Amniocentesis. Morally Useful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cargopilot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cargopilot

Guest
It appears the only reason one would want an amniocentesis would be to determine if they should abort any ‘undesirable’ child.

Are there any other solid reasons for this test?

Does amniocentesis produce any morally useful information that would benefit both the baby and the Mother?
 
So they can make preparations regarding special needs, etc. If I had a child with Down Syndrome, I would like to have known before hand, so I would be prepared and know what it would require of me.

It’s not immoral of itself.
 
Aaron I.:
So they can make preparations regarding special needs, etc. If I had a child with Down Syndrome, I would like to have known before hand, so I would be prepared and know what it would require of me.

It’s not immoral of itself.
Click to expand...
It can also give indications if the baby might need corrective surgery either in vitro or after birth as in heart defects.
 
OK. I can see the possibility of fore-warning some special needs at birth that might allow for a smoother transition to possible surgery or other treatment. In that case, would the benefit of that knowlege outweigh the risks of amniocentesis, such as miscarriage?

Would it provide information that would be potentially very good, even vital, for the baby and Mother, or just be a convenience? In that case, it seems that there would need to be some very compelling reasons to perform the amniocentisis, due to the risks involved.
 
I’ve heard of doctors doing an amniocentesis later in the pregnacy to determine lung maturity.
 
When I was at FUS getting my bio degree, our developmental anatomy professor told us the only moral reason for getting an amnio was if there was a history of the rH issue.

If this was the second+ child for an rH negative mother and the first baby had been rH positive, the mother’s body could attack the new baby if it was also rH positive. However, I have heard now that they just give the rhogam (drug to prevent this from happening) to all mothers who they suspect may have this problem.

Amnios carry a high risk of causing a miscarriage with them. Also, babies have been known to be born with puncture wounds on them from the amino needle. I would never have an amnio unless I was confident it was absolutely necessary.
 
When I was pregnant with my sixth child 10 years ago, my doctor wanted me to have an amniocentesis so he could determine if the baby had Down’s syndrome. I told him I would never agree to an abortion, and declined the offer. He seemed surprised, and only later, after he retired, did I learn that he was the local abortion doctor! All the time I went to him, I had no idea! (That was before I started my current career, otherwise I would have known)

The only reason he offered me the amnio was so that he could abort the baby if she had Down’s Syndrome.
 
Aaron I.:
So they can make preparations regarding special needs, etc. If I had a child with Down Syndrome, I would like to have known before hand, so I would be prepared and know what it would require of me.

It’s not immoral of itself.
Click to expand...
There are other non-invasive (eg blood) tests that can find this info without the risks of amniocentesis. My Dr. offered me a blood test with which she could find out if the baby had down syndrome, heart problems, etc. I told her I only wanted it if there was a medical purpose to it. She told me that if, for example, she found out the baby had a heart problem, the correct specialists and equipment could be available for delivery. I took the test, but only because it posed no threats to my baby (not more than any other of the blood samples they took).
 
40.png
cargopilot:
OK. I can see the possibility of fore-warning some special needs at birth that might allow for a smoother transition to possible surgery or other treatment. In that case, would the benefit of that knowlege outweigh the risks of amniocentesis, such as miscarriage?

Would it provide information that would be potentially very good, even vital, for the baby and Mother, or just be a convenience? In that case, it seems that there would need to be some very compelling reasons to perform the amniocentisis, due to the risks involved.
Click to expand...
There are many birth defects that could be determined by amniocentesis. Some of them would require immediate life-saving interventions that could only be provided by a major teaching hospital with a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

For example, heart defects often accompany Down’s Syndrome. If a child were found in utero to have Down’s Syndrome, it might be wise to plan to have the baby born at such a hospital. There are other examples, too.

However, many of these same defects can also be determined by ultrasound. I’m not qualified to say which are which, but the principle I’m putting forth is that there may, indeed, be solid reasons, having to do with the life and health of the baby, that would justify having an amniocentesis performed.

Of course, an absolutely required condition is that the risks of the procedure are accepted in anticipation of helping the baby, not of harming or aborting him/her.
 
