New prenatal blood tests can check fetal DNA, raising ethical questions

[Natsku]

I agree with the concern about the accurace of the tests, otherwise I don't see a problem with them. Some parents want to know in advance so they can be prepared and some will want to have the choice early about keeping the pregnancy going.

I refused the NT scan and the 12 week screening blood tests though because I was worried that if they did indicate that Maria would have Downs or another chromosome problem that I would make a decision that I might regret later. I just don't think I'm a strong enough person to cope with the thought throughout pregnancy that my baby might have a health issue whereas other parents would find it better to know and prepare.

 

[lhancock90]

I refused the current tests because of how vague it can be and also because i didn't want to know, i knew it would never of affected my decision and i have my own reasons for never terminating where possible.
But i agree, yes it can help prepare for the situation and it means termination would happen earlier rather then later.

 

[indy and lara]

These tests won't be compulsary but if you want to have testing then I think that it can only be a good thing.

 

[Yammas]

My friends cousin had downs and she was still a happy and bubbly little baby but again I suppose that comes down to the severity of the condition

I think I'd like to have the chance to know so I can prepare and as someone said above people have terminated preganacies for a lot less so if the test is more accurate then at least it will stop a lot of uneeded terminations, its terrible to think that people have been told that their baby had DS and decided to end the pregnancy when it may have turned out that they havent.

 

[Ramen]

My only concern was that insurance companies may use this information to deny payment. Up until recently newborns could be denied coverage on their parents plans due to pre-existing conditions like Houston Tracy was when he was born with a heart defect. I don't think it's a reach to think your insurance will attempt to protect their pocket books if your child fails the screening.

 

[Sarahkka]

My only concern was that insurance companies may use this information to deny payment. Up until recently newborns could be denied coverage on their parents plans due to pre-existing conditions like Houston Tracy was when he was born with a heart defect. I don't think it's a reach to think your insurance will attempt to protect their pocket books if your child fails the screening.

Wow!

Didn't even think of that.
That is quite a chilling thought, indeed!

 

[Nathyrra]

I personally think more should be done to educate people regarding Down Syndrome. When my son got the diagnosis at a day old, a million things went through my mind, all misconceived ideas that I'd had through media, life w/e. It was only after research and learning from my absolutely adorable son that it was certainly not a bad thing to have Down Syndrome. Being different doesn't make you less. And having DS doesn't equal unhealthy. I'm very fortunate in the fact that my son is 100% healthy, except he has an extra chromesome.

There are huge advancements coming to light now that will greatly help these children in the future.

Saying that, I'm not against the tests, I'm not even against CVS or Amniocentesis. I've had an amnio myself in this pregnancy. Preparing yourself for something that may or may not happen should be your personal choice. I do think though, alot of women are having abortions (90%) because of Down Syndrome but aren't being fed all the facts. Just horror stories and aged perceptions.

 

[discoclare]

My only thoughts are will these be accurate? Because the tests the currently have, the NT screen, etc, are known to not be very accurate. I know of 3 people personally who had results saying they had a high chance of having a DS baby, one even went on to have the amnio saying their baby did in fact have DS, and their babies were born without it. I would just hate for these new tests to come out and have them be as inaccurate as the current ones, causing a lot of unnecessary termination or stress to new parents.

I just have to say that I read on here a lot (especially in 1st tri) about current screening tests such as combined testing being "inaccurate" or "rubbish tests". The current tests have a lot of false positive results (people being given high risk results when the baby does not have Down's). This does not mean the test is crap! This means the test is good. It is not a diagnostic test, it is a SCREENING test, and I think people fail to clearly understand that. It is supposed to pick up more potentially positive results (in a reasonably uninvasive manner) and hopefully not miss positives. Yes this can cause anxiety but it's better than giving people the option of either a dignostic test (which are invasive) or nothing. If you are high "risk" you can then choose to go for the diagnostic test (CVS or amnio) which should give you a result either way, or you can opt not have a diagnostic test.

