Parental Guilt and Genes
November 7, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
Linking autism to rates of rainfall could be said to be a quite extensive attempt to find an environmental cause of autism, and one that is clearly external and not genetic. Since the study was reported earlier this week, it’s been getting a lot of press. Two genetic studies were also recently noted this week: Ars Technica looks closely at one study on language genes. Another study published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine looks at parents’ concerns about their own risk and their children’s risks for genetic disease. With the development of genetic testing and, too, of direct-to-consumer genetic tests, parents can find out a lot more about their genetic profile and quite readily.
Is there a tendency to shy away from genetic theories of autism because of parental guilt about giving children “bad genes”?
Yanno….one of my online friends has a child dying of mitochondrial disease. The hereditary kind. That’s passed on by the mother. Her kid is D Y I N G, and she’s not wallowing in guilt about having “given” her child “bad genes” any more than she should be wallowing in guilt about giving them brown eyes or blond hair. There are more important things in her universe to worry about than having passed on “bad genes.”
People have blown autism into this big bad boogie man, because they lack perspective. Meet some parents who have kids with true genetic DISEASES, and maybe people will back off a little on the autism-is-a-tragedy meme.
I fully believe autism is genetic. I look at myself and my husband, and know exactly how we came to have an autistic child. I’m not flogging myself with guilt over it, why should I? Autism is just part of who he is, like his brown hair and cute button toes, not something to feel guilty about.
I really feel for these parents who are consumed with guilt and feverishly looking for a “cure.” They’re missing out on so much while they tilt at windmills.
The do it yourself gene testing labs might be a bit premature in attempting to routinely detect autism. While many genes/loci have been correlated, more are added to the lists by the month. When we can see verifiable claims that we can account for/detect more than 90 percent of the cases, then we are getting close to useful (I’m pretty sure they call it Specificity in lab/diagnostic speak), and could possibly even reduce the role of clinical psychology evaluation.
Part 2: The toxin crowd shouldn’t be too negative about possible genetic causes, as the cause of the genetic problem could be one of their favorite things, a toxin known as a mutagen, or a teratogen. (Unless of course the mutations are heritable, or also heritable, but then that would just say our Parents were poisoned;)~
Well said. May as well beat yourself up because your child is short or has brown eyes (those would be my contributions, among others).
I think that some people just grow up playing a blame game, and that this desperate effort to blame someone–big pharma, docs, the CDC, the Big Bad Wolf, whatever–is just another part of that overall inclination. If you think about it, it’s actually worse to think that vaccines are to blame because that was a volitional decision on your part as a parent. You. Made. That. Decision. So, of course, for parents who’ve bought the vaccine melodrama, they likely do feel blame and then feel that they should find someone or something onto which they can shift that blame.
ASDmomNC wrote
“I fully believe autism is genetic. I look at myself and my husband, and know exactly how we came to have an autistic child.”
Just wanted to say, same here!
Me too!
“When we can see verifiable claims that we can account for/detect more than 90 percent of the cases, then we are getting close to useful”
Nonsense. Ther are hundreds of candidate genes ‘linked’ to autism, but no genetic variant has ever been found to be specific to autism. Name just one and I’ll be glad to explain why this is simply wrong. Genetic variants, including Copy NUmber Variants have been identified as increasing susceptbility or resistence to infection after exposure to such naural pathogens as HIV an myobacterium lapre (leprosy). The definition of what autism is has been expanded to such a degree that chilren who have experienced extreme emotional deprivation in infancy (Romanian orphans abandoned at birth) meet universally accepted diagnostic criteria for autism (ADOS, ADOS-G, ARI-R, AUTI-R).
These studies are all published by leading authorities in the field of autism such as Sir Michael Rutter:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/179/2/97
Once again, name one gene that is specific to autism. Anyone?
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Isn’t it funny when someone says “oh your baby has your eyes/smile/hair, etc.” we all beam with pride and accept that as a compliment. And then turn around and deny that genetics has anything to do with the rest of the child?
I can look back two generations on both sides of my family and see where my child came from – all of him!
@ASDmomNC: hear, hear!