Here's a thought: Blood test for Celiac Disease from Birth

Why not automatically test for Celiac Disease from Birth (Newborn Screening), and if the blood test indicates a good possibility, have the mother and baby both go on a gluten-free diet. Then, see how many children are diagnosed with Autism and see if the numbers go down mysteriously. I know, some think that Dairy may also be a cause. If there is a test that will test for Dairy intolerance that is fairly accurate, then fine, add this to the auto-testing as well.

An excellent article on this subject is Newborn Screening: Birth Right or Something to Fight? By Christopher Wanjek . Mr. Wanjek believes that it is better to screen then have the unfortunate outcome of crippled muscles and brain function.
QUOTE from Article:

Still, one can't help feel for Zachary Wyvill. He was born in April 2003 in an Oakland hospital that didn't test for an organic acid disorder called glutaric acidemia type I.
A second Zachary, Zachary Black, was born shortly later 60 miles away in a hospital that did screen for it. Zachary Black is living a healthy life as a result of a special diet and vitamins. Zachary Wyvill's disease went undetected for several months, and by that time the disease had become irreversible and has since crippled his muscles and brain function.
Testing millions of babies at a great cost? Treating sick children with severe brain and muscle damage at a great cost? Testing for diseases that cannot be cured? These are the profound questions surrounding newborn screening, not whether a pinprick on a baby's heel will induce an engram in its otherwise healthy thetan, as described in Dianetics.

 I agree. But, then again, maybe I am biased. I know what it is like to have Developmental Delay disorder. No one wants to marry me. I an considered an 'untouchable' where I live. I have very little friends - and people consider this normal. I hate your 'normal' with a passion. It makes for a very lonely life. I wish this on no one, even my most sworn enemies.




Controversy:
Many people believe it is unethical to automatically test for known ailments at birth and think that the parents should approve this first.
Counter-arguments that I have heard over the years:
1) One of the reasons given, is that its unnecessary. Looking at the numbers, I'd say that it is unnecessary to ban drinking while driving because MOST drunks don't kill when they drive drunk. Amen? Think I am insane? No more insane than those who find routine testing for known ailments that can be prevented it. In other words, stop the bickering about it 'being unnecessary' and just get the test done!

2) The other reason makes more sense. We, the people, do not want Big Brother deciding what we feel is healthy or not, for our children. Fine! Let parents sign off on a form saying that they agree to allow such testing in order to prevent more serious issues in the future.

3) Such testing goes against my religion or perceived beliefs.

4) Infant should not be subjected to such unnecessary pain. Then STOP spanking the infant to see if it cries and see how many infants die at birth. Spanking IS pain! This argument drives me nuts! It is the most insane argument I know of. Besides, who wants to a be so psychotically afraid of 2 seconds of pain and favor a life-long pain of crippling diseases that prevents a child from playing Football (do take this in it plural meaning of Soccer for most of the world, and NFL or Aussie football). The infant already is in pain from being spanked, so might as well take the needle and draw the blood and prevent a few more diseases that, if not detected and treated early will cause them a life long pain of discrimination, ill-treatment, cold shoulders, rejection, and so on, not to mention the pain of the actual preventable disease's symptoms in the first place! Would YOU rather have your child sentenced to a life in a wheelchair and being rejected by peers and never to marry because no one wanted them? Would you rather they go through the pain of many surgeries to reverse the damage caused by fear of a 2 second pain of blood being drawned? Why not! Surgery is painless because after you wake up from your drug induced stupor, you are so idiotically stupid, that your brain no longer feel pain! (Sarcastically!) Just take a pill for it! Why should it matter that those pills do  not really alleviate that pain enough? Why should it matter that your child is going to be very mad at you when they find out that their ailment was caused because you were afraid of the pain of the blood being drawn! Guess how many times their blood will be drawn when they do end up with the preventable illness?

5) It is just too costly to test for everything we could test infants for. You are so right! It is so costly because if MY child turns out "normal" then it doesn't cost my anything extra. Besides it is only "THEIR" child who is has the health issues, and they should pay, not me. I say self-centeredness and self-absorbed thinking is the number one Disease affecting this world. It says not my money, not me, its my money and I'm keeping it. These are the same people who are quick to divorce if their spouse births a "crippled child" or a child disabled in some way.  Some of these people very quickly change their stance when they have such a child and then decide that everyone should be tested for such and such when they realize the life-long pain their child is now going through, could have been prevented with a simple 2 second pain procedure.

I've never had children so can only speak from my own experiences. If I were to have been diagnosed with Celiac disease from birth, I may have been able to eat more foods now, instead of having this long list of forbidden items. There is also a possibility that I might not have had Mental Illness, but unsure as to what my own hospital tested me for, if anything, in 1965.  The drug company, believe it or not, would make much more money if we refused to test anyone for anything before the symptoms got to very bad, to the point of not being reversible.  Why give them more money then we have to?