Nuchal translucency (NT) scan

[loganberry12]

Hi as im 42 will i be offered a NT scan automatically?

I think Riven has a point re: ethics of testing. Ie, while I support the right for everyone to make their own decisions re: screening and termination, I think many people still use the screening tests for 'reassurance' without fully thinking through the implications of where they'd 'go next' on the testing rollarcoaster. The nuchal is still just a screening test, with many false positives (and negatives) and I think we need to acknowledge (reagrdless of where we stand on the ethics of screening) that many of us are driven by fear about disability and hence feel the need to screen. Ie. we wouldn't screen for the chances of having a baby with blue or green eyes as it's inconsequential, whereas in our culture (rightly or wrongly) disability is associated with fear and ignorance.
I think I've been on both sides of the coin - had amnio with dd1 due to false positive and several soft markers on scan, refused screening with dd2, had nuchal and bloods privately with dd3, and now 18 weeks pregnant with no. 4 (39 in May)and have refused all screening. For me I've finally accepted that I can't control everything and have adopted a 'what will be will be' (with wobbles along the way) much to the bemusement of my Consultant . I think like Riven I also have friends with DS (one of which used to drive me to the train station and was the computer tech at work - can't drive myself)and that this really opens your eyes (for me at least)about 'disability'.

I'm very glad we have screening available for DS and would go for screening for autism if it were available too. It doesn't mean I'd necessarily run straight out and have a termination (though I would be booking in for further, more accurate, tests) but at least I'd have some information on which to base any decision. There are plenty of people who choose to continue with their pregnancy if DS is confirmed or who choose not to have the screening in the first place.

Nekabu - only 8% of women who have a positive test for DS continue with their pregnancy. IMO I wouldn't call that "plenty of people".

OK, but 8% of those who test positive is probably a fair number across the UK and some don't go for the testing in the first place. I still am grateful for the testing and think overall that it's a good thing.

If those 8% are people who had an amnio then presumably they had testing with the idea that they would abort if the child had DS (otherwise why risk it?) So maybe some of those people were more comfortable with the idea of having a child with DS than they thought they would be before they got the result?

Although if you are 42 I can fully understand why you would want this in general from reading these boards the nuchal scan seems to cause a lot of people unneccessary worry over what is after all only a 'soft marker' for downs.

To be honest I'm quite grateful that it isn't offered round here. Use the money to treat people who are ill I say.

Why do these general information threads (started by people wanting information) always turn into (1) a discussion regarding the ethics of what the person is asking about, (2) a forum for people to say they have a child with the condition in question and want to dissuade the person from testing (else why hang out on the pregnancy thread?) and (3) an opportunity for people to question the person's motives.

Why can't people resist bringing these things up every time?

For information, no, it's not automatically offered and the cost seems to vary. Mine cost £200 (Chester).

Because it's mumsnet

(Sucks breath having read Mogwai's post, waiting for explosive backlash).
I guess if you're convinced that DS screening is wrong, you can't help saying so.

I'm convinced my house is a tip and I really shouldn't be spending time on MN, but I can't seem to resist, either...

And it's always refreshing and useful to get a wide variety of heart-felt opinion. It's what healthy debate is all about. For example, I value Riven's opinion a great deal although I wouldn't necessarily do what she would do. Different opinions give crucial insights into other aspects of an issue, that one might otherwise overlook due to blinkers (and yes, we all have them). Thank goodness MN is not a forum of bland banality in which people are not free to state their opinion or to disagree with others. If it became like that, that's when I'd stop coming here.

I think a lot of people want screening so they have time to get their heads around the additional responsibilities of having a disabled child. It gives you a good headstart and you can start making the right contacts and friends. Not everyone chooses termination.

However sometimes it's found that disabilities are so severe that it is unlikely a baby will live for more than a day or two anyway (eg little developed brain, major heart problems concurrent with other things, etc), and in those circumstances we should perhaps be less quick to judge those who choose to control the end of life rather than putting their baby through a potentially traumatic and painful experience in a less controlled manner. I think unless it has happened to you personally you should reserve judgement and try to show sensitivity, which is probably why late terminations are permitted in extreme circumstances.

The problem with the nuchal tho (I think this is worth stating as I have read misleading stories in the press) is that it gives a risk not a certainty.

Not knowledge, in other words.

Everything gives a risk - a lot depends on who is doing a test.

The advantage of a nuchal is that it can be done early on and if there is a serious risk of multiple health problems and disabilities you have the opportunity to pin the risk down doing other tests and/or terminate.

I think it's pretty gruesome, late termination, and I am not convinced it would be my choice either, but each family is different.

One of my friends had an undiagnosed DS baby (no scan) with a terrible heart condition that only lived 24 hours, and I am not sure they would want to go through all that again. Sometimes I think it can be more humane to anticipate things and to find ways to minimise suffering, in a dire situation like that. But nobody should be forced to do anything they feel is wrong.

I imagine numbers of late terminations for DS, cleft palate and so on are miniscule or even non-existent. I expect we are really talking about babies who would never be able to live independently anyway, with much more serious complications and disabilities. However it has become highly politicised as an issue and cases in the media seem very overstated.

The advantage of early diagnosis via amnio etc is that if termination is chosen, it is bound to be less harrowing for mother and less brutal for the child, because the nervous system is not very well developed, if at all.

So I would like to see us working towards increasingly early and accurate diagnosis of serious disability for this reason. For the record, two of my kids have disabilities, btw.

Why does posting simply for information on this topic always have to descend to bickering? OP just wanted info. This is hardly helpful. To anyone.

Exactly shangrila. Let's get back on task. This is not AIBU.