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

[Corki]

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.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier. Almost half of all DS babies are born with heart defects. More than 10% have intestinal problems and DS babies are much more susceptible to infections. To say “well if the baby has Downs Syndrome, there’s nothing you can do anyway” is irresponsible. If you find out the baby has DS, the doctor can monitor heart development closely with high def ultra sound. If a heart defect is found, neonatal specialists can be available to properly care for the baby when born. Not every hospital has neonatal heart specialists on call for deliveries.

 

[kalt]

You seem to have a definite view, and even thought your analogy proves your point wrong, you’re sticking to it.

That’s good, too. As I said, the testing is a personal choice. If you don’t approve of it, don’t have it done.

To claim, though, that the testing is inherently bad, is wrong.

In your rebuttal you mentioned that the axe and nuclear technology, used correctly, are good things. Well, so is the testing when it’s used correctly.

Correct use, however, doesn’t eliminate all risk. That scout can still walk in front of your axe.

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.

 

[kalt]

" Doing the test to merely confirm or deny existing problems that cannot be resolved in utero is an exercise in vanity."

I’m not sure how you’re defining “vanity”.

Preparing yourself for a baby with special needs isn’t “…an exercise in vanity”.

Vain

1: having no real value : idle , worthless
2: marked by futility or ineffectualness : unsuccessful , useless
3archaic : foolish , silly
4: having or showing undue or excessive pride in one’s appearance or achievements

 

[LilyM]

" Doing the test to merely confirm or deny existing problems that cannot be resolved in utero is an exercise in vanity."

I’m not sure how you’re defining “vanity”.

Preparing yourself for a baby with special needs isn’t “…an exercise in vanity”.

Vain

1: having no real value : idle , worthless
2: marked by futility or ineffectualness : unsuccessful , useless
3archaic : foolish , silly
4: having or showing undue or excessive pride in one’s appearance or achievements

Absolutely - it’s no ways vain or pointless to want to know what the future holds healthwise for yourself or a loved one, and know for certain rather than just relying on guesswork.

That child is going to need all sorts of healthcare and other things, and the more forewarning parents and doctors can get about it the better the child’s chances of a normal life, and indeed of living long at all.

As for the risk of miscarriage - even the simplest medical procedures carry all sorts of different risks, including always the risk of death to some degree. In this case you just have to, as with every procedure done while pregnant, carefully weigh the likelihood of a miscarriage against the undoubtedly great benefits the knowledge resulting from the test can give you.

 

[BOBKAT]

As the mother of a 13 year old with Down Syndrome and a typical 11 year old niether myself nor my doctor suggested and amino. I did not know that Annie had Down Syndrome before she was born and after she was born I was so glad I ddn’t know. And when I got pregnant with Bobby it was a non issue, by God;s wonderful grace all was well with him. I also believed I was blessed with great doctors. So I really see know need for this unless you of course cannot trust in God’s will.

God Bless

Kathleen

 

[seekerz]

As the mother of a 13 year old with Down Syndrome and a typical 11 year old niether myself nor my doctor suggested and amino. I did not know that Annie had Down Syndrome before she was born and after she was born I was so glad I ddn’t know. And when I got pregnant with Bobby it was a non issue, by God;s wonderful grace all was well with him. I also believed I was blessed with great doctors. So I really see know need for this unless you of course cannot trust in God’s will.

God Bless

Kathleen

That was you choice, but don’t imply that someone making a different choice trusts God less than you.

God gave us the intelligence to develop technology - it’s not our enemy. Amniocentesis has saved many, many lives; arguably, probably more than the miscarriages it’s caused.

If my baby was at risk for a condition that needed immediate life-saving medical treatment, I’d want to trust God that the amnio necessary to diagnose it would not cause a miscarriage.

