Autism has been a part of my life ever since I can remember. I have had numerous cousins, friends and neighbors affected by the disease. In high school, I began working with special needs children, which sparked my passion for those with special needs. As I continued my work, I branched out and started to work one-on-one with one special needs child, Thomas, who is very near and dear to my heart. He suffers from severe autism, as he is eleven years old and has the brain functionality of about a five-year-old. Luckily for him, his autism was recognized and diagnosed early in his life and he was given the necessary services and care that he needs. Unfortunately, this is not the same ideal situation for all who are affected by autism. Since autism screening is not mandatory, many children go far in life without knowing they suffer from the disease. This means they do not receive the care and accommodations they need, which results in a poor quality of life. By Thomas being diagnosed early on in life, he was given the care he needs and has the highest quality of life possible. I want this for every child affected by autism. By working with those with special needs, I have found that knowledge is key. Knowing what they suffer from and how to treat it is the best way to go about working with them. If a child is not screened for autism and then has the disease, most parents do not know what exactly autism is and how it works and the child is left untreated solely because of unawareness. Having autism screening be mandatory, children will then get the help they need to succeed in life.

Paul Lipkin's article, "Should All Children Be Screened for Autism Spectrum Disorder?" claims that all children should be screened for autism. Many children with autism go years without knowing, lacking the preventative care and attention they need. Early diagnosis can offer early treatment, which can lessen the effect of the condition. Children are at stake regarding this article. A child who does not get screened could go years with autism and it would greatly affect their lives negatively. Some say that mandatory autism screening would cause an unnecessary burden on primary care physicians, yet it has been found that screening has not added immense time to a preventative care visit. The author is an MD at a credible institution who specializes in child care and research, giving him credibility on the subject. Since the source is written by someone who is supportive of mandatory autism screening, the information may be biased towards that side of the argument. The author may be biased because this is his line of study which makes him partial towards the well-being of children in any way. 

Kimberly Leonard's article, "Government Panel Won't Endorse Screening All Toddlers for Autism," focuses on the counterargument of ASD screening that says more research should be called for. The author argues the mandatory screening is necessary and easy -- not even needles are required. Parents usually cannot identify autism on their own, further ruling it necessary for all children to be screened to rule out any developmental disorder. The government claims that mandatory screening for ASD would be a waste of time for children who show no symptoms, leading to a waste of money on their part. On the contrary, children who are not screened for autism who end up having the disease are at stake for a lesser quality of life and lacking the care they need. The author is a reporter for the US News, specializing in health care. She works in health and talks with professionals who are entitled to speak about the topic. The facts in the article are coming from doctors who work with children and are in favor of mandatory screening. Readers may be biased towards their opinion after reading this article written about facts and opinions from doctors in favor of screening.

Jon Hamilton's article, "Jump in Autism Cases May Not Mean It's More Prevalent," explains how the rise in autism cases may not mean that autism is more common, but we are getting better at recognizing and diagnosing it. As of now, 1 in 68 children suffer from autism, making it a legitimate problem in our nation. Research has found that some children in various communities lack access to preventative care services. Since autism screening is not mandatory, some children go without knowing the have the disorder. The Center for Disease Control's data is at stake because without mandatory autism screening, some children with the disorder are not accounted for. This causes their data to be flawed and inaccurate. Having inaccurate data in such an important area, such as autism, poses a large problem for our nation due to unawareness and false knowledge. The author is a writer for NPR's Science Desk, focusing on neuroscience and health risks. He won a journalism award for his work on the neuroscience behind treating autism, which gives him credibility on the subject. The article is written with straight-forward facts that strictly talk about the upraise in autism cases. Though this article is presented mainly in an unbiased way, the author does work with autism and diagnostics of it, which makes him partial to the mandatory screening of autism becoming a law. 

Autism screening becoming mandatory is arguable because autism is such an apparent problem in our world. So many are affected by it, and so many go without treatment simply because they were never screened and were unaware of the disease. Putting mandatory autism screening in place would lessen the number of those who go untreated simply because of lack of knowledge. Those who are for the position of mandatory autism screening all agree that it is not invasive and necessary and would help for the greater good of the population. Those who oppose mandatory screening disagree on why they are opposed. Some say that it is a waste of time and resources, while some say there is just not enough research to make mandatory screening a plausible solution. Since most of the sources are written by doctors or include claims from professionals, I have swayed in the direction of their opinion. They include facts and statistics that help their claim and make readers like me be in favor of mandatory autism screening. Though I am in favor of mandatory screening, I can now understand the counterargument against it after reading about it. This changed my opinion slightly as I can now see both sides of the argument. My research question should be changed to "WHY should autism screening be mandatory," avoiding a yes/no question and opening up the argument to further research and answers.

 
