Thread about a thread sorry - but genetic counselling

[boringnickname]

Having read that horrible thread about genetic counselling, i wanted to ask the question - Does genetic counselling have a use? The consensus seems to be that it is a bad thing? It does have a tinge of eugenics about it?

I think there is a definate value of being able to screen for genetic conditions, especially if there is history. Not so a decision to terminate can be taken but so that parents can be prepared if there is a likelihood of problems but also to know there are no problems? rather than go through a whole pregnancy not knowing?

Also, i do not know if there is anything like this available but i would hope that one day, there woudl be the possibility of gene therapy in utero, this can only be a good thing?

I am sorry to start a thread about a thread, but that was never going to be a rational discussion as the OP was so vile, but i do think that genetic counselling/screening is useful.

I had tests for downs like im sure many of us had, being an older mother it was reassuring for me, if the results had shown a high possibility of my child having downs syndrome i would have still continued with the pregnancy but i would have been prepared.

Thing is as soon as you start to screen and identify certain conditions, you also start to eliminate those conditions because they are seen as 'problems'. The number of children born with Downs Syndrome has fallen since screening was introduced. OP - you sound very sensible and you know you wouldn't terminate - but lots of people would and either position is imo valid. The other thread has been deleted but the OP seemed to be labouring under the impression that hard and painful decisions and events could be avoided by counselling. Sadly that isn't the case. Genetic counselling identifies risks, it can't solve them - so parents either proceed with knowledge, proceed to pre implantation diagnosis of embryos (assuming that's possible for the condition concerned) which carries it's own ethical burden or parents terminate a pregnancy.

There's no getting away from the eugenics aspect here - it runs through every choice.

yabu for stating this thread.
what is the point of it, do you want to cause more hurt?

Yes, i agree with you Northern, it is a very difficult area. I suppose that the flip side could be that parents with genetic conditions may choose not to have children anyway if there is a significant chance of the condition being passed on. Those parents could benefit because they could get the reassurance that their baby is clear from the condition, of course if it isn't there is a crap decision to be made. In all honesty i just don't know how I feel about it, but i do think that there is the potential for treating certain conditions in utero and that really pushes me to think that it should continue.

2shoes - not in the least - why would i do that? I think that a sensible balanced discussion of the subject is useful. Of course it is emotive and im wanting to avoid the termination discussion as much as possible. The point of the thread is to highlight that genetic counselling is a positive thing, for many parents.

why start another thread.

people with medical problems know they have got them, and be told if there condition is herditary or not.

also i don't think you can prepare for a baby with disabilities, you can read every book and speak to many parents going through the same. However every child is diffrent even those with disabilities

I was put in the position of having to decide whether to continue with a pregnancy.

It was a serious chromosomal problem that indicated quality of life would have been almost negligible. Length of life was indeterminate but would would have been single figures if the pregnancy made it that far.

I ended the pregnancy and that decision will follow me to the grave. The labour and birth was the blackest day of my life.

Calling it "eugenics" is hurtful, but probably true and doesn't make me feel any better about it all. But then nothing ever will.

Just tread carefully on this OP. I know you don't want to step on anyone's toes but it's a very emotive issue.

then why post in AIBU?
why start a thread that will cause hurt after the last one.

What are pre marriage blood tests in the USA testing for incidentally ?

YouOldSlag i am sorry for you loss, what a tragic thing to have to make a descision on.

tough i also know someone who was told her baby would have downs but didn't. I also know someone who's sister was told her baby had downs, he did, her sister found it useful to emotionally prepare.

youoldslag I am so sorry for your loss - i think you make such a good point, you did what was right but what a horrible position for you to be in.

2shoes - AIBU just because its thread about a thread

Not wishing to cause hurt in any way

I tried to answer that thread but it was too late. firstly I think the whole argument falls apart really when one considers that Genetic Counselling DID NOT EXIST in 1989, when the boy was born. Just like I did not have an IPad when I was 10! The whole idea was incredibly naive.

Anyway, I had Down's Syndrome testing and I must be honest if it had been positive I probably would have considered a termination. I realise that people will think badly of me for this but my experiences in life are different and we are in this country alone with no family and not many friends for support.

I do agree that Gene Therapy in utero would be fantastic and to be able to rid ourselves of genetic diseases would be an incredible step forward for mankind. Of course it would take hundreds of years for this to happen as many many people would not go for this and entire cultures/mindsets would need to change.. which happens over time I think.

I just googled it (why didn't I do that first?) and apparently it is to check for syphilis!!

What exactly is genetic counselling?

AficanExport i don't think badly of you, there is many reason why people don't continue a pregnancy with a baby with down syndrome. It don't make you a bad person

African, i do not think we are looking at hundreds of years at all, i would be very surprised is we aren't very close to those sort of break throughs. On a very simplistic level, if there is a faulty gene, it is at least feasible to introduce a functioning one which if done at an earlier enough stage of development, will overcome the pre-existing defective bit of DNA. Of course not all conditions are caused by a single mutation and chromosomal abnormalities that cause conditions such as downs would not benefit from this.

The problem is, it could be viewed as hurtful to people with existing disabilities, it could also be viewed as discrimination by some. Screening out any disabilities to create a 'non disabled' world.

Having said that i am all for freedom of choice too, its dangerous ground to decide exactly where that choice should end and who is responsible for deciding.

I think Heyyyho, it is where decisions are made based on what is known about the genetics of certain conditions, whether to screen for those conditions in the foetus and then decisions made based on the results. So could be as simple as a couple where one person is a carrier for a specific condition would receive advice on the likelihood of passing that condition on. This may be done pre-pregnancy, there would be tests to see if both parents were carriers etc, so they may decide to not have a baby based on those results, its not just about genetic screening of the embryo. That is how i understand it at least.

I don't have a particular problem with the subject of this discussion. But placing it in AIBU, whatever the tenuous reason, is grim.

claw4 - that is right, it is not nice to think about screening out disabilities, especially when those, whilst often severe, still leave, with medical support quality of life. Sadly, there are conditions where a baby might go to term and have a very short and painful life (I am talking hours/days) and for me that would be a clear decision.

Pagwatch - you are right, will report and ask it to be moved or deleted, whatever MNHQ think is best i suppose

MrsMicawber - thanks for that, that is a really interesting post and has focused my thoughts. I think that genetic counselling may be getting confused with genetic screening. I dont think anyone could argue against what you are describing.