 

[SeekerJen]

As the mother of a 13 year old with Down Syndrome and a typical 11 year old niether myself nor my doctor suggested and amino. I did not know that Annie had Down Syndrome before she was born and after she was born I was so glad I ddn’t know. And when I got pregnant with Bobby it was a non issue, by God;s wonderful grace all was well with him. I also believed I was blessed with great doctors. So I really see know need for this unless you of course cannot trust in God’s will.

God Bless

Kathleen

Wow, what a rude and uncharitable thing to say. Judgemental much?

 

[The_Smiter]

This is the point I was trying to make earlier. Almost half of all DS babies are born with heart defects. More than 10% have intestinal problems and DS babies are much more susceptible to infections. To say “well if the baby has Downs Syndrome, there’s nothing you can do anyway” is irresponsible. If you find out the baby has DS, the doctor can monitor heart development closely with high def ultra sound. If a heart defect is found, neonatal specialists can be available to properly care for the baby when born. Not every hospital has neonatal heart specialists on call for deliveries.

Can’t allo of the things you suggest that need to be monitored be doen through other means that are not amnio testing? Heart monitoring for development, etc.? Does amnio make any of those things more clear? I am a layman, but I don’t think that is the case.

 

[The_Smiter]

You seem to have a definite view, and even thought your analogy proves your point wrong, you’re sticking to it.

That’s good, too. As I said, the testing is a personal choice. If you don’t approve of it, don’t have it done.

To claim, though, that the testing is inherently bad, is wrong.

In your rebuttal you mentioned that the axe and nuclear technology, used correctly, are good things. Well, so is the testing when it’s used correctly.

Correct use, however, doesn’t eliminate all risk. That scout can still walk in front of your axe.

Again - you take analogy to a point where it becomes specious.

Next, my analogy does not prove my point wrong. It proves your point wrong. There is no need to restate it has been said. I do not want to engage in an argument about styles of comparison. The case as a real world example is clear enough on its own as a life issue.

You are right - we disagree. But where you state that it is a personal choice and that people can make them according to their needs, I am saying that our personal needs are not always the best judge of what our actions should be.

An infertile couple might want children and feel the need to participate in invitro fertilization. The Church directs us to place our trust and faith in God and allow natural conception to have a chance to occur. While the Church has not made any statement that is definitive on something lioke and amnio test, neither am I.

Using the technology in a good pursuit is good. Nuclear medicine does help, but it also has a chance to fail or cause more harm. That is a risk. But as I have said earlier - the distinction in this case is that the life in question is an innocent - and that does make our decisions on its behalf more serious. In cases where amnio could be used to aid in the betterment of the health of the child, then it might be something that parents choose and accept the risk on behalf of the child. HOWEVER - many of the posters on this thread are stating that their ONLY concern would be to “prepare” themselves mentally for the birth of a child that is/may not be completely healthy. That is the distinction that I am trying to make with regard to this discussion. Just because the testing is available and the parents are willing to accept risk, does not mean that the test is automatically justified. And simply because the Church has no clear decision or instruction on amnio testing specipically, does not mean that it is automatically a personal choice that fgalls in the realm of prudence. We must weigh our decisions - especially life issue decision - through the prism of our faith and Church teaching - not simply our personal choice.

 

[The_Smiter]

I’m not sure how you’re defining “vanity”.

Preparing yourself for a baby with special needs isn’t “…an exercise in vanity”.

Vain

1: having no real value : idle , worthless
2: marked by futility or ineffectualness : unsuccessful , useless
3archaic : foolish , silly
4: having or showing undue or excessive pride in one’s appearance or achievements

I guess I am using the Biblical and dogmatic idea of vanity and not Merriam-Webster’s version.

The virtue that combats vanity (pride, hubris) is humility. We should want to know God’s will and what our place in it is. Sometime that means not necesarily taking all of the action that is available to us in a particular situation, but rather being still and listening to God.

Amnio testing does not necessarily meet the M-W definition that you provide, but neither is it free from rebuke or concern because it is medically available and would reveal more knowledge to you. There was a tree in the garden as well.

