FASD in bio kids....
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Clarifying, recent studies have found the incidence of FASD to range from 1% to 4 or 5%, and possibly higher in sub populations. |
Anonymous
I am completely confused what you think that dash means. Generally 1 - 5 means that they don't know the exact number, but it's somewhere between 1 and 5. Like it could be 3%. 3% is not much less than 1%. Are you imagining that 1 - 5 is the same as 1/5? |
Anonymous
(I am so very sorry. It was just sarcastically spoken.) |
Anonymous
Well, sometimes, but just to be clear -- physical exam findings in FASD do not correlate with the level of impairment. Some of the people most strongly affected do not have any physical signs of the exposure in utero. |
Anonymous
Yes, I agree. My point is that if a kid has facial features that lead all the doctors and teachers to know he's FAS, then he should be told. Because the situation where some people know you have something and you don't know it is terrible. But, given that FASD can't be conclusively diagnosed in someone who doesn't have physical features, and doesn't have a documented history about of prenatal exposure, it makes much less sense to speculate. And since you can't know that someone in that case has FASD, or another disorder, because there is so much overlap, then it's probably safer to give them the diagnosis that carries less stigma, because stigma and low expectations for kids with FASD are a big problem. |
Anonymous
A few less formal studies have found incidence rates of 14% and up to 40% in certain populations. At that point, stigma and expectations will change. |
Anonymous
Just to clarify -- do you mean that 1. FASD can only be diagnosed in people who has specific physical features, OR 2. that it can only be diagnosed in someone with a documented history of prenatal exposure, OR 3. that the person has to have both specific physical features and a documented history of prenatal exposure, OR 4. that the diagnosis requires at least one or the other, but not both, and not either one specifically? |
Anonymous
My experience is doctors first look at physical features, then history, if known and then child's needs/concerns. |
Anonymous
FASD is not genetic. They can have kids and it will not pass on. ASD may or may not be genetic. |
Anonymous
FASD is an umbrella term that refers to kids with some kind of developmental issue that can be traced back to alcohol. FASD does not have clear diagnostic criteria at this time. FAS is Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, the diagnostic criteria for FAS from the CDC are: 1. Specific physical features 2. Growth retardation of some sort 3. Either brain differences (e.g. on an MRI) or behavioral/developmental/cognitive differences You can see them here: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/diagnosis.html ARND is a term that is used to describe those people who have FASD without meeting FAS criteria. There are no formal diagnostic criteria for ARND. However, generally doctors are not going to put that label (and thus the FASD label) on a kid unless there are either physical features or documentation of a history of alcohol abuse. If mom comes in, swears she didn't drink, and there's no physical evidence, then the kid will get a different diagnosis that explains their symptoms. A individual kid with ARND might not have the physical features, or might have some but not all of the physical features. But their lack of physical features doesn't correlate with their developmental status. A kid can have ARND and significant intellectual disability, while another kid can have FAS with no intellectual disability. |
Anonymous
Ah. It might be helpful to know what diagnosticians are doing, rather than what it may just look like they are doing. The standardized criteria for diagnosis require either documented prenatal exposure (plus other elements) OR specific clinical exam findings (plus other elements), OR both. But of note, those physical exam findings might be subtle enough to easily be missed by the untrained eye. Also, some people with no physical exam findings may have more serious sequelae of in utero exposure to alcohol than people who are easily identified as having classic physical features for the disorder. I think this might be helpful in understanding why people might be disagreeing with you here. Many people can be diagnosed with FASD but not be easily identified as such by laypeople, and some who virtually cannot be identified by eye may have severe problems from it. --------------------- Updated Clinical Guidelines for Diagnosing Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders PEDIATRICS Volume 138, number 2, August 2016 (see next three posts) |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
Anonymous