@mybridges Firstly, there is no one known cause for autism. Research suggests that autism develops from a combination of genetic and nongenetic, or environmental, influences. These influences appear to increase the risk that a child will develop autism. However, it’s important to keep in mind that increased risk is not the same as cause.
Something more worrisome is the fact it takes 18 months for your body to fully heal, so you’re at risk for a slew of issues regarding your well-being through your pregnancy, birth and in turn your child if you don’t give your body ample time to heal. Including miscarriages, premature birth and birth complications.
Research suggests that beginning a pregnancy within six months of a live birth is associated with an increased risk of: Premature birth. The placenta partially or completely peeling away from the inner wall of the uterus before delivery (placental abruption). The belief is that having health issues during your pregnancy and birth may lead to issues for the child.
Children conceived less than 18 months after their mother’s previous birth or children conceived 60 or more months after their mother’s previous birth were more likely to have ASD when compared to children conceived between 18 to 59 months after their mother’s previous birth. The relationship is stronger in children with severe ASD symptoms. The linkage between birth spacing (the period of time between pregnancies) and having a child with ASD appeared to be unique to ASD, as there was no linkage found between birth spacing and having children with other developmental disabilities. The linkage between birth spacing and having a child with ASD was not explained by unplanned pregnancy, an underlying fertility disorder in the mother, or high blood pressure or diabetes during pregnancy.
The issues with these studies is that they are from a small pool (1,500.)
The study you cited:
KPNC members are broadly representative of the local and statewide population in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, except for the extremes of income distribution.20 Eligibility was restricted to singleton children of known parity who were born at a gestational age of ≥24 weeks, who remained health plan members until at least 2 years of age, and who had a sibling born between 1990 and 2009 (n = 150 649). From this cohort, we excluded 50 036 children whose siblings were not born at KPNC, 16 659 whose siblings were not full siblings, and 32 640 whose birth order was >2. We additionally excluded 6053 children whose mother had an indication of pregnancy loss between the births of her first and second children (using information on the birth certificates of the first and second child) and children for whom data on gender, parental age, or race/ethnicity were missing. Our main analysis focused on second-born children whose older (firstborn) siblings did not have ASD (n = 44 383). A secondary analysis was conducted among second-born children whose firstborn full sibling had an ASD diagnosis (n = 878).
The censoring date was the date of the first ASD diagnosis, or if no diagnosis, the date of last membership in the health plan or the end of the study period of December 31, 2013, whichever came first.
There were also other factors such as maternal age which would be the age of a geriatric pregnancy.
Of the 44 383 second-born children who had a firstborn full sibling without an ASD, 547 (1.2%) were diagnosed with an ASD by the end of the study period (377 autistic disorder, 117 Asperger’s disorder, and 53 pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified). There were no differences between second-born children with ASD and those without ASD with respect to maternal education, place of birth, or race/ethnicity. However, a higher proportion of children with ASD had mothers age ≥35 years and were born between 2000 and 2003 compared with children without ASD.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586728/
There are a lot of more variables at play and there aren’t a large amount of additional studies outside of the one you mentioned and ones with smaller pools. Also keep in mind how this data was acquired. In the study you mentioned they included individuals who dropped out of their health care plan but had an evaluation for ASD and other disabilities that were reported to a government entity. Not necessarily a treatment plan and diagnosis.
Also, any practitioner following safest guidelines for pregnancy spacing would suggest 18-24 months.
That being said, it’s not our place to judge what other women do with their bodies. Be it their choice or otherwise. A million other factors could be at play. Maybe that mom who seemed to have back to back pregnancies had a miscarriage. Maybe she’s always wanted a big family. Maybe she was aware of the risks and became pregnant thinking it would take longer to conceive and decided to keep the child. I think the bigger issue is the pressure and misinformation towards and offered to women regarding the realities of pregnancy/labor/childbirth/having children.
If people spent as much time and energy trying to empathize and understand people with autism, rather than figuring out how to avoid it like it’s a disease, maybe they would realize that different brains working differently is a feature, not a bug. I could go on and on about how modern life, culture, and technology intersect to make autism into a disability as we see it now, but I don’t think anyone is listening, so I will refrain.