Prenatal Downs Syndrome Testing: Have you or would you have it done?

[leonie]

I can understand the wanting to be prepared for medical complications, but amnio is too dangerous and the quadruple screen has too many false positives.

I had a friend who had a false positive with the triple screen and had to undergo additional and expensive tests and consultations. She was so anxious. And, there was nothing wrong with the baby.

 

[Island_Oak]

I can’t find the original website that sparked my interest on this subject. It had statistics of how many babies are aborted after the mothers found out the test’s came back positve. It was at least 80% if not higher, and I’m thinking it was closer to 90%. That was what I was addressing.

You are correct about these statistics and they are shocking.

…And honestly, I wouldn’t want to know so I could “prepare” for having a special needs child. What kind of REAL preparation can you do anyway? I think it would just cause a ton of unnecessary stress during the pregnancy. Again, this is in my own honest opinion.

Having given birth to a child with special needs, which were not detected despite pre-natal testing, I can assure you it would have been a huge help to have had a head start investigating some of the issues we had to deal with immediately–feeding challenges being just one example. It was highly stressful to know you had only 48 hours of professional help before you were booted out of the hosptial and would be on your own. Some advance “warning” in order to prepare/become educated would have helped us avoid some very stressful weeks. I encourage such testing for this purpose if the parents are so inclined.

p.s. we did only non-invasive testing.

 

[Oscarthecat]

But this type of decision is not being made on our behalf, but rather on behalf of an innoent who, if the chances of miscarriage could be communicated, might very well say, “Hey, I would rather you not poke around in my world just yet.” Is the child’s right to a safe and healthy pregnancy superceded by a parent’s desire to know with certainty the existence of a disease for which thay can certainly prepare, but for which they cannot cure or repair?

I agree with you about the test… like I said, we chose not to do this test for our own daughter.

I see parents do things all the time that I would never do- but I have to respect their rights as parents, and only step in when I think that the parent’s judgment is going to cause certain and severe harm to the child.

This test does have risks, more than I would be comfortable with, but not to the degree that it will cause certain harm to the child. Therefore, I have to respect other parents’ right to weigh the risk and do what they think is in the best interests of their child.

If I don’t, then I am opening the door for other people to start telling me how to raise my daughter.

 

[The_Smiter]

Certain types of reactions between mother’s blood and baby’s is one example. Certain infections are another. Both can cause harm or even death to the baby and that had to be weighed against the risk of miscarriage with an amnio, if one is considered necessary.

You are not reaql specific on just which type of donditions need to be tested for with an amnio. It seems from your explanation that such tests would be and can be done with blood and other means. If those tests indicated Rh problems, etc, is amnio warranted for a further diagnosis? The point I am trying to make is for my own ignorance? What conditions that are life threatening to the child in utero AND have the possibility of being remedied through intervention and treatment, need to be diagnosed through amnio?

 

[The_Smiter]

I agree with you about the test… like I said, we chose not to do this test for our own daughter.

I see parents do things all the time that I would never do- but I have to respect their rights as parents, and only step in when I think that the parent’s judgment is going to cause certain and severe harm to the child.

This test does have risks, more than I would be comfortable with, but not to the degree that it will cause certain harm to the child. Therefore, I have to respect other parents’ right to weigh the risk and do what they think is in the best interests of their child.

If I don’t, then I am opening the door for other people to start telling me how to raise my daughter.

I agree with you completely. My point is that it seems that far too many parents fall victim to the “we must screen for every possibility” rub, mostly because they want to be good parents and want the best for their babies. It is always a difficult thing to hand over to God our fears and frustrations with the uncertainties of this world. I am not perfect and I struggle with difficult decisions as much as the next person. I think that when we are dealing with babies, we just need to try to fall on the far side of caution and give them every chance possible. Admittedly, it was hard to counsel our daughter to NOT opt for the amnio. We are just as concerned with the baby’s health and condition as she is. But as with any challenge God puts in our paths - it has simply provided us all with an great opportunity to improve our prayer life.

 

[seekerz]

You are not reaql specific on just which type of donditions need to be tested for with an amnio. It seems from your explanation that such tests would be and can be done with blood and other means. If those tests indicated Rh problems, etc, is amnio warranted for a further diagnosis? The point I am trying to make is for my own ignorance? What conditions that are life threatening to the child in utero AND have the possibility of being remedied through intervention and treatment, need to be diagnosed through amnio?

Here is one of the many sites where these questions are dealt with.