40.png
cargopilot:
It appears the only reason one would want an amniocentesis would be to determine if they should abort any ‘undesirable’ child.

Are there any other solid reasons for this test?

Does amniocentesis produce any morally useful information that would benefit both the baby and the Mother?
Click to expand...
Cargo,
I was scheduled to have an amnio to see if my sons lungs were developed enough to be born because I was not going to make it through to full term. I declined because I was afraid of the possibility of damage it could do to him and because the old levels that they used to look for was useless and I was afraid that if they induced me too early my son would have alot of medical problems. Now they use different L/S levels as an indicator that the lungs are fully developed and it is much better.
 
Matt Collins:
There are many birth defects that could be determined by amniocentesis. Some of them would require immediate life-saving interventions that could only be provided by a major teaching hospital with a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

For example, heart defects often accompany Down’s Syndrome. If a child were found in utero to have Down’s Syndrome, it might be wise to plan to have the baby born at such a hospital. There are other examples, too.

However, many of these same defects can also be determined by ultrasound. I’m not qualified to say which are which, but the principle I’m putting forth is that there may, indeed, be solid reasons, having to do with the life and health of the baby, that would justify having an amniocentesis performed.

Of course, an absolutely required condition is that the risks of the procedure are accepted in anticipation of helping the baby, not of harming or aborting him/her.
Click to expand...
Amnio is especially important in diagnosing if the mother is older. At least 8 years ago, when I was last pregnant, the blood test had such a high false positive rate in mothers over 35 (which I was) as to be nearly useless. I shudder to think of the loss of life that blood test and its false positives might have caused. I don’t know if the test has become more accurate for older mothers since then.

When pregnant with my first, I was part of a research study to determine how amnio results and ultrasound findings matched up. Much has been developed in the 10 years since.

When I had my kids, the risk of amnio induced miscarriage was less than 1%. That is small enough that, in my opinion, the test should not be dismissed out of hand if there are other risk factors. If the amnio is done as an untrasound guided test, the risk of needle injury to the baby is nearly nil.
 
40.png
kmktexas:
Amnio is especially important in diagnosing if the mother is older. At least 8 years ago, when I was last pregnant, the blood test had such a high false positive rate in mothers over 35 (which I was) as to be nearly useless. I shudder to think of the loss of life that blood test and its false positives might have caused. I don’t know if the test has become more accurate for older mothers since then.

When pregnant with my first, I was part of a research study to determine how amnio results and ultrasound findings matched up. Much has been developed in the 10 years since.

When I had my kids, the risk of amnio induced miscarriage was less than 1%. That is small enough that, in my opinion, the test should not be dismissed out of hand if there are other risk factors. If the amnio is done as an untrasound guided test, the risk of needle injury to the baby is nearly nil.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about abortions when you mention false positives causing loss of life? If so, then it is the abortions, not the false positives that are the problem. In fact, even if they were true positives and the baby was aborted it would still be a terrible loss of life. If you weren’t talking about abortion, then what other ways could they be harmful? Is amniocentesis perfectly accurate?
Also, just in my opinion, less than 1% could still be a large risk. 1% is 1 in 100, 0.5% is 1 in 200. I just looked it up quickly online and I found one place that said one in 200-400 and another said: “A 1998 Canadian study found the risk of miscarriage was 2.6 percent after early amniocentesis, compared to 0.8 percent after second-trimester amniocentesis.” These figures still sound high to me, especially if the odds of my child having something that could medically benefit from this information are even lower.
 
From what I understand, amniocentesis is risky and there is a chance of losing the baby.

My daughter who is a nurse knew of a woman who tried for a long time to get pregnant, opted for amniocentesis, (don’t remember why), and lost the baby. It was found to be a perfect baby.
 
40.png
kmktexas:
Amnio is especially important in diagnosing if the mother is older. At least 8 years ago, when I was last pregnant, the blood test had such a high false positive rate in mothers over 35 (which I was) as to be nearly useless. I shudder to think of the loss of life that blood test and its false positives might have caused. I don’t know if the test has become more accurate for older mothers since then.
Click to expand...
I was one of those women. My AFP (Alpha Fetal Protein) test came back positive. I was scheduled for an amnio to find out for sure if my baby had Down’s.