 

[DJgang]

I answered Yes.

The simple blood test, yes, I have.

An Amino, no, I would not do.

I did it to only prepare myself if we were to have a Down’s baby, not to even make a consideration to terminate.

Dana

 

[Corki]

Can’t allo of the things you suggest that need to be monitored be doen through other means that are not amnio testing? Heart monitoring for development, etc.? Does amnio make any of those things more clear? I am a layman, but I don’t think that is the case.

What the amnio does is to determine who needs the additional tests. False positives with amnio for DS are pretty rare since the actual chromosomes are examined. The triple screen, as a comparison, tests positive (or at least it did when I was last pregnant) about 80% of the time if the mother is over 35.

We don’t have an unlimited amount of medical resources. High def heart screening is expensive and would have to be performed several times during a pregancy to monitor heart development. So, yes, you could just have every mother over 35 go and get several heart screens on the baby but it is more logical to have the screens available for the babies who are truly at risk for heart defects.

So, no, amnio isn’t the only way to diagnose a heart defect. But, yes, the amnio makes the diagnosis more clear and focused.

 

[Oscarthecat]

As the mother of a 13 year old with Down Syndrome and a typical 11 year old niether myself nor my doctor suggested and amino. I did not know that Annie had Down Syndrome before she was born and after she was born I was so glad I ddn’t know. And when I got pregnant with Bobby it was a non issue, by God;s wonderful grace all was well with him. I also believed I was blessed with great doctors. So I really see know need for this unless you of course cannot trust in God’s will.
God Bless

Kathleen

There are several religious groups that reject medical technology because they believe it interferes with God’s will. There are also several religous groups that reject the use of most other types of technology.

But the Catholic Church is certainly not one of them.

We are called to use our talents and achievements to participate in God’s will more fully- and our talents and achievements include our medical technology.

Parents who use this test to decide to abort their child are clearly acting in violation of God’s Will and, much less, showing a lack of trust.

However, parents who want this test done in order to prepare for the birth of a child with special needs could be demonstrating their desire to participate in God’s Will as best they can.

If you really believe what you said, then why bother ever going to a doctor? For that matter, why bother looking before crossing the street?

 

[seekerz]

There are several religious groups that reject medical technology because they believe it interferes with God’s will. There are also several religous groups that reject the use of most other types of technology.

But the Catholic Church is certainly not one of them.

We are called to use our talents and achievements to participate in God’s will more fully- and our talents and achievements include our medical technology.

Parents who use this test to decide to abort their child are clearly acting in violation of God’s Will and, much less, showing a lack of trust.

However, parents who want this test done in order to prepare for the birth of a child with special needs could be demonstrating their desire to participate in God’s Will as best they can.

If you really believe what you said, then why bother ever going to a doctor? For that matter, why bother looking before crossing the street?

Your post just conjured up pictures of the faithful navigating city streets blindfolded - and uninsured of course!

 

[Corki]

As the mother of a 13 year old with Down Syndrome and a typical 11 year old niether myself nor my doctor suggested and amino. I did not know that Annie had Down Syndrome before she was born and after she was born I was so glad I ddn’t know. And when I got pregnant with Bobby it was a non issue, by God;s wonderful grace all was well with him. I also believed I was blessed with great doctors. So I really see know need for this unless you of course cannot trust in God’s will.
God Bless

Kathleen

Scary flashback! I had an ex-boyfriend that believed that you shouldn’t go to doctors because that showed you did not trust God to heal illness. This is NOT the view of the Catholic Church.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Testing should have a purpose. I don’t know of anyone that would disagree with this.

So what is the purpose of genetic testing for abnormalities in pre-born babies? Is it to provide medical care to to eliminate those that have the potential abnormalities to be murdered? There are only a couple of procedures that can be corrected in utero. Spina bifita being one of them.