 

[KathleenElsie]

When my daughter showed signs of a soft genetic marker for Down’s Syndrome, she was sent to a genetic counselor. The first option they stated that was available, before even stating what any of the odds and such were, was that abortion was a possibility and that we coul “take care of it today.” When they stated that their facility experienced a 1 in 250 likelihood of a spontaneous miscarriage, my daughter opted out of the amnio test. The counselor was furious that we were not electing to “know for sure” when the test was available. Frankly, 1 in 250 odds is not very good if you are interested in NOT having an abortion. The direction if the amnio is done is that the mother go home and lie down for 24-48 hours. If it carries “no risk” (a quote from the counselor), then why do you have to go to bedrest for 2 days? I am not taking to task those mothers who choose amnio. It certainly is not their intent to hurt their babies. The frustration with knowing that there MIGHT be something wrong, is not always relieved with a certainty of knowing that nothing (or Something) is actually wrong. She is now in her eighth month and we are prayerful in trusting in God’s will for this baby. We are prepard for the best, but a child born with Down’;s is certainly not the worst that one could hope for or expect.

These are hard choices and it takes a lot of faith to trust in God’s will, especially when His ways are so far above us. We know that He wants what is best for all of us and trusting in Him is how we should live our lives, even when the prospects are not what we might desire.

Will add your daughter and her family to our intentions list.

 

[lwest]

Mind you, I have no children, but my DH and I are trying to conceive. I find this test to be horrible! Women are using this test to find out if they are going to have a “normal” child. In most cases, if they find out the child does in fact have Downs, they terminate the pregnancy! What are they going to come up with next? A test that charts a baby’s potential IQ while in the womb?

Sorry to rant, but I think the test has done more harm than good.

We had prenatal testing and found out our baby had spina bifida. (we passed on the amnio that early on because 1 in a 100 end up in a miscarriage.) But the AFP blood test and level 2 ultra sound were done and we confirmed the diagnosis. For us, it was a Godsend. We had time to do our homework and get the specialists lined up. If we didn’t know, we wouldn’t have known to have a c-section and she could have ended up completely paralyzed. Now, 10 years and 30 surgeries later, I wouldn’t trade her for all the coffee in Columbia She’s a blessing and a gift. A real spitfire, too. However, she’s sick now and I would appreciate some prayers for her. Her name is Gianna.

 

[KathleenElsie]

We had prenatal testing and found out our baby had spina bifida. (we passed on the amnio that early on because 1 in a 100 end up in a miscarriage.) But the AFP blood test and level 2 ultra sound were done and we confirmed the diagnosis. For us, it was a Godsend. We had time to do our homework and get the specialists lined up. If we didn’t know, we wouldn’t have known to have a c-section and she could have ended up completely paralyzed. Now, 10 years and 30 surgeries later, I wouldn’t trade her for all the coffee in Columbia She’s a blessing and a gift. A real spitfire, too. However, she’s sick now and I would appreciate some prayers for her. Her name is Gianna.

You got it. Prayers going your families way.

 

[kalt]

As the parent of a 21-yr-old, my perspective is different. I realize how psychologically devastating any problem w/ your own child is to you. It’s far better to be prepared for a huge problem like DS than to be hit with it when the child is born. If for no other reason than having a pleasant, prepared birth experience, testing is a good thing. When you have a baby who has a problem you don’t expect at birth, it puts a damper on what should be a happy time.
If you know that your baby has DS, you’re ready. It’s not an unwelcomed surprise, and you will already have the knowledge you’ll need to raise the new baby. Imagine having to learn all of this while you’re still devastated by the news, (for the woman) while recovering from the birth itself, while trying to care for a newborn.

Testing is a good thing. But like so many good things, it can be used in a bad way.

Don’t blame the test and call it bad. Blame the people who use it for evil purposes.

Mind you, I have no children, but my DH and I are trying to conceive. I find this test to be horrible! Women are using this test to find out if they are going to have a “normal” child. In most cases, if they find out the child does in fact have Downs, they terminate the pregnancy! What are they going to come up with next? A test that charts a baby’s potential IQ while in the womb?

Sorry to rant, but I think the test has done more harm than good.

 

[kalt]

there is a** lot** of preperation you can do for a special needs child. For some birth deffects, having the right team of doctors there for the birth can mean the difference between life and death, or mild disability and profound disability.

With DS, being prepared means being psychologically prepared as well as physically prepared. Some kids w/ DS have serious heart problems. Knowing what that actually means and being prepared to deal with it is very important to many people.

