Some corrections in order?
About one child in 150 develops autism or a related disorder like Asperger’s syndrome by the age of 8
is the opening of the February 9th New York Times article on the CDC study reporting a prevalence rate of 1 in 150.
I have been puzzling over the use of the word “develops” and the phrase “by the age of 8.” This wording seems to (rather misleadingly) suggest that a child is not necessarily born with autism and that he or she can “develop” it during their early childhood years. The article also states that “Researchers say that both genetic variation and developmental factors combine to cause the disorders, but know little more than that”—-with the suggestion that something occurs during a child’s early development that could cause autism to occur? (The Times article does not mention any possible factors that may cause autism.)
It is also stated that “Extrapolating from the number of cases it found, the study suggested that some 560,000 Americans age 21 or under struggled with such disorders.” This statement gives the impression that only, or primarily, children have autism—-and there are plenty of autistic adults, many most likely undiagnosed and their numbers difficult to count.
On February 10th the Times posted a correction regarding their reporting that “the estimated 560,000 Americans who suffer from the disorders” are 18 or under; in the correction, it was noted that an estimated 560,000 Americans “age 21 or under” have autism. It seems that a few more corrections need to be made.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Adulthood, Media, Statistics
6 opinions for Some corrections in order?
MommaSteph
Feb 12, 2007 at 10:52 am
Regarding the word “develops”, I thought the current line of thinking is that one can be born with a predisposition to autism and environmental factors can “flip the switch” - or not. So you might develop autism, but you’re born with the ability to develop it. Is that no longer the conventional wisdom, for what it’s worth?
Rochelle
Feb 12, 2007 at 6:57 pm
I’m just as troubled by the Times comment: “the estimated 560,000 Americans who suffer from the disorders.” My son doesn’t “suffer” because of his autism. “Suffering” is a reflection of how able-bodied individuals view disabilities. Not the other way around…
Kristina Chew, PhD
Feb 12, 2007 at 8:57 pm
MommaSteph: I definitely often hear the phrase that some have a “genetic predisposition” to being more likely to be affected by environmental factors that can cause autism. When I hear the word “development,” though, a sort of red flag goes off in my head—-as if at first there a “normal, typically developing” chid and then something happens and that child is no longer “normal” or “typical” or autistic.
Rochelle: I also always raise an eyebrown on reading “suffering from” or “afflicted with” autism—it’s the non-disabled viewpoint of disability….
MommaSteph
Feb 12, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Oh, yes, I get you. And then panic ensues to find the beast out there that’s changing “normal” children into autistic children.
Rochelle
Feb 13, 2007 at 1:33 am
…And, once we find the “beast,” we can fight (or go to “combat” with it) and kill it. Our “normal” children will, then, return to us from the war.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Feb 13, 2007 at 2:21 am
But what will peace be like…..
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: