife had a child in her care whom she identified as being in her opinion, autistic.
She spoke to the parents, and asked if they had sought any medical advice about their child's behavioural issues.
They told her they had, as their best friend was also a highly respected paediatrician, and he had said it was nothing to worry about, probably just a stage he was going through.
These people were for want of a better word, yuppies, with social aspirations that did not include having a child with any imperfections, as they saw it, so denial was the primary driver of their opinions.
My wife however had to consider the welfare of their child, as well as all the others he was interacting with, so she called in a professional, to observe the group this child was in.
All he was told was that she believed one of the children in the group may have developmental issues.
TWO minutes, he watched them, and said, that child is autistic.
Parents called in, forced to address the issue, child gets treatment, his developmental potential increase dramatically, because he receives treatment at an early age.
I understand why people get suspicious of quackery, where every misbehaving child is assigned a label to absolve the parents of any responsibility for raising a little poo of a kid, but the truth is that most professionals do not do that, and will just try and get treatment for the kids who treatment will help.
I cannot see any down side to that.