Babies w/ DS need very early professional intervention. Wouldn’t it be so much easier on the family to know this and to have researched the options, chosen the specialists you’ll use, etc?

People want to know they’re have baby before it’s born. They don’t want to be surprised by an infant in their lives that they didn’t expect. They want to read the baby books, have the baby’s room prepared, have babysitters lined up (in families in which both parents work). They want to learn all they can before the baby arrives. They want to have as much set up before the baby comes, because they know the arrival will be life-altering. Everything they can learn and do before the baby is born, is that much they don’t have to “under the gun”.

Be prepared. It’s not just for Boy Scouts.

And how much more important is that preperation for the parents of a child with a serious problem? How much more do they need to know, to prepare for?

Do you think finding the right specialist is easy? Are you prepared to so a** lot **of study, interview specialists, meet w/ parents of children like yours, and set up therapies (just to name a few of the things you’ll need to do) within hours of giving birht?

That’s hard enough for the father who is in psychological shock over the situation. I would imagine it would be much more difficult for the mother when she’s sill recovering physically.

As the parent of a 21-yr-old, I can tell you that you will never be 100% prepared for any stage of your child’s life. But the more knowledge you have, the better off you and your child will be.

This isn’t a selfish stance. How would your child be hurt by having a very prepared set of parents?

I’m not suggesting that you should have the test. Just sharing the perspective of a person who has had a child, and who has seen others deal with problems at birth.

We had the first test, a blood test, which came out normal. It’s impossible to say what we would have done if it had come up suspicious. I do know that now that we’re older and have seen more, we would have the 2nd test. But then we’re older and are at higher risk for problems.

I do know, also, that we worried about problems w/ the baby, even after having a normal first test–there are so many things that can go wrong. Whenever we saw a child with problems, we thought of our own developing baby.

We learned that parental worry starts before birth. I’m learning that it is still pretty strong 21 tears later.

My post was not intended to be uncharitable. My apologies once again if I offended anyone.
Like I said above, I was speaking of the women who have it done for selfish reasons. I can’t find the original website that sparked my interest on this subject. It had statistics of how many babies are aborted after the mothers found out the test’s came back positve. It was at least 80% if not higher, and I’m thinking it was closer to 90%. That was what I was addressing. And honestly, I wouldn’t want to know so I could “prepare” for having a special needs child. What kind of REAL preparation can you do anyway? I think it would just cause a ton of unnecessary stress during the pregnancy. Again, this is in my own honest opinion.

 

[The_Smiter]

As the parent of a 21-yr-old, my perspective is different. I realize how psychologically devastating any problem w/ your own child is to you. It’s far better to be prepared for a huge problem like DS than to be hit with it when the child is born. If for no other reason than having a pleasant, prepared birth experience, testing is a good thing. When you have a baby who has a problem you don’t expect at birth, it puts a damper on what should be a happy time.
If you know that your baby has DS, you’re ready. It’s not an unwelcomed surprise, and you will already have the knowledge you’ll need to raise the new baby. Imagine having to learn all of this while you’re still devastated by the news, (for the woman) while recovering from the birth itself, while trying to care for a newborn.

Testing is a good thing. But like so many good things, it can be used in a bad way.

Don’t blame the test and call it bad. Blame the people who use it for evil purposes.

I understand the point you are making, but if the child is healthy in all other ways excepting DS, then to put the child’s life at risk by having an amnio done is in my opinion not justified. As I have stated earlier, I do concede that there are situations wherein amnio would be justified to be used, but the mere desire to be “prepared” is not such a justification.

 

[The_Smiter]

there is a** lot** of preperation you can do for a special needs child. For some birth deffects, having the right team of doctors there for the birth can mean the difference between life and death, or mild disability and profound disability.

With DS, being prepared means being psychologically prepared as well as physically prepared. Some kids w/ DS have serious heart problems. Knowing what that actually means and being prepared to deal with it is very important to many people.

Babies w/ DS need very early professional intervention. Wouldn’t it be so much easier on the family to know this and to have researched the options, chosen the specialists you’ll use, etc?

People want to know they’re have baby before it’s born. They don’t want to be surprised by an infant in their lives that they didn’t expect. They want to read the baby books, have the baby’s room prepared, have babysitters lined up (in families in which both parents work). They want to learn all they can before the baby arrives. They want to have as much set up before the baby comes, because they know the arrival will be life-altering. Everything they can learn and do before the baby is born, is that much they don’t have to “under the gun”.

