To think MN is taking a strange stance on the NIPT test?

[eeyoresgrumpierfriend]

Is it just me or is MN giving a lot of coverage to those opposing the new non invasive prenatal screening tests the NHS wants to introduce. Today's blog of the day, Sally Phillips at Blogfest and there was a guest post against screening a while ago too.

Full respect to these women and the choices they've made but isn't the crux of the argument about women's choice?

The NHS already screens for Down's, Edwards and Pateau's but the new test will be safer and can be done earlier. It's only going to be offered to women who would otherwise be advised to have amnios/CVS.

So it's a less invasive, faster, less scary, safer way of women getting the information they want to make an informed decision right for them.

Odd that MN's seem to be giving a platform to the anti-argument with no counter-balance?

According to the web, "the Don't Screen Us Out Campaign is led by international advocacy group Saving Down Syndrome". The Saving Down Syndrome website states quite clearly that it 'does not consider a diagnosis of Down Syndrome to be a reason for terminating a pregnancy'.

Ergo, the campaign is anti-choice and pro-life.

The arguments about how healthcare professionals present information are completely valid but a side show to what is really going on here.

This whole blanket 'doctors just want you to abort disabled babies' is ridiculous. Some hospitals may have these problems but I can guarantee you not all do.

I agree gruffalo. If a woman is weighing up
the decision whether or not to terminate for DS she doesn't need to also factor in the impact her decision, for her body, her life and her family is also having for population diversity.

And to people saying that nothing has changed except a safer, earlier test, that's just not true. In the past, you'd only be offered a CVS or an amnio if the basic triple test offered by the NHS suggested a high risk. As this test was wildly unreliable, lots of DS pregnancies went undetected. I'm not saying this was a good thing, but please don't say nothing has changed with the introduction of the NIPT - more foetuses with DS will be identified and, most likely, aborted because of it.
And yes, I am pro-choice, thanks very much.

I don't think it is a lazy argument: it's a valid one.

The fact that Down's syndrome might be eradicated is not a reason for someone to continue with a pregnancy they do not want.

Clearly, dialogue about how this news is shared and what information is shared is necessary but I don't see 'you can have a termination' as being influential. Indeed 'some people with Down's live a good life' could also be taken to be influential.

The pregnant woman has to be the one who decides.

But the NHS is only proposing to offer the NIPT test if the triple test suggests a high risk. Yes some people who didn't proceed with an amnio or CVS because they were afraid of the risks, will take up the NIPT test.

more foetuses with DS will be identified and, most likely, aborted because of it.

What is the problem with that though if it is what the woman has chosen?

Gruffalo, I posted my experience earlier on the thread & my experience was absolutely a Wikipedia printout put into my notes. Worse almost as it was about my already existing living child & this was a nuchal scan for a subsequent pregnancy.

I hate these types of threads actually as the feeling is always that should you think things should change with how the news is delivered, info given etc than you are not pro-choice. And I absolutely am pro choice. Horrible to feel you should be silenced for speaking about your own very real reality.

Out of interest and because it is somewhat relevant to the thread, is there a general consensus that aborting on gender grounds is acceptable if a woman feels a boy/girl is not right for her and her family?

And I posted mine earlier Slightly, which was completely different, actually for the same microdeletion your DC has. I didn't say it doesn't happen, I said it wasn't a blanket thing so don't imply I'm trying to silence anyone. My DD had the 22q microdeletion and an eventually fatal heart problem but they were prepared to fight for her until the very end if that was what I had chosen for her.

I believe it's none of my business in the slightest gone.

I hate these types of threads actually as the feeling is always that should you think things should change with how the news is delivered, info given etc than you are not pro-choice. And I absolutely am pro choice. Horrible to feel you should be silenced for speaking about your own very real reality.

My feelings exactly.

What would you do though? Force every woman coming through to watch a dvd showing the positive outcome?

No! But I would look honestly at the way screening termination is handled by medical professionals. As has been confirmed on this thread, HCP are under no illusions about why most screening is done. If it is positive, they assume you'll be having a termination and this is the 'current' a woman finds herself going down at the moment, even if she just started off wanting more information about her pregnancy. We should look at that and acknowledge it - some women on the thread have said they found it unhelpful and this is a view I've heard before.

