Posted on 03/07/2007 4:30:14 PM PST by wagglebee
LIVINGSTON, United Kingdom, March 7, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A prenatal screening test given to a UK woman in early pregnancy showed her baby had died, and the next day she underwent a procedure to remove the child's body from the womb. Three weeks later, however, she discovered her baby was alive and healthy, in a miraculous escape from failed technology.
Jake Brown was born Feb. 24 at St. John's Hospital in Livingston, healthy and untouched by the trauma of his early development, The Telegraph reported March 7. His mother, Julie Brown, 29, said "The thought of them trying to get rid of a perfectly healthy baby makes me sick to the pit of my stomach, but I've got to move forward now."
The hospital had conducted a scan on Mrs. Brown at five and a half weeks gestation and could not find a heart beat or signs of growth. She was told the child had died and scheduled for a dilation and curettage procedure the next day. Somehow, her baby survived.
""The hospital has explained to me exactly what went wrong (with the diagnosis)," Mrs. Brown said. "The baby's sac hadn't changed size, but the baby had. The woman carrying out the scan didn't notice this and she thought I'd miscarried."
Errors in prenatal testing are far more common than many people realize. While more and more parents are depending on technology to identify potential health problems in their unborn children, many are not aware of the significant inaccuracy rates in prenatal screening. Abortion of the child is most often the result, even though in many cases scans are inconclusive or show only an increased possibility of health problems.
Down's syndrome is one of the most common pre-natal diagnoses to lead to abortion--but studies show screening tests for Down's are inaccurate up to 40 percent of the time.
A recent Canadian study found more natural differences between the genetic code of individuals than previous researchers had thought existed, leading to greater difficulty in establishing a "normal" genetic code as a basis for evaluating pre-natal scans. Published in the journal Nature, the report suggested that prenatal screening may incorrectly diagnose genetic differences as "defects".
While the Browns don't intend to pursue legal action against the hospital, the couple said the mistake caused pain and trauma to the whole family.
"They booked me in for an operation to remove the baby and we were all devastated,' Mrs. Brown said. "We then had to explain to my children Sarah and Leon that the baby had gone to heaven. My husband and the children were in floods of tears."
See related LifeSiteNews coverage:
Prenatal Screening not so Accurate as Once Thought - "Normal" Children Killed as "Defective"?
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112403.html
British Abortion Rate Skyrockets as Couples Eliminate "Defective" Children
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/may/04053105.html
UK Doctors Who Performed Frivolous Late-Term Abortions Let Off
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05031602.html
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
What the hell are you talking about? It was an ERROR, a medical error, they happen everyday...you think someone just wanted to murder a baby? Are you insane? That was a rhetorical question.
Do they mean 'months?'
I know for certain that prenatal testing for Down's Syndrome is done with the intent that babies who test positive be aborted even though the diagnosis is WRONG 40% of the time.
Never mind my question above-- I misunderstood. Got it now.
But that wasn't what this story was about.
These are radiation techs and OBGYNs, they don't have anything to do with the abortion industry. This was just a mistake.
Obviously you DIDN'T ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE. I know you believe abortion should remain legal, I don't think I am going to convince you to change your position, I KNOW that you will not convince me to change mine, so I don't see any point in debating this with you.
Do really believe that these people WANT to kill babies? I mean, do you think they go looking for ways to kill babies?
Just D*mn...
Not all or even most of them, but yes, some of them definitely do.
Really? So the brilliant folks at LifeSite know secret truth about these stats, but the patients are mostly clueless. Uh huh. Sure. Medical testing errors in general vary according to the setting they're done in, as well as the type of test, and I wouldn't be surprised if British NHS facilities have a very high error rate, due to overworked and undertrained staff and equipment that is often badly outdated or dysfunctional. I'm sure your average Brit is well aware of this too, since people tend to compare notes on significant experiences in their lives.
Down's syndrome is one of the most common pre-natal diagnoses to lead to abortion--but studies show screening tests for Down's are inaccurate up to 40 percent of the time.
This is deliberately misleading to the point of being an outright lie. By running these two concepts together in one sentence, they are trying to readers to believe that 40 percent of the abortions done based on Downs Syndrome diagnosess are actually on non-Down Syndrome babies. Utter, total lie. The FIRST SCREENING for Downs is very inaacurate, and is NEVER the basis for a diagnosis, much less for an abortion. The results of the first screening are used to determine if there's a particularly high risk that the fetus has Down Syndrome. IF the first screening shows a high risk, the woman is advised to have a genetic test which is highly accurate (like 99.99% accurate). Many women choose to abort after such a definitive diagnosis of Down Syndrome; those who don't receive special prenatal care and screening of fetal development from a perinatologist, and are often diverted to hospitals with neonatal intensive care units for delivery, due to the high incidence of severe organ abnormalities in Down Syndrome, that require intensive support from the first minutes of birth, and often surgery within the first few days of birth.
I think you misread the article. This was a medical error (actually 2). The baby was wanted, but believed to be dead in situ and thus endangering the health of the mother. The baby was born healthy without a birth defect.
Yes I am aware of that, I alse read the remainder of the article which discussed mistakes in prenatal testing.
Can you document that?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0049.html
http://www.eugenics.net/index.html
http://dianedew.com/sanger.htm
Oh yeah and there is the FACT that, as of the end of 2004, 48,589,993 babies have been killed in the United States and at nearly 1.3 MILLION abortions a year, this number is now OVER MILLION.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html
The remainder of the article was filler that had nothing to do with the case that was presented. Don't be a drive-by victim of bad reporting.
Sounds like a true miracle to me. I wonder what scans were performed. Could a heartbeat evade a modern ultrasound? Not only did the heartbeat go undetected, but the baby also managed to survive an attempted DNC.
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.