Be prepared. It’s not just for Boy Scouts.

And how much more important is that preperation for the parents of a child with a serious problem? How much more do they need to know, to prepare for?

Do you think finding the right specialist is easy? Are you prepared to so a** lot **of study, interview specialists, meet w/ parents of children like yours, and set up therapies (just to name a few of the things you’ll need to do) within hours of giving birht?

That’s hard enough for the father who is in psychological shock over the situation. I would imagine it would be much more difficult for the mother when she’s sill recovering physically.

As the parent of a 21-yr-old, I can tell you that you will never be 100% prepared for any stage of your child’s life. But the more knowledge you have, the better off you and your child will be.

This isn’t a selfish stance. How would your child be hurt by having a very prepared set of parents?

I’m not suggesting that you should have the test. Just sharing the perspective of a person who has had a child, and who has seen others deal with problems at birth.

We had the first test, a blood test, which came out normal. It’s impossible to say what we would have done if it had come up suspicious. I do know that now that we’re older and have seen more, we would have the 2nd test. But then we’re older and are at higher risk for problems.

I do know, also, that we worried about problems w/ the baby, even after having a normal first test–there are so many things that can go wrong. Whenever we saw a child with problems, we thought of our own developing baby.

We learned that parental worry starts before birth. I’m learning that it is still pretty strong 21 tears later.

Worry and uncertainty are part of life. No one is truly prepared for the life-altering changes that a new child brings - even if that child is completely healthy.

As a Boy Scout myself (many years ago!), we were prepared - that is true. But when we went on a hike ionto the wilderness we brought what we thought we might need for the terrain, weather, time of year, and length of journey - we packed accordingly and hoped for the best. We thought we might see wildlife and see some beautiful scenery along the way. We were prepared. Yet - we did not know exactly what to expect. We did not send a bulldozer in to clear a path for us. We did not employ a helicopter to chart a path from the air to show us all of the hidden pitfalls that might arise. We went in with our eyes open, our hearts hopeful, and our minds at peace with the fact that we had done all that we could and we were going to enjoy the ride. First aid kits were never enough to mend a broken leg if such a thing were to happen, but that is the risk we took in order to blaze new territory and see more of God’s Creation. My analogy is not meant to trivialize the preciousness of a child’s lefe by way of comparison. But part of being creatures is that we are shielded from some of the Creator’s knowledge and plans. Hid ways are far above our ways.

Perhaps being as prepared as we can be is what God wants for us when He gives us the technology to discover problems that may occur with a baby in utero. But does it automatically follow that we must act on every piece of knowledge we glean from such enterprises? Especially when there is ALWAYSD a risk with a test like amnio - albeit however small - that there could be harm to the baby?

As I have stated in previous posts on this thread, these issues are difficult and put us as parents in the place of God essentially, because we are making life and death decisions. But this is a different decision that an end of life decision with respect to care and cessation of medically necessary effrorts to extend life. Wtith respect to that - we are not dealing with an innocent, but rather one who has already had a chance to life a life on their own terms. The unborn are special in that they are innocent and deserve all of our protection, even if our intentions may be good - that might cause them harm. The end does not justify the means.

 

[Teakafrog]

When we had our son 12 years ago, we skipped all the tests–figured there was nothing we could do about it if there was a problem, and obviously would keep and love the baby no matter what.

Then, DH’s cousin had a baby who was diagnosed early in the pregnancy with spina bifida. They did a LOT of research, and ended up being in a pilot program where they were like the 17th case in the world to have intra-uterine surgery to correct it. Yes, baby had surgery on her back before she was born, they sewed mama up and she ‘baked’ a couple more months, then was born in a hospital that specialized in her problems. This child can now walk, run, and jump with all the other kids, when they said without the surgery she would never stand. It was a miracle in our eyes.

So since then, we’ve had the testing done. I know they have made great medical strides in the last decade, and many things CAN be fixed.

As for amnio–I would never do it, because of the increased chance of miscarriage. And to the OP, if there was a test specifically for DS, which there isn’t as far as I know, I wouldn’t get it either. But the tests they do now test for a wide range of problems, some of which can be treated to an extent before birth.

 

[kalt]

The axe you carry into the woods could make a prepared comfortable night for you, by allowing you to cut a little wood. Then again, it could, in very rare cases, cause your fellow boy scout’s death when he accidently walks in front of it while you’re swinging. As you said, you can never be prepared for everything.

