Reply to FASD in bio kids....

Forum Index » Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities

Reply to "FASD in bio kids.... "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
I said I have never seen a child diagnosed with FASD who didn't have physical features AND didn't have a documented history of prenatal alcohol exposure (e.g. mom said she didn't drink, and there isn't something like a documented blood test during pregnancy to call into question her story).  Have you seen a child who doesn't meet either of those criteria who has gotten a FASD diagnosis?  The chart you linked seems to imply that you do need one of those two things.  What lead them to conclude that the issue was FASD?  
[/quote]

I don't disagree that the diagnosis requires either one or both of 1)certain physical features and/or 2)documented history of prenatal exposure. That's just what the current criteria require.

I did disagree with the following claims, whether made by you or someone else:

1) "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."
[there are other criteria for establishing prenatal evidence of exposure even if the woman "swears she didn't drink," including eyewitness accounts of the drinking -- which it looks like someone (you?) added later, but then the expanded list was not what I was disagreeing with, just the original claim]

2) FASD does not have clear diagnostic criteria at this time. [the updated guidelines give clear diagnostic criteria for all diagnoses included under FASD]

3) There are no formal diagnostic criteria for ARND at this time [there are]

4) The 2004 criteria that were linked were current and accurate [they are not]

And I couldn'tt explain why you weren't familiar with the full range of current guidelines for diagnoses, other than that you may not have seen much, or you didn't understand fully what was going on, or the people you draw information from might not be up to date.

But no, I do not disagree with the claim that the diagnosis requires either one or both of 1)certain physical features and/or 2)documented history of prenatal exposure. Again, that's just what the current criteria require.

I trust we are on the same page now?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics