did anyone hear that discussion about an increase in the number of Down's babies being born?

[edam]

Heard it in the trails for Woman's Hour but missed the programme. Apparently more babies are being born with Down's despite all the ante-natal testing. Surprised me as the impression from MN threads was that testing was leading more parents to abort for Down's. Kind of positive news on attitudes to SN for once? Maybe?

Some of the medida & some people are so ignorant about antenatal screening. People don't just have the tests to "search and destroy" (yes that's a quote from our local priest).
They have them to check the health and development of the baby, to be better informed. The baby might need medical attention at birth or even intervention during pregnancy.

Of course screening/amnio can lead to people chopssing to abort babies (possibly ones with Downs).

But babies aren't born DESPITE screening. Nonsense.

I'm a journalist, Sal, as are many posters on MN. In this specific case I think you are being overly cynical about journalism. I'll be interested to see what the programme tonight says but the news coverage sounds like honest reporting of an interesting story to me.

Downs Syndrome Association, who did a survey following up the stats, said it was a surprise to them, btw. So it clearly IS a story.

we just ticked the boxes for every test going, mainly for reasurance and so that our baby gets the proper interventions during the pregnancy and the birth and beyond. Although as far as the tests for Downs goes - we didnt have that just to be prepared (like many others do)we would have terminated the pregnancy.

Litchick
but would you say 'my asthmatic DD'. You probably wouldn't unless you were comparing her with a non-asthmatic sister.

And again asthma is not something that is regarded as globally defining a child or an individual.

that is the construct people can object to.

sounds like good news to me
By Litchick on Mon 24-Nov-08 15:00:33
But there was another couple with expecting a child with DS and they were very excited. They said they saw it as an opportunity to make new friends and look at life in another way...so not all doom and gloom.

what a lovely thing to say about having a baby with downs syndrome

Think Sal is right - the actual difference in terms of babies born with DS in 89 and now is tiny - a dozen or so more - not remotely statistically significant. More children with Ds will be conceived as we continue to have babies later, and many of those won't be detected in screening (my DD wasn't) but some will be, and of those some, some will be terminated. I would love to see those stats but don't think they are published.

That said, anything that puts 'DS not a big deal' message in mainstream media obv a good thing.

I think if people are having invasive tests to be 'prepared' they also need to be aware of the recent research that shows for every 3 babies with DS picked up by CVS/amnio 2 unaffected babies are lost.

Of course people will continue to decide to terminate. But at least with more of this sort of thing in the media they'll start to realise they are free to make a choice, they haven't been handed a sentence with no choice (as is often portrayed).

It's the difference between the sharp decrease in the first few years of antenatal testing - from 717 to 595 - and the current rate of 749 that is interesting. Not 749 minus 717.

so if sinclair is right and only a few more are being born

and potentially a large number more are being conceived due to increase in average ages of parents. (its possible, THOSE statistics would be interesting, and compared with number born would really give a true gauge of attitudes, much more telling than just the number being born)

then that would mean that terminations are up

92% of babies with DS are terminated sinclair.

More babies with DS have always been conceived to younger women (in absolute, not %, terms) than older women.

And the change is from 1989- when antenatal screening tests came in-so the age thing shouldn't factor too much in it.

Exactly edam- the interest is that since screening began the figures have climbed. ie -maybe people are more willing to knowingly have a child with DS. Although I'm not always a fan of inclusion I think it can work quite well for people with DS because their LD's are usually moderate rather than severe. I suppose if you grow up with someone with DS who goes onto take 9 or 10 GCSE's (yes I do know someone doing that) then you're not necessarily going to automatically believe the doom and gloom scenario dished out by the doctors.

but 717 out of how many detected
compared to 749 our of how many?
the percentage of detected babies with downs syndrome that are born or terminated would mean more than just the numbers born surely

also the numbers have to be compared to the overall increase in total babies born. There might be no significant change if that is also taken into account

or if population has increased by a lot then the increase in babies born with downs syndrome may actually be a decrease when related to total no of babies born

I have no idea, am not an expert, am just trying to make the point that this is a legitimate news story being reported in a responsible manner.

one suggestion I heard was that more mothers are older now, so they are deciding not to abort in case they don't get another chance for a child; and that the support they get is better now, less stigma.

And another suggestion was that many women are deciding simply not to have the tests.

"And another suggestion was that many women are deciding simply not to have the tests."

I know quite a few people who have done that having had a hideous time in a first pregnancy with tests.

good point Litchick

in the not so distant past, expectant mothers were expected to do as they were told and if the doc said they needed a test they were expected to have it and not complain or ask too many questions

people nowadays are better informed about what procedures involve and are encouraged to make choices for themselves

attitudes may be exactly the same and the only difference could be that people are making the choices they always would have taken had they been well informed and supported in whatever they chose

Sal - I thought that in fact the majority of babies born with ds in recent yars was to younger women, who were not being tested as much.

There have always been more babies with DS born to younger women- because although the %s are lower younger women have more babies.

Related and interesting article in the Sunday Times

My dh and I chose not have any type of screening during either of my pregnancies, purely because we just didn't feel that it would make any difference to us

Simplistic view I know.
To us a child is a child simple as that. Also it seems that the options are presented to couples at such a late time in the pregnancy that it must be an agonising decision to make.

But on the other hand information is much more widely collected and collated these days so who's to say that the stats aren't skewed anyway.

That is a very sad story, and for me it highlights the importance of counseling when any sort of test is undertaken, as well as before making such a momentous decision. It also shows that hindsight is a very powerful tool to beat oneself up with. Whatever the outcome this poor lady would have been at some point grieving the loss of a child.

The news story was (supposedly) based on the latest report from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register. www.wolfson.qmul.ac.uk/ndscr/reports/
Haven't read it through yet, so I've no other comments.