Autism and children's rights. (Comments).

A recent decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeal could have far reaching consequences. The Court backed the claims of a group of parents seeking treatment for children with autism. The court put forward the idea that government loses its authority over budgetary decision-making when the constitutional rights and the welfare of children are in jeopardy.

Justices Mary Saunders and John Hall found that BC government policies "say that the community is less interested in their plight than the plight of children needing medical care and adults needing mental-health therapy," and that "having created a universal medicare system, the government is prohibited from conferring those benefits in a discriminatory manner."

The court ordered the provincial government to pay for the $40,000-$60,000 annual cost of early intervention services for children with autism. The justices know the predilection of the BC government to use procedural tactics to avoid paying for health and social services. Therefore, they gave parents a direct and rapid access to the court, should recalcitrant public servants, or their ministers, drag their feet on providing or paying for these services.

A considerable body of research indicates that early intervention for children with autism, the earlier the better, holds a high potential for positive outcomes. Nevertheless, Be, and every other province, imposes severe financial limits on such treatment services, mainly because of the cost. Long waiting lists are the result, and children receive treatment later rather than earlier. Some parents pay for these services at great personal cost, while others are forced to turn for assistance to friends relatives and limited charitable resources. Others wait and wait. For all of them, the decision of the BC Court of Appeal is most welcome.

Nothing concentrates the minds of politicians better than being forced to pay out money for children's services. Treatment of autism is expensive and treating it properly cuts into the plans of most provincial governments who want to cut services and reduce taxes. They can react in a number of ways.

First of all, we can expect the worst of them. Singly and collectively, they will likely spend millions of dollars on an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. They will show a bunch of kids and their parents that government can't be bullied. Hard pressed parents and autism advocacy groups will have to find money to meet this challenge. This will of course mean more delays in getting the services to children who need them.

Perhaps we'll get lucky and the provinces will forget about legal challenges and choose a humane approach. They could allocate the funds required for the earliest possible intervention. They will do it because its the right thing to do and they might even do it because its the sensible thing to do, because early treatment pays off by cutting the cost of treatment and care services later on down the line.

Additionally, what is required would be for BC and other provinces to persuade Health Canada to join them in a coordinated research effort to find effective and less costly ways of dealing with autism. Health Canada has been a laggard in this field, according to the Auditor General who points out that there are no methods "to collect accurate information on Autism Spectrum Disorders across all ages."

As stated earlier, the BC Appeal Court decision could have wide ranging consequences for all Canadian children. It could have applications to child welfare, early childhood development services, as well as child health issues. Its worthy of study and could be a guide to action by everyone concerned with the well-being of children. Provincial governments should be pressed to take an open-ended approach to the needs of children rather than to engage in long and costly court battles.

We should also be watching provincial government bills that deal with legal procedures. These are very technical, procedural bills usually passed on the last day of a legislative session with little debate. However, the next one coming to the legislature nearest you could be hiding provisions that make it more difficult for parents or child advocacy groups to take their claims to court.

We should be wary and watchful. We need to encourage program decisions that will finally act in the best interests of children with this, as well as all other disabilities. A fight in the courts is not in anyone's best interests.

--L.K.