« SpaceShipOne Hits Outer Space | Main | Iran Seizes 3 British Ships And 8 Crew »

New Tests Make For Hard Choices

Amy Harmon in the New York Times (syndicated version of the article is linked) looks at the dilemma facing parents to be as genetic screening tests improve.

Fetal genetic tests are now routinely used to diagnose diseases as well known as cystic fibrosis and as obscure as fragile X, a form of mental retardation. High-resolution sonograms can detect life-threatening defects like brain cysts as well as treatable conditions like a small hole in the heart or a cleft palate sooner and more reliably than previous generations of the technology. And the risk of Down syndrome, one of the most common birth defects, can be assessed in the first trimester rather than waiting for a second-trimester blood test or amniocentesis.

Most couples say they are both profoundly grateful for the new information and hugely burdened by the choices it forces them to make. The availability of tests earlier in pregnancy mean that if they opt for an abortion it can be safer and less public.

But first they must decide: What defect, if any, is reason enough to end a pregnancy that was very much wanted? Shortened limbs that could be partly treated with growth hormones? What about a life expectancy of only a few months? What about 30 years? Or a 20 percent chance of mental retardation?

Striving to be neutral, doctors and genetic counselors flood patients with scientific data, leaving them alone for the hard conversations about the ethics of abortion, and how having a child with a particular disease or disability would affect them and their families. There are few traditions to turn to, and rarely anyone around who has confronted a similar dilemma.

For us it was simple, we determined that regardless of what such a test may show we would still have the child. Given that, we had no need for the tests.

I know people who have had healthy babies who were told during their pregnancy that the baby had an "increased likelihood of... (some genetic condition)." What the hell are you supposed to do on hearing that?

Comments (1)

My take---I'm all fo... (Below threshold)

My take---
I'm all for this type of testing, not such that parents can make a choice regarding termination of pregnancy, but so that those who will be involved in the delivery and newborn care of the baby will be prepared for likely complications of a given defect.
All sorts of bad things spring from the Pandora's box called "quality of life", from mercy killing to genocide. "Compassion" without morality or ethics is truly dangerous. Maybe I'm being overly idealistic, but I simply know too many people who have overcome birth defects or debilitating diseases to become incredibly strong people as well as sources of inspiration and encouragement to hundreds.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy