We have friends who's child is fairly high on the autistic scale. We have discovered that the baby had to be resuscitated at birth. This fact is known to the husband but he never told his wife. The child is now seven. She has never had an explanation for the child's condition -- I can't imagine what she has imagined over the years.

Should she be told by anyone other than her husband?

Looking forward to your thoughts on this dilemma.

Thanks!

Thats one of the easiest questions asked in ages on this forum.

The answer is no. It is up to him to decide if and when to tell her. And since everyone else only has hearsay evidence, they should butt out.

Besides, unless you have a source, I find nothing in the quick review of literature that says the fact that a child had to be resucitated at birth is the cause of autism.

I have a daughter with autism. To my knowledge the causes of autism are not well understood. Some research indicates that the changes in the brain that lead to autism happen during the early stages of pregnancy. There is also a strong genetic link with autism. Regretfully it is not possible to say with any certainty what has caused this child's disability.

There are a number of parasites that prey on families who have a child with autism, promoting their pet theory of the cause of autism and usually selling a cure. None have withstood scientific scrutiny. But these frauds do succeed in making parents feel guilty about something they did or did not do which may have caused their child's autism. Pleas be careful if you are being told that the cause of this child's disability is known with certainty.

This is just my opinion but telling the parent about the incident does not really provide the answer that she is seeking, so whether she is told or not may be meaningless.

Perhaps she should be told, but only by a doctor who understands what happened at the resucitation event.

I'm not a literary expert but once saw the Ibsen play "The Wild Duck".
In a vast simplification, the climax of the story is this; a man reveals a secret because he believes the truth should always be told. The repercussions of the ' truth bomb' he drops ruins lives. A marriage is destroyed and a child is rejected and commits suicide.

So I'm saying no, a mother shouldn't be given news of a revelation concerning her precious child by an interfering busy body.

Okay, I'm going to let the "interfering busy body" thing go . . . for now. I'm actually in agreement with you, however, I think her husband should be the one who tells her. I do like the idea of the doctor being present and may suggest that to the husband. It would also take some of the focus off of him for a little while.

I'm still not sure about whether she should be told at all. I'd love to hear from any moms out there.

Of course she should be told, but that does not mean that the whole world has a duty to tell her.

And she should not be told by someone who is going to suggest or support the view that there is a link between this incident and the child's autism, or by someone who thinks that she should be told this because of her child's autism, rather than because as a parent she has a right to know about her child's history and experiences.