Loss 4

I actually missed this clinical practice guideline when it was released, but thanks to a letter on Today, I managed to unearth it in my pile of unsorted mail.

Beware miracle cure claims
With expert advice, those with special needs can avoid useless, risky treatments
Letter from Dr Noel Chia Kok Hwee

I refer to "Baby dies after injection in the brain" (Oct 25) and want to applaud Today for this timely news report.

I am an assistant professor in early childhood and special needs education.

Most parents who have children born with moderate to severe learning and behavioural disorders such as autism, cerebral palsy and sclerosis are often desperate for some form of miraculous cure such as the stem cell treatment, as reported.

Indeed, there are countless treatments available in the market worldwide today. Their developers claim their approaches work well for individuals with special needs.

However, a number of these treatments either have not been scientifically validated or have been studied and found to have little or no worth.

Parents and even professionals tend to forget that many of these so-called treatments are still at an experimental stage and have not been subject to scrutiny and scientific validation.

Hence, it is important for parents and those working in allied health and educational professions to be well informed about the various treatments targeted at individuals with special needs.

Recently, the Singapore Academy of Medicine and the Ministry of Health (MOH) jointly published clinical practice guidelines in the Singapore Medical Journal (Vol 51, No 3), providing doctors and patients here with evidence-based guidance on various treatments to manage medical conditions relating to autism spectrum disorders. This important information is also made public on the MOH website.

I believe more can also be done to inform the public on the clinical practice guidelines on other disorders, including rare syndromes like Prader-Willi and Angelman.

Moreover, empirically-sound treatments are not always universally appropriate for all individuals with special needs.

According to Dr Richard Simpson, a professor of special education at the University of Kansas, such treatments are often involved in controversies related to individualised use, outcome claims, exclusive and extensive use, and so forth.

As the list of treatments for individuals with special needs continues to grow rapidly, the challenging problem confronting parents and professionals in terms of choosing the most efficient and effective interventions becomes exacerbated.

Hence, it is often very difficult for parents and professionals to recognise and judge the scientific validity of a treatment designed to be used with individuals with special needs.

Perhaps the relevant authorities and experts in the fields of biomedical science and special education can serve as guiding signposts to advise parents and professionals accordingly on issues relating to treatments for individuals with special needs.

You can find a summary of the clinical practice guidelines Dr Chia mentioned here.

I am quite surprised by how little we know about autism - most of the 'positive' recommendations are Grade D.

What I am more surprised by was the number of alternative therapies being touted as effective for autism, many of which I have never even heard of - "wearing of weighted vests"? Seriously?

Perhaps Dr Chia does have a point - we need to be more proactive as a profession in looking at what unproven therapies are being touted to our patients; not in the name of "integration", but with a critical eye and the moral courage to judge and tell our patients when something is ineffective or harmful.