There might be specific tests that have more risk than others, but as you said the risk is still so incredibly small.

If we were never willing to take any risks, we wouldn’t do anything. In fact, your parents wouldn’t have let you into the woods, prepared or not, since they couldn’t know for sure whether you would come out alive. The risks of hiking in the woods and camping overnight, which are much greater than the risk of the testing, wouldn’t be worth it.

If you were lost in the woods, or others thought you might be in danger, they would have sent the helicopters out.

If they thought that the path might have something very dangerous on it, they would have cleared it first to make sure.

Hikers today use GPS.

Technology good.

Worry and uncertainty are part of life. No one is truly prepared for the life-altering changes that a new child brings - even if that child is completely healthy.

As a Boy Scout myself (many years ago!), we were prepared - that is true. But when we went on a hike ionto the wilderness we brought what we thought we might need for the terrain, weather, time of year, and length of journey - we packed accordingly and hoped for the best. We thought we might see wildlife and see some beautiful scenery along the way. We were prepared. Yet - we did not know exactly what to expect. We did not send a bulldozer in to clear a path for us. We did not employ a helicopter to chart a path from the air to show us all of the hidden pitfalls that might arise. We went in with our eyes open, our hearts hopeful, and our minds at peace with the fact that we had done all that we could and we were going to enjoy the ride. First aid kits were never enough to mend a broken leg if such a thing were to happen, but that is the risk we took in order to blaze new territory and see more of God’s Creation. My analogy is not meant to trivialize the preciousness of a child’s lefe by way of comparison. But part of being creatures is that we are shielded from some of the Creator’s knowledge and plans. Hid ways are far above our ways.

Perhaps being as prepared as we can be is what God wants for us when He gives us the technology to discover problems that may occur with a baby in utero. But does it automatically follow that we must act on every piece of knowledge we glean from such enterprises? Especially when there is ALWAYSD a risk with a test like amnio - albeit however small - that there could be harm to the baby?

As I have stated in previous posts on this thread, these issues are difficult and put us as parents in the place of God essentially, because we are making life and death decisions. But this is a different decision that an end of life decision with respect to care and cessation of medically necessary effrorts to extend life. Wtith respect to that - we are not dealing with an innocent, but rather one who has already had a chance to life a life on their own terms. The unborn are special in that they are innocent and deserve all of our protection, even if our intentions may be good - that might cause them harm. The end does not justify the means.

 

[kalt]

“We went in with our eyes open, our hearts hopeful, and our minds at peace with the fact that we had done all that we could and we were going to enjoy the ride.”

But didn’t you know the weather forcast? There’s no way your leader would’ve taken you on the hike if a hurricaine, tornado, or blizzard were forcasted. You knew what time of year it was. You knew where you were walking–you would pack differently for a January hike in Maine than you would for Florida–and you packed accordingly. No one would take a parka on a hike in southern Florida in July. You knew how far you were going to walk. You knew who you were walking with. You had a start point and an end point. You had, as you said, an emergency kit that was designed for lay people. (What good would a doctor’s kit be to a Boy Scout leader?) You left a plan with someone who wasn’t going on the hike with you. You did everything you could to be prepared.

IMO, refusing the testing isn’t going into it with your eyes open. It’s jumping in with your eyes closed, hoping for the best.

Either way is good. It’s a personal choice.

 

[seekerz]

Every decision involves weighing risks. Not all DS kids are alike; some have more risky health conditions than others and may require different interventions. I guess the point I’m making is that it’s not for us to judge if amnio is justified in a particular case. The general principle I think should be that the risk from doing nothing should outweigh the risk of amnio. In the final analysis, it’s up to the parents to make the best decision using the information given to them.

 

[wanner47]

No, I didn’t have the test done with any of my pregnancies.

I could see why some pro-lifers would want it, though – it would be good to know ahead of time if you were having a Downs baby just so you could prepare mentally, if nothing else, and start reaching out to support networks prior to the baby’s birth.

 

[The_Smiter]

The axe you carry into the woods could make a prepared comfortable night for you, by allowing you to cut a little wood. Then again, it could, in very rare cases, cause your fellow boy scout’s death when he accidently walks in front of it while you’re swinging. As you said, you can never be prepared for everything.

There might be specific tests that have more risk than others, but as you said the risk is still so incredibly small.

