Over the past decade, human society has become increasingly aware of autism and its spectrum. As is frequently reported on television and radio commercials, this diagnosis is now applied to 1 in 81 children, a dramatic increase since the turn of the Century. Understandably, these reports have triggered concerns among prospective parents, suggesting that environmental toxins might be affecting our genes. Just this week, researchers have offered evidence that older fathers increase the incidence of autism and have unveiled a means to diagnose the condition during the first year of life, using computerized analysis of eye-contact.
Yet, many specialists suspect that the observed increase in autism is due to increasing awareness of the disorder among parents and pediatricians and due to a broadened definition of its spectrum; indeed, the reported incidence is much higher in States that have aggressive autism screening programs than in those that have limited resources devoted to the diagnosis and management of autism. In this respect, it seems to mirror the attention that ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) has received in recent decades; an increasing number of children, teens and college students have been diagnosed with that disorder and are taking medications to control their symptoms.
While I am not a pediatrician and do not pretend to be an expert on genetic or developmental disorders, I often wonder if modern medicine is unnecessarily labeling the outliers of normal human diversity. There is no question that severe cases of autism, which limit communication and personal independence warrant aggressive evaluation and treatment but mild cases, as with most cases of ADHD, might best be approached with simple adjustments at home and in the classroom. To apply diagnostic labels to children who demonstrate minor variance from "normal" may, it seems to me, do more harm than good.