In reality, the context for screening means that it tends not to be a simple offer of information. Medics tend to be pretty pragmatic and they know you're having screening because you want a 'healthy' baby.

That's very interesting gruffalo. I don't think we can afford to be like that as a society - practically or ethically.

I trust that if women don't want to be going down that path they are capable of saying otherwise and asking questions about the diagnosis. Everyone ignores the positive experiences people have had, myself included, in diagnosis.

Also the screening = only want a healthy baby is completely false as other people on the thread have said they had screening and continued their pregnancies with more knowledge.

Such an interesting debate and timely for me as I'm waiting for the test results from my combined screening right now.

I wish the NHS offered the NIPT. I'm going to be too late for the CVS so the amnio is my only option and I'm scared of the miscarriage chance of either of those anyway. I'm over 35 and the nuchal measurement was at the higher end so I'm expecting a 'high risk' result to be honest. I will be paying privately for the NIPT if that happens.

But I wouldn't abort either way, I just couldn't and that's my choice, but I just need to know. Another woman's alternative choice is just as valid and I think we all just want the facts to make our own decisions.

It's patronising to suggest that women would willy nilly decide to abort otherwise wanted babies because of this test. Yes it's possible more women would terminate but people never make these decisions lightly and to suggest they would is hugely undermining.

gone I am sure that gender based termination exists in the UK. I don't consider it my place to police termination and women's choices. It might be a sad concept, but it's an individual choice.

Sorry gruffalo only the first part of my post was aimed at yourself. The rest of it was just a general feeling. I'm sorry to read about your daughter. I'm forever grateful that DS doesn't have the associated heart condition.

Likewise, gruffalo. I'm sure some people do terminate for gender. It's not my business. Being pro choice means supporting womens right to terminate their pregnancy for whatever reason they choose.

when words like 'disgusting' are used to describe terminating DS babies - that isn't pro choice.

There are degrees of pro-choice. I don't think you should define other people as pro-choice or not according to your own criteria.

Terminating a pregnancy because you're not in a position to cope with a baby and terminating because there's a 'problem' with the baby (that is a difference as opposed to a 'problem', albeit one that has great implications for the parents) are different. There are big areas of overlap but they are different.

This may not work very well as an analogy, but thinking about euthanasia for MS vs euthanasia for autism - you might say that if you are pro-euthanasia then you must be ok with individuals opting to end their lives because they have either condition. I think it would be a pity if society accepted that though - IMO they should have responded to that scenario by asking why autism wasn't not better accommodated in our society and why it isn't more compatible with living in our communities, given that it's a difference and not necessarily a defect. The real ethical argument is not about euthanasia but about the reality of how we deal with difference as a society.

wasn't better accommodated

You can't compare screening for trisomies and screening (and subsequently terminating) for sex, gone. Why are you making such a comparison?

It's not the same and it's not acceptable. The field of medical ethics says it is not acceptable. And the consequences of sex selection has far reaching consequences that go far beyond the individual family. Look at India. Female foeticide has been going on for decades and now the sex ration in some regions is so off-kilter, women are being abducted and trafficked to supply wives to male-dominated regions.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20938125

I expect some people would argue that terminating for trisomies also has consequences on a population level. Again, I'd argue that it's not quite the same thing.

I would say that absolutely the same argument would apply for euthanizing female foetuses in a patriarchal society.

The field of medical ethics says it is not acceptable.

If we are going to close the door on debate by agreeing to abide by what the field of medical ethics says is comparable, I'm not sure what the point of the thread is.

Slightly I wish you and your DS all the best. When it was just the 22q deletion we were completely torn over what to do for the best but DD had HRHS which was rarer than HLHS amongst several other heart defects. As I said earlier my experience with Birmingham Fetal Medicine Centre and chromosomal abnormalities could not have been better. They were so supportive and I was not pushed in any direction, just given facts. Maybe this is the model more hospitals need.