Regarding your friend who had a positive amnio and a non-Down's baby, that is pretty surprising! They count the chromosomes in the diagnostic test and TBH anyone can count. So you're saying they counted too many chromosomes (which is harder to believe than missing one, as a positive result should be subjected to more checks). I would be interested to know what kind of trained staff were working in the lab and what kind of accreditation it was under. The other possibility is that her sample was mixed up with someone else's. If it was me I would have taken this further, if only for the lab to come under some scruntiny about their working practices and minimise the chances of something like this happening.

Personally, I am pro giving people the choice of screening tests. You don't have to have even the screening test if you don't want, certainly it was something my partner and I discussed before we went for our 12 week scan thinking about whether we wanted that kind of information, and if we did want it what kind of decisions we would make after that. I completely respect the decisions of those who do not want to have either screening or diagnostic tests such as these in pregnancy.

 

[Ashley8806]

My only thoughts are will these be accurate? Because the tests the currently have, the NT screen, etc, are known to not be very accurate. I know of 3 people personally who had results saying they had a high chance of having a DS baby, one even went on to have the amnio saying their baby did in fact have DS, and their babies were born without it. I would just hate for these new tests to come out and have them be as inaccurate as the current ones, causing a lot of unnecessary termination or stress to new parents.

I just have to say that I read on here a lot (especially in 1st tri) about current screening tests such as combined testing being "inaccurate" or "rubbish tests". The current tests have a lot of false positive results (people being given high risk results when the baby does not have Down's). This does not mean the test is crap! This means the test is good. It is not a diagnostic test, it is a SCREENING test, and I think people fail to clearly understand that. It is supposed to pick up more potentially positive results (in a reasonably uninvasive manner) and hopefully not miss positives. Yes this can cause anxiety but it's better than giving people the option of either a dignostic test (which are invasive) or nothing. If you are high "risk" you can then choose to go for the diagnostic test (CVS or amnio) which should give you a result either way, or you can opt not have a diagnostic test.

Regarding your friend who had a positive amnio and a non-Down's baby, that is pretty surprising! They count the chromosomes in the diagnostic test and TBH anyone can count. So you're saying they counted too many chromosomes (which is harder to believe than missing one, as a positive result should be subjected to more checks). I would be interested to know what kind of trained staff were working in the lab and what kind of accreditation it was under. The other possibility is that her sample was mixed up with someone else's. If it was me I would have taken this further, if only for the lab to come under some scruntiny about their working practices and minimise the chances of something like this happening.

Personally, I am pro giving people the choice of screening tests. You don't have to have even the screening test if you don't want, certainly it was something my partner and I discussed before we went for our 12 week scan thinking about whether we wanted that kind of information, and if we did want it what kind of decisions we would make after that. I completely respect the decisions of those who do not want to have either screening or diagnostic tests such as these in pregnancy.

I understand that those are screening tests, and everything can be wrong. I was just stating that after hearing a lot of false positives on these tests I would question whether these would be more accurate or just the same, possibly causing unnecessary stress, or termination. I'm not against them - I had one done this pregnancy as well. I just knew that if it came back with a high risk, it might not be right because of these cases.

As for my friend that had a positive result - he is 3 years old and they are still battling with the hospital/lab that gave them the results.

 

[discoclare]

I understand that those are screening tests, and everything can be wrong. I was just stating that after hearing a lot of false positives on these tests I would question whether these would be more accurate or just the same, possibly causing unnecessary stress, or termination. I'm not against them - I had one done this pregnancy as well. I just knew that if it came back with a high risk, it might not be right because of these cases.

As for my friend that had a positive result - he is 3 years old and they are still battling with the hospital/lab that gave them the results.

OK I see what you mean, I am just so used to hearing on here that the screening tests are crap and useless. My understanding is that, yes, there would be far fewer false positives and therefore less anxiety, as these tests are looking directly at numbers of chromosomes (in the same way amnio or CVS are) rather than surrogate markers of Down's such as PAPP-A and bHCG levels and the nuchal fold measurement (which can be quite subjective to measure in itself). Thus the test should be more specific.

It good that your friend is pursuing her false result as the lab at least should do their own investigation of what they are doing in their department.

 

[CMarie]

I personally wouldn't get this blood test done (assuming it's a choice) because it goes against my ethical beliefs. That baby is still MY baby regardless of any disorder it may or may not have and I would love and care of it unconditionally