Older parents and autism/aspergers

Correlation does not mean causation. Quite frankly, undiagnosed autistic parents are probably likely to marry later and thus have kids later...

But why does it need to be addressed?

If available testing should be done to see whether unborn babies are likely to have ASD, just like any other condition that impacts parents lives for the worse in many cases,

I have a half brother with autism. Not the 'superpower' sort but the 'severely limiting' sort.

When he was born, his father was 52 and his mum 34. I was 22; neither I nor my older sister have the slightest autistic trace.

Of course I worried about a genetic factor when I was having kids. Reading around the issue, I found plenty of research reports showing that rising paternal age raises autism risk, especially if the mother is considerably younger.

Psychosis risk also rises on the same pattern. My grandfather had 10 healthy kids and then the 11th had a roaring psychosis - born when the father was 60 and the mother 35.

Researchers were suggesting that it's a function of declining sperm quality. Sperm, unlike eggs, is 'made fresh' throughout a man's life, but in such a way that 'copying mistakes' accumulate over time.

These are complex conditions and clearly many factors are at play. But when I was reading those papers I was a little bit pleased that it's the fathers, for a change, who are the 'problem' - there's plenty of jeremiads about women 'waiting too long' to have children, turns out fathers need to watch the clock too.

Its also important to remember that exploring factors that may impact the likelyhood of having a child with autism isn’t about eliminating the condition. It’s about understand it more.

Oh and that’s hopelessly simplistic, bordering naive too.

One use of further knowledge might well be to help individuals, but inevitably if you determine “factors impacting likelihood of having a child with X”, where X is often seen as problematic, one application of that knowledge will end up being the prevention of more individuals being born with X (or prevention of more individuals with X being born, as you prefer to arrange the words).

It really doesn’t take great powers of analysis to notice that ramification looming. It will have to be addressed.

And this is why the definitions of autism need to include functioning labels.

They need to be two or more discrete diagnoses, TBH. Lumping the whole spectrum together isn’t helpful. I’m not even sure I believe in this spectrum concept anymore.

You’re autism may be a difference rather than a disability and that’s great. Good for you for embracing your neurodiveristy.

(Bit patronising to PP, there.)

however it’s really important to recognise how wide the autistic spectrum is and how, often for those who also also have severe learning difficulties, autism means a lifetime of not being able to communicate and not being able to be I independent.

Its the severe learning difficulties that are the issue. Let whoever wants to advocate for LFA individuals do the advocacy they want to do.

it’s really important that adults with autism who have the skills to advocate for their condition don’t dismiss the experience of those and the experience of parents and carers of those at the other end of the spectrum.

Absolutely not. You advocate for whoever you want to advocate for. It’s not the responsibility of HFAs to advocate for a completely different group with completely different needs. Completely artificial alliance, that.

I think this is a really important point. My experience of autism is very different to others. I think the point I was trying to make is that autism isn't the end of the world but for some people autism can be devastating. Thank you @Busygoingblah I think you are raising a really important point and I take your comment on board. You are 100% correct.

Still not been clinically proven though

Which was the claim being made

@candycaneframe Researchers have known that genes contribute to autism since the 1970s, when a team found that identical twins often share the condition.

Pretty black and white to me.

I mean, the point about random gene mutations is fair, but that’s true of any gene or genetic condition. If sometimes happens.

@NurseInTraining And this is why the definitions of autism need to include functioning labels.

You’re autism may be a difference rather than a disability and that’s great. Good for you for embracing your neurodiveristy.

however it’s really important to recognise how wide the autistic spectrum is and how, often for those who also also have severe learning difficulties, autism means a lifetime of not being able to communicate and not being able to be I independent.

it’s really important that adults with autism who have the skills to advocate for their condition don’t dismiss the experience of those and the experience of parents and carers of those at the other end of the spectrum.

Its also important to remember that exploring factors that may impact the likelyhood of having a child with autism isn’t about eliminating the condition. It’s about understand it more.

