The Earlier, the Better? An In-Depth Interview Study on the Ethics of Early Detection with Parents of Children at an Elevated Likelihood for Autism

Autism is increasingly viewed as an expression of neurodiversity deserving accommodation, rather than merely as a disorder in need of remediation or even prevention. This reconceptualization has inspired calls to broaden the ethical debate on early autism care beyond matters of efficient screenings and effective interventions. We conducted 14 in-depth interviews with 26 parents of infants at an increased likelihood for autism (siblings, preterms and children with persistent feeding difficulties) to understand which benefits and risks these parents see for the implementation of a systematic, early autism detection program in our region. With this study, we aim to contribute empirically to the ethical debate on good and just early autism care in the age of neurodiversity. Data were analyzed according to the QUAGOL-methodology. Three main themes emerged from our analysis. In their evaluation of early autism detection, parents discussed how a diagnosis helps gain a different perspective fostering understanding and recognition for both child and parent. Second, a diagnosis supports parents in adjusting their parenting practices, to justify this deviation from "normal" parenting and to strive for such adjusted environments beyond the nuclear family. Third, an autism diagnosis induces ambiguities parents need to navigate, involving questions on whether and when to mobilize the diagnostic label and which language to use to talk about autism. We discuss the complex position of parents of a (potentially) autistic child in terms of moving back and forth across the ab/normal binary and describe implications for the ethical debate on early autism detection.