Posted on 11/25/2006 5:31:23 PM PST by wagglebee
TORONTO, November 24, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) New research has found that more genetic differences exist among people than previous research had indicated. In 2000 the international team of scientists working on the Human Genome project said that there was only a miniscule percentage of difference between people.
At about the same time, genetic screening was introduced as a common feature of prenatal care and as part of artificial procreation in IVF facilities. The new research shows, however, that this screening is not as accurate as previously thought.
In the new study, 270 volunteers from different countries were tested and the researchers found that the genetic continuance from parents to child is not as straightforward as previously thought. In fact, the conclusion seems to be that there is really no such thing as normal in genetic inheritance.
This means that screens for genetic abnormality are unrealizable without a reliable standard of normal. The report, published in the journal Nature suggests that prenatal screening may have incorrectly diagnosed genetic abnormalities as defects.
In the period since the growth of genetic screening, in both IVF and natural conception, fewer children are being allowed to live to birth because of suspected genetic defects such as Downs syndrome. With abortion being available in many jurisdictions for any reason or no reason, a genetic test result with any kind of abnormality is often a death sentence for the child.
The Globe and Mail quotes Steve Scherer, a senior scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and study co-author, The genome is like an accordion that can stretch or shrink . . . so you have no idea what's normal.
We have to think of genetics in an entirely different way. We're actually more like a patchwork of genetic code than bar codes that line up evenly, Dr. Scherer said.
Disability rights groups and pro-life advocates have decried the practice but most hospitals now offer genetic counselling to give parents the opportunity to abort a child who is deemed to be imperfect.
Torontos Mount Sinai hospital, for instance, offers a list of genetic counselling clinics as part of their Family Medicine Genetics Program. Mount Sinais website says its Genetics Program staff, provide information that helps families make personal decisions about pregnancy and child care.
A genetic counsellor works with a person or family who may be at risk for inherited disease or an abnormal pregnancy outcome by discussing the chances of having children who are affected.
Mt. Sinai recommends genetic counselling for couples who already have a child with mental retardation, an inherited disorder or a birth defect (and) women over the age of 35 who are pregnant or planning to be. This age group has a significantly higher, although still very low percentage chance of conceiving a child with Down syndrome.
At age 35 the chance of conceiving a Downs child is estimated to be 1 in 400 or one-quarter of one percent of conceptions. At age 40 it becomes 1 percent and for conceptions over age 45 the overall average increases to 4 percent. However, 75 percent of all babies with Down syndrome are born to women under 35.
Mt Sinai says, When a birth defect is diagnosed, genetic counsellors provide emotional support during what can be a very difficult time. If there are decisions to be made about the pregnancy . the parents can make more informed choices with the facts in hand.
Treatment for a prenatal diagnosis of a possible inherited disease or genetic abnormality is often killing the couples child via abortion.
The late, famed French geneticist, Dr. Jerome Lejeune first discovered the genetic basis of Down's Syndrome and strongly believed a cure, or more correctly a treatment therapy, was possible for Downs patients in the early stages of their lives. He was however unable to obtain adequate funding for this research and was dismayed that the response to his discovery was to instead use it to search for and destroy unborn children with Down syndrome.
Same thing happened to my cousin. She was told her baby had multiple abnormalities and would not survive for more than a few hours after birth. She refused an abortion and went on to have a perfectly healthy, normal child. Her son is in college today and doing well.
I was 35 when I had my last child. I refused testing. Amniocentesis has a 1% miscarriage rate under the best of circumstances, and I would never abort my child anyway. My daughter is healthy and beautiful. Sometimes what doctors don't know but think they do is frightening.
That sounds like a crock to me. Federal guidelines about disabled children do not have a clause like that. How could they?
Now, that number is probably below 10%. The vast majority of the kids are autistic these days.
They don't make Downs Syndrome kids like they used to. They barely make them at all.
I think I'll print this article out and bring it to my next OB visit. I've had to explain to 3 doctors and 1 nurse why I don't want prenatal screening for the "normal reasons", but would be happy to if they deem it medically necessary so those in the delivery room have everything they need to care for the new baby when it arrives.
The perinatal specialist doctor and one nurse reacted like this: "GOOD FOR YOU!" The other doctor seemed to act like I was less than well-informed when he asked for further explanation and I told him just where I stand. Good thing he was on rotation and not my 'real' doctor :)
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
Well said... Amen!
So you would rather kill the child by shooting saline into it in utero, then deliver it dead? That is how your compassion manifests itself?
Hyperbolic = Do you just lust to slaughter the tiny baby by pickling it alive, pumping it full of a burning caustic salt solution in it's mother's womb, forcing her to a premature labor of a stillborn murdered infant? That is how your compassion manifests itself?
Is the veracity of the statement less important to you then it's delivery?
Why bother to argue with this troll. Anyone who uses the term "anti-choice" is obviously from the pro-death camp.
I used to think that was the kinder way to handle such a situation too. Over the years though, especially experiencing through friends a premature baby's death, I have come to prioritize differently. G-d didn't say "Choose Pain-Free." G-d said "Choose Life." Now I get it. While pain is bad, and I believe in minimizing all pain, especially for children who don't understand it, now I see that the worse of the two choices is to kill the living being. Killing to prevent pain, I now believe, is wrong. At least for us human beings.
If a new baby really does have a condition incompatible with life, then that child will die. And he will die in the arms of those who loved him, not from a sharp needle before his time. I think that is better. I understand you disagree, and you are a thinking person too, so your opinion is OK for you.
Just curious--this is something I've often wondered--what is it that you feel you gain by using hyperbolic "scare" language? (If you feel this is an inappropriate question, I'll withdraw it. It's just that I see this so consistently used by anti-choice people, and it seems to me to inhibit, rather than further, any attempts at conversation.)
I didn't mean to use scare language. I am a bit of a dramatic person. Not on this issue alone, just kind of in my personality. I am full of passion in lots of ways. Thanks for telling me that you feel it inhibits conversation -- I can use correction. As much as I enjoy making a dramatic point, I do want the conversations to go on!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.