It has not been clinically proven

Maybe read the links you post before misrepresenting them

From that link;

”However, genetics is not entirely responsible for a child’s chances of having autism. Environmental factors also contribute to the condition — although researchers disagree on the relative contributions of genes and environment. Some environmental influences, such as exposure to a maternal immune response in the womb or complications during birth, may work with genetic factors to produce autism or intensify its traits.”

Its not claiming to be definitive, even on that summary.

Click through further on the hyperlink of “although researchers disagree….” and the next article descibes two major studies, the competing theories that either 80% or 90% of the cause(s) of autism are genetic in nature, and some highly speculative ideas about what might be relevant “environmental factors” (such as flu).

It then goes on to say that there is clearly not one autism gene, and at least 100 genes closely associated with autism have been identified.

So essentially, it remains to be settled, but the genetics are highly influential, complex and not well understood. Some theories exist about epigenetics, birth experiences being a minor factor, but nobody knows.

Not exactly a slam dunk is it?

The incessant use of the word “risk” is grating, though.

No amount of education would matter imo

It's well known that having children later in life isn't the best idea, it's not just potential increased risks around ASD. Older parents are at higher risks for all kinds of issues in their children.

This is why I froze my eggs at 28. And have set aside money for my kids to do the same. I'd much prefer a few grand expense than having to weigh up the likelihood of having to raise a disabled child.

If link is proven one thing that would need to be done very carefully would be the education around having a child later in life. Many have little choice - finding a partner, financial or even years struggling with infertility.

I hate this everyone could choose to have a child in their 20's thing. Also most of this education is aimed at women!

@SpidersAreShitheads

Same for me, no ASD and both dh and I have large families but ds has ASD.

@SpidersAreShitheads A pattern of inheritance is the single thing that seems to come up time and again, so there's an increasing belief that genetics is one of the most common causes. But again, without the fuller picture on diagnosis, it's really just an idea, nothing more.

It's well beyond just an idea or belief, it's been clinically proven that there is a genetic link in 40 to 80% of people with ASCs.

There's a good article here

It’s related to genetics, environmental factors, and biology. Not just genetics alone.
My cousin is a genetic councillor/scientist and we had a lengthy discussion about this recently as my almost 70 year old father is having a child with his new wife. We don’t have a history of autism in the family but she said there is still a risk because of his age.

To a layperson, a heritable trait, genetically encoded is pretty reasonably described as “genetic”.

And once identified, they'll kill us, neuter us, or kill our children in the womb. We need to unite, before this happens. There are more of us than they think.

It will start to happen, that banding together. For so many people autism is an identity and something they wouldn’t want to lose. Besides, the world can’t afford to lose the HFAers.

Unfortunately, it will widen the schism between HFA adults and the parents of LFA children.

The changes to the DSMV weren’t particularly helpful, in that sense. Retaining a separate Aspergers classification (even if renamed) would have been better.

I think people are conflating genetic and hereditary

It's genetic. Autistic people don't turn up from nowhere. We are the offspring of neurodivergent parent/s. It's in the genes. And don't try to take it away.

Knowing both her parents are autistic, we wondered how it would present in dgd. Turned out fine. She's autistic like us.

I was reading some research a little while ago which was referencing the possibility of there being identifiable differences in the brain MRI of autistic people. If this were to be the case, it would make it much more accurate to diagnose and then carry out more accurate research into common factors/risk factors.

And once identified, they'll kill us, neuter us, or kill our children in the womb. We need to unite, before this happens. There are more of us than they think.

We need to consider the possibility that ND individuals ( with or w/o a dx) become parents slightly later, on average.

I could have phrased it better. It’s my absolute conviction that autism is purely genetic. I believe the “other factors” that some studies claim, either relate to correlation (not causation) or they relate learning disability aspects of LF autism (conceptualising LF autism as autism + LDs, whereas HF autism = autism w/o LDs).

As PPs have outlined, we still have under-diagnosis and uneven diagnosis patterns, and we lack a definitive test, so the foundations of the “mixed factors” thesis are distinctly shaky. There are a lot of genes to identify before this can all be properly formulated.

Mine’s not really a maverick view in the autism world, there’s just a lot of disagreement.

I don't have a link, but there have definitely been studies to show increased paternal age is linked to Autism. It increases the chances of a child being born with Autism .