sdb@shark.UUCP (Steven Den Beste) (09/01/83)
Liz Allen posted an article from a "pro-life" group which condemned amniocentesis. In there was a statement: "Gordon finds that couples who who clearly understand the statistics and the relative risks in amniocentesis invariably decline the procedure." Now that is a pretty strong statement - "invariably"? Not one couple in the Entire U.S. has Ever had amniocentesis when the risks were explaned? I suspect that in the minds of those who published it, the statement is really true; consider: If anyone would use this devil-spawned technique, it must be because they don't understand how evil it is. If they use it, they don't understand it fully. QED If they understand it fully, they don't use it. With respect to the "danger", many of the dangers cited were dangers that an otherwise-normal fetus mght be spontaneously aborted. If one subtracts that (i.e. if one does not consider that a "danger"), I bet that amniocentesis becomes safer than the chances of having a deformed baby in the high-risk group! (Also keep in mind that the procedure is being improved all the time.) Just why is this group against amniocentesis? Obviously - because amniocentesis is a useless technique unless one is willing to folow through with an abortion based on the results, and of course abortions are immoral. Steve Den Beste Tektronix [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekecs!shark!sdb
liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (09/03/83)
In respone to Steve Den Beste's article on amniocentesis. I think that when Gordon (a doctor quoted in the Center for Life article) made that statement, he just meant of the couples he knew about -- not a broad group of people probably. He was probably just going on his observations as we do when we say that a particular system loses -- we mean that the people we know of who have used it have had a hard time. Besides, given the statistics he sites, you can see why couples would decline the procedure. I don't think the article was meant as anything except a warning to those who are undergoing or being advised to undergo that procedure. I don't think anyone views that technique as "devil-spawned" (even if it is used sometimes for the wrong reasons -- some couples select for the sex of the child that way...). It's just that these days most women considered as risks automatically undergo the procedure. I know of women who have had problems persuading their doctors that they did not want to have it done. It might be possible that amniocentesis is "safer" if you don't consider the risks to the unborn, but I don't think many couples want to risk the health of their unborn if they want to have a baby. Even if they don't believe that the unborn is really human yet, they see the potential and don't want any harm to come to a healthy fetus. It is true that the group who published this article is pro-life (as I am (as you no doubt know...)), but I think there is a little more to it than that. Amniocentesis is largely done with the idea in mind to abort a fetus that is not healthy (or of the wrong sex...), but I don't think a doctor would say that that is the only reason. The first time I heard about it was in an article in Science '81 (Jan/Feb) which described the procedure and favored doing it whether or not the woman would consider having an abortion. They argued that it's better to know that the baby was going to be defective so that the couple can be prepared for that possibility rather than waiting 9 months and finding out so suddenly. Actually, from rereading the article, they were not advocating amniocentesis as a procedure all high risk women should undergo unless blood tests had showed a high level of AFP (alphafetoprotein). In fact, part of the beginning of the article reads (without permission, of course!): "Two by two the expectant parents nervously take their seats... Their ... common bond is the anxiety that shows in their restless hadns and fretful eyes. They are worried about the helth of their unborn children. "So they have come to this hospital clinic in Stony Brook, NY where doctors can tell months before their babies are due whether the infants are the victims of potentially severe defects of the spinal cord and brain. Unlike the more costly and potentially dangerous genetic screening procedures that involve withdrawing fluid from the womb, the program here begins with an innocuous blood test for ... AFP." The article goes on to recommend a different procedure which would be used for all pregnant women. Their statistics go as follows. 0. Start with 1000 pregnancies. 1. AFP screening -- blood test yields 950 negative. 2. AFP screening again on the 50 several days later -- 20 negative. 3. Do ultrasound testing on remaining 30 -- 15 had high AFP levels because of incorrect fetal age, twins, or other reasons. 4. Amniocentesis on the other 15 -- 13-14 are cleared. 5. Repeat ultrasound and amniocentesis with test for actylcholinesterase. 6. 1 or 2 shown to have neural tube defects. Notice that amniocentesis is not done until there is a 1-2 chance in 15 that there is a problem. This procedure seems better since less harm is likely to be done and fewer fetuses aborted by accident. The last few paragraphs are telling of the ethical problems surrounding the procedure: "But the most difficult question surrounding AFP screening and future broad-based genetic testing has little to do with economics or regulatory considerations. As we learn to detect more imperfections and eliminated more fetuses, will we in fact be losing more than we gain? It is a question that's powerfully framed every week at a clinic 300 miles from Stony Brook in Washington, DC. "In the middle of the pastel yellow waiting room on a Monday afternoon, a young mother sits with her son, Andrew, a two-and-a-half-year-old with a large round face, big brown eyes, and a joyful smile. His mother boasts that Andrew demonstrated the intellectual capacity of a four-year-old on a recent intelligence test. Lifting him momentarily, she reveals the only outward signs of a health probelm: Andrew's legs droop lifelessly. Spina bifida has paralyzed them. "Here at Georgetown University Hospital's spina bifida clinic, parents learn to cope with and care for their handicapped children. Few of them have undergone AFP screening, but every one of them who was asked said that it wouldn't have changed a thing. "'Every day Andrew does or says something that makes me thank God I have him,' says his mother, beaming. 'He's a blessing.'" You may want to read the article for yourself... -- -Liz Allen, U of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz.umcp-cs@Udel-Relay