Autism has been an important part of my life ever since I can remember, affecting cousins, friends and neighbors of mine. When I began working with special needs children through my high school, I realized my passion for helping them. As I became more involved with the special needs community, I began to work one-on-one with eleven-year-old Thomas, a boy who suffers from autism. His autism is severe, causing his brain functionality to equal that of a five-year-old, rather than an eleven-year-old. To his benefit, his autism was detected and diagnosed early on in his life which resulted in receiving the necessary care and treatment. Unfortunately, this is not the case for every child with autism. Autism screening today is not mandatory, meaning countless children go far in life without knowing they suffer from the disease. These children do not receive the care and accommodations they need and therefore are blindly hindered by the disease. Thomas' timely diagnosis granted him the care and treatment he needs, giving him the highest quality of life possible. I want this to be the outcome of every child effected with the disease and making autism screening mandatory would be the best way to make that happen. Through my work with those with special needs, I have found that knowledge is key. Knowing exactly what the child suffers from and how to treat it is the best way to ensure they are given the highest quality of life possible. Children who suffer from the disease blindly because they never were screened for autism have extreme setbacks in life; these setbacks could be easily handled with knowledge of the disease. Parents alone usually do not know exactly what autism is, leaving a suffering child untreated solely due to unawareness. Making autism screening mandatory for every child would lessen the number of those who go untreated, thus getting them the help they need.

Paul Lipkin's article, "Should All Children Be Screened for Autism Spectrum Disorder," argues that autism screening should be made mandatory for all children. Early diagnosis opens the door for early treatment, which can lessen the effect and severity of the condition. Innocent children are at stake regarding this article, with their lives being negatively effected if they suffer from autism and go without screening and diagnosis. Those opposed of mandatory autism screening argue that doing so would cause an unnecessary burden on primary care physicians, however, it had been found that screening does not add much additional time to a preventative care visit. The author of the article is a doctor at John Hopkins University who specializes in child care and research, giving him credibility on the subject of child welfare. The source is written by someone who supports mandatory autism screening, so some of the content may be biased towards their side of the argument. The author has bias because children's health is his line of study, making 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 regarding mandatory autism screening. The counterargument states that more research regarding autism should be called for before making autism screening mandatory. The author, who is for autism screening becoming mandatory, argues that screening is necessary and easy -- not even needles are required. It is unusual for parents alone to be able to detect autism in their children, further ruling that autism screening be made mandatory. The government believes that mandatory autism screening would be a waste of time and money, especially in cases where a child shows no signs of the disorder. On the contrary, children who unknowingly suffer from the disease due to lack of screening are at stake for a lesser quality of life and major setbacks. The author reports for US News, specializing in health care. The information that she reports comes from doctors and health professionals who are entitled to speak about the topic. The information in the article is coming from doctors who specialize and work in children's healthcare, making them in favor of autism screening becoming mandatory. The article may cause readers to be partial towards the opinion of those who are for mandatory screening, due to bias created by information provided by doctors who are also in favor of screening. 

Jon Hamilton's article, "Jump in Autism Cases May Not Mean It's More Prevalent," claims that the recent spike in autism cases may not be due to the disease being more common, but rather doctors are becoming better are recognizing and diagnosing it. Today, 1 in 68 children are effected by autism, which makes it a legitimate and pressing problem in the United States. The Center for Disease Control has found that children in various communities lack access to preventative care services and since autism screening is not mandatory, nothing is done about it. The CDCs data is at stake because some children who suffer from autism are not required to be screened, therefore those children are not accounted for in the numbers, making the data flawed and inaccurate. Having inaccurate information about such a pressing issue like autism is a big problem for the advancement of autism treatment and for general knowledge of the disorder. The author writes for NPR's Science Desk, focusing on neuroscience and health risks. He won a journalism award for his article based on the neuroscience behind treating autism. These credentials give him credibility on the subject of autism. Though the article is written with straight-forward facts presented in an unbiased way, the authors work with autism and the diagnostics of it makes him partial towards mandatory autism screening becoming a law. 

With autism being such a problem in the world, having autism screening be made mandatory is a legitimate argument. So many children go throughout their lives being unaware that they suffer from the disease, restricting them from necessary treatment. By making autism screening mandatory, less children will go untreated simply due to lack of knowledge and unawareness. It is widely agreed upon that autism is a real issue in todays society. There is some disagreement between the articles; some say that screening is a waste of time for those who do not show signs of autism. Those who are for screening becoming mandatory argue that screening is non-invasive and would help for the greater good of the population. Those opposed argue that mandatory autism screening would be a waste of money and resources, and more research is required before implementing such a large request of the public. My sources are either written by doctors or include claims and opinions from doctors and professionals, causing me to sway my opinion in the same direction as theirs due to their credibility. After reading more about both sides of the argument, I can now understand why some would be opposed to autism screening becoming mandatory. This allows me to have a stronger understanding of the research question as a whole. My research question should eventually be changed to "why should autism screening be mandatory," avoiding a yes or no question and opening the argument to further answers and research.

