2 responses

1. 

   Helen

   August 16, 2007

   What we have had up till now was a sort of a calculation of what was more likely a Down’s Syndrome baby or a miscarriage. For women with no Down’s Syndrome in the family under 37 (it used to be 35 but the calculation became more precise) the miscarriage as a result of the test was a higher risk. So, it was not done. For the others, the risk of a Down’s Syndrome baby was higher so it was offered (I stress). what on earth would possess anyone to suggest that this very dangerous test should be done routinely? Or am I misreading the story?

   Loading…

   Reply
2. 

   Matt Munro

   August 16, 2007

   Problem is ultrasound is not a hugely accurate or relible way of predicting downs syndrome, it is a rather a blunt indicator of increased risk, and arguably no more relaible than simple procedures like looking at the age and lifestlye of the mother, or taking a blood test. The argument being made is that it is such a poor predictor that it is leading to an incresed number of amniocentisis being carried out, and as amniocentisis itself carries a moderate risk of inducing miscarriage, more unborn healthy children are being lost through the use of ultrasound than are “prevented” from being born with downs. Leaving aside the emotive issues around screening for birth defects, the charge in essence is that it an unnesary, invasive and expensive procedure with little benefit beyond a feelgood factor for parents.
   Research also shows that increased numbers of scans increases the chances of the infant becoming left handed, no one is sure why, but it does suggest that scanning has some effect on neural development.

   Loading…

   Reply