Fortunately, in the meantime, I discovered that amnios can cause miscarriages. I asked my OB why I needed the test, and she said it was so I could abort if it was positive. I told her I had no intention of aborting even if it was positive, so why did I need the test?

There was this little pause, and then she said, “If I were you, I would not risk my baby’s life by having an amnio. The risk of miscarriage is actually higher than people realize. It’s just that people want perfect babies.”

I thanked her and cancelled the amnio (it had been scheduled for the very next day–thank God my regular appointment had come first!)

I agree that amnios can be useful if necessary to help the baby. Unless such a reason exists, what’s the point of having one?
 
Kay Cee:
I was one of those women. My AFP (Alpha Fetal Protein) test came back positive. I was scheduled for an amnio to find out for sure if my baby had Down’s.

Fortunately, in the meantime, I discovered that amnios can cause miscarriages. I asked my OB why I needed the test, and she said it was so I could abort if it was positive. I told her I had no intention of aborting even if it was positive, so why did I need the test?

There was this little pause, and then she said, “If I were you, I would not risk my baby’s life by having an amnio. The risk of miscarriage is actually higher than people realize. It’s just that people want perfect babies.”

I thanked her and cancelled the amnio (it had been scheduled for the very next day–thank God my regular appointment had come first!)

I agree that amnios can be useful if necessary to help the baby. Unless such a reason exists, what’s the point of having one?
Click to expand...
My daughter had exactly the same experience. She was talking to my wife about it, and said, “Mom, I told them no. The amniocentesis is a risk to the baby, and if it does have Down’s Syndrome, there’s nothing we can do about it anyway.”

Fortunately, our granddaughter was born perfect.
 
6 years ago when pregnant with DS - my Maternal serum test came back with #s indicating high possiblity of Downs and I was sent for counselling and there offered amnio. This we refused because we knew there was a high risk of miscarriage.
 
If there were a proceedure out there with a 1% chance of killing me, I’d have to be relatively sure of large benefit to me before I’d undergo the proceedure. It’s my life. Even if the proceedure offered some small benefit, who cares in the face of my life?

However, it could be that for some high risk pregnancies, there is just cause to risk the baby’s life because you could gain info to save the baby’s life, but I doubt it for your average healthy pregnancy.
 
40.png
MaryB23:
I’ve heard of doctors doing an amniocentesis later in the pregnacy to determine lung maturity.
Click to expand...
Yes you’re right, and I believe this is a morally useful purpose.

I had one pregnancy with significant complications. The doctor performed amnio to determine lung development about a month before my due date because he was trying to determine if it was safe to induce labor. (I did ask my doctor about the risk of miscarriage. As I recall he said the primary risk of miscarriage is from bringing on early labor before the baby can live outside the mother. I was far enough along and staying in a hospital with a neonatal ICU so that wasn’t a huge concern compared to other risks.) Amnio showed adequate lung development, I was induced a month early, and we went home healthy just two days later. The alternative of continuing the pregnancy for longer might not have had as good an outcome for us.
 
Amnio’s can be very, very useful as many people have stated. My oldest daughter was born 10 weeks premature for reasons that no one knows. They did an amnio on me to see just how far along in gestation she actually was, for lung development. The drs. and nurses were so careful, they did an ultrasound to see just where she was positioned, and then did the amnio so they wouldn’t nick her with the needle. We soon discovered that she was going to be a very sick baby when she was delivered by C-section. She did wonderfully with the help of meds and incredible drs and nurses in the NICU.

Her younger sister was also delivered by C-section, and the Ob-Gyn suggested an amnio because of my high-risk status of having had a preemie, but he would not do an amnio early in my pregnancy because of the miscarriage & preemie risks. I had several ultra-sounds to check growth and development, but the amnio was not done until the week before my due date. The main reason for this was to insure that this baby was not a preemie, and lung development was where it should be for a full term baby.

I was very fortunate to have wonderful medical care from people who weighed out every risk they could think of for me and my babies. Sadly, there are some that just don’t do that. The human factor goes away, and the $$$ comes into play!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top