If we were never willing to take any risks, we wouldn’t do anything. In fact, your parents wouldn’t have let you into the woods, prepared or not, since they couldn’t know for sure whether you would come out alive. The risks of hiking in the woods and camping overnight, which are much greater than the risk of the testing, wouldn’t be worth it.

If you were lost in the woods, or others thought you might be in danger, they would have sent the helicopters out.

If they thought that the path might have something very dangerous on it, they would have cleared it first to make sure.

Hikers today use GPS.

Technology good.

You seem to have taken my analogy and made a specious argument from it. There is always a possibility that something bad may happen, even if one is prepared. Let me respond to your axe analogy -

We take the axe into the woods to use appropriately and safely. We do not leave it lying around to get stepped on nor do we swing it around willy-nilly and hit people with it unintentionally. We are safe and responsible in its use and care. Accidents could happen, but we know what the axe is used for and how it is to be used and cared for properly. We oil it, sharpen it, and make it servicable. Used properly the axe will be a great tool for many years to come. However, if the axe were to cause undue harm to users or people standing by on a regular basis, there are alternatives for cutting the wood - saw, picking up fallen wood, burning dried animal dung, binding pine needles into bundles for fuel, etc. The breakdown occurs in making the comparison to amnio on your part in that there is no possibility that with proper use of the axe that an intended injury or death would occur. Accidental death to be sure. In the case of amnio there is a statsitical probability (and certain experiential facts) that show there is definitely potential life-threatening harm that could be done to a child. I have already conceded that there are times when the test could be used to save the child’s life and bring it to term. The main point that I am making is that it is the intent of the parents that determines when it is permissible. Doing the test to merely confirm or deny existing problems that cannot be resolved in utero is an exercise in vanity.

I realize that my analogy is not perfect. And continuing to use it ad reductio absurdum serves no ultimate good. The brass tacks of the matter are that barring life-threatening reasons for the child, amnio testing servfes to only mollify a parents fears and worries and takes us away from the idea that we should be trusting in God that He will provide for us and that we should be praying to both know and do more of His will.
The 50/50 split on this poll does concern me if we are presenting ourselves as faithful Catholics. Falling on the positive side of life issues is more than simply being against abortion and euthanasia. It means respecting all life from conception to natural death.

I agree that technology is good. However - nuclear medicine good. Nuclear bomb bad. Intent and how you use it. That is what we will answer for with respect to our discoveries of God’s Creation.

 

[The_Smiter]

“We went in with our eyes open, our hearts hopeful, and our minds at peace with the fact that we had done all that we could and we were going to enjoy the ride.”

But didn’t you know the weather forcast? There’s no way your leader would’ve taken you on the hike if a hurricaine, tornado, or blizzard were forcasted. You knew what time of year it was. You knew where you were walking–you would pack differently for a January hike in Maine than you would for Florida–and you packed accordingly. No one would take a parka on a hike in southern Florida in July. You knew how far you were going to walk. You knew who you were walking with. You had a start point and an end point. You had, as you said, an emergency kit that was designed for lay people. (What good would a doctor’s kit be to a Boy Scout leader?) You left a plan with someone who wasn’t going on the hike with you. You did everything you could to be prepared.

IMO, refusing the testing isn’t going into it with your eyes open. It’s jumping in with your eyes closed, hoping for the best.

Either way is good. It’s a personal choice.

It is a personal choice with universal imnplications. As Catholics it is not just about what we want but why we want it and why we should or should not want it.

Basic point - amnio tresting to assuage fear is not and excuse for any percentage chance of spontaneous miscarriage.

If AFP tests or other such tests indicate that severe problems that have a remedy in utero exist, then amnio may be warranted to pursue further treatment that will improve the chances of a baby’s overall health. But the mais issue being presented in this thrtead has been Down’s Syndrome (opther issues have presented themselves, such as spina bifida as well). But in the case of DS, there is nothing that can be done for the child. Performing amnio only presents a risk to the child that is simply not necessary. It only seeks to make parents feel better and know for certain that problems do or do not exist. If there is a likelyhood of DS, prepare for it. If it comes to be then the situation can be handled. If not, then parents can thank God for His mercies and grace and move on with life.

I posit a case wherein the test is performed because DS is suspected. As a result of the test there is a miscarriage. The parents discover that the test was negative and that the initial AFP test was a false positive. This is not a situation I would want to be in knowing that my overriding concern had been for my comfort of knowledge rather than the baby’s safety.

Again, admittedly, these issues are very troubling at times and emotional to be sure. But it really is 23rd Psalm time when it comes to this kind of thinking and action.