Any test that I would accept has to have a positive reason to be done. So if the only thing that was offered if I had a medical condition was a poison pill then why take the test if I am not going to take the pill that is offered?

I am waiting for the time when a couple refuses to have an abortion when testing showed potential serious and costly problems is refused coverage for the care the child needs. This could lead to refusal of payment if the couple refuses to have the tests. Which could lead to any number of other forced or refused treatments.

 

[Phemie]

I voted ‘no’.

When I was pregnant with DS1 they tested for alpha-feta-protein. It wasn’t part of the routine prenatal testing I was familiar with and when I asked I was told that in that area of the province they had an abnormally high number of children born with neural tube defects, primarily spina bifida, so AFP was a routine test.

I informed the doctor at that time that even if the test showed an elevated AFP there would be no amnio since I was well aware of the risks. I wouldn’t do it for neural tube, I wouldn’t do it for Down’s Syndrome.

 

[LilyM]

Those posters talking about trusting to God remind me of the story, usually told as a joke, about the man stuck on the roof of his house in a fast-rising flood. A boat, a helicopter and a plane each come past offering to take the man to safety, each time he says ‘no, I belive in God, God will save me!’

Finally the flood rises too far, the man drowns, dies, and goes to the pearly gates, where He meets God. He says ‘God, I trusted in you, why didn’t you save me?’ With a sigh, God says ‘Well, I sent you a boat, a helicopter and a plane, what more did you want?’

Moral is - trust to God to help us, for sure, but realise that that help comes most often through the ORDINARY means He’s given us, including ordinary medical science for matters of health.

 

[LilyM]

I voted ‘no’.

When I was pregnant with DS1 they tested for alpha-feta-protein. It wasn’t part of the routine prenatal testing I was familiar with and when I asked I was told that in that area of the province they had an abnormally high number of children born with neural tube defects, primarily spina bifida, so AFP was a routine test.

I informed the doctor at that time that even if the test showed an elevated AFP there would be no amnio since I was well aware of the risks. I wouldn’t do it for neural tube, I wouldn’t do it for Down’s Syndrome.

I don’t know about spina bifida, but with Downs the purpose of the testing isn’t just to do with what happens to the child AFTER it is born. It’s BECAUSE in a DS pregnancy, this early knowledge can make the difference between a successful and unsuccessful delivery. Not having the testing could in fact mean the child dies avoidably in utero or during the birth process. Certainly something to factor into any mother’s considerations.

 

[The_Smiter]

There are several religious groups that reject medical technology because they believe it interferes with God’s will. There are also several religous groups that reject the use of most other types of technology.

But the Catholic Church is certainly not one of them.

We are called to use our talents and achievements to participate in God’s will more fully- and our talents and achievements include our medical technology.

Parents who use this test to decide to abort their child are clearly acting in violation of God’s Will and, much less, showing a lack of trust.

However, parents who want this test done in order to prepare for the birth of a child with special needs could be demonstrating their desire to participate in God’s Will as best they can.

If you really believe what you said, then why bother ever going to a doctor? For that matter, why bother looking before crossing the street?

Your response is really being unfair to the poster and others who have stated their opposition to amnio in some circumstances. No one on this thread is advocating what you are purporting that they have. There are no Luddites here. You are correct with your comment that intent is important, but it is not the only factor to be considered. Just because you do not INTEND to do harm, does not mean that you may necessarily proceed with any procedure.

Of course people go to a doctor - for care, advice, and professional iontervention when necessary and warranted. I will say this again - PREPARATION is not a sufficient reason to proceed with an amnio test. If blood tests indicate DS, it is not a suffieient reason to proceed with amnio simply because you want to know for certain. No one is stating that the Catholic Church or individual Catholics should not avail themselves of medical technology - only that the application of such technology be used in accordance with and in consideration of life and the protection of such.

And I was at a Life Chain intersection today and despite all of our prayers and good intentions - I still looked both ways before crossing.