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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There are no statistics that are reliable because reporting isn’t reliable and tests arent ethical. The reality is that kids with full blown FAS, only 20% are intellectually disabled as opposed to the 100% that are assumed to be. The diagnosis is so kids in stigma and unknowns it’s hard to know if it’s meaningful, not from all these junk scientists, and it’s not one I would seek for my child. Who on earth benefits?[/quote]

There are several recent studies that have found the incidence to be between 1-5%.  These studies came out after my pregnancies.  And frankly, they're frightening.[/quote]

Of course they are, although that’s much lower than the ASD rate. The point here is also / how does a diagnosis serve a bio child? Or any child? That has not been answered in any meaningful way.
[/quote]

In a short Google search, I came across numerous posts by adults with FAS who appreciate the self-knowledge and other posts or articles about adults parenting such children, as OP is.  Labels can help.  That's true for all sorts of diagnoses, including this one.[/quote]

Yes, but this one is a double edged sword.

[b]FAS is somewhat difference because it's got clear physical signs. [/b] Yes, if your kid is walking around with physical features that would make it clear to anyone who meets them that they had a mother who drank during pregnancy, then they deserve to know so they can respond.

But OP isn't talking about kids with FAS, she's talking about kids who don't have physical features.  Where speculating about whether or not their disabilities are alcohol related is much less helpful.[/quote]

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 [I]in utero[/I]. [/quote]

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.

[b]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.[/b]  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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

My experience is doctors first look at physical features, then history, if known and then child's needs/concerns.[/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