Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Healthy Baby Born After Prenatal Screening Falsely Showed he "Died"
LifeSiteNews ^ | 3/7/07 | Gudrun Schultz

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



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; moralabsolutes; prenatalscreening; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: beaversmom

Thank you! :)


41 posted on 03/07/2007 6:26:03 PM PST by cgk (I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn’t. - Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: catroina54
IF a mother-to-be doesn't believe in abortion,then WHY all these pre-natal tests ?

That was one of my questions.

Would they run these tests REGARDLESS of how I might respond to any test results, especially to prepare for the pending birth of a baby that might need special medical care?

They didn't opt to run the tests anyway, so apparently not.

42 posted on 03/07/2007 6:30:57 PM PST by cgk (I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn’t. - Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GlasstotheArson

They knew she had a baby, but they didn't detect a heartbeat, so they thought that the child had died. Therefore, they opened her up to remove a "dead" child. Now here's the confusing part. When they opened the lady up, why didn't they know right then that the kid was alive? Why wasn't the woman notified that the baby had lived? And for three weeks, no less? Prior to all this, why wasn't a ultrasound done on the mother? There is such sophisticated technology now that they can tell everything about a child envitro...!!!!! I'd be retaining a lawyer. Not because of the mistake, but because of not notifying that the child had survived.


43 posted on 03/07/2007 6:36:53 PM PST by oneamericanvoice (Fight Communism, Socialism! Fight the Democrats! Stand up for Freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TXBubba
It was at that point though that I quit believing the medical community was all knowing and frankly trustworthy.

Doctors with DECADES of school were wrong about me several times in several aspects. I just quit believing they were smarter about ME. :)

44 posted on 03/07/2007 6:38:02 PM PST by cgk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cgk

i had one child at the "old" age of 46
and fortunately the midwifery practice respected my views--i didn't wanna know nothin'--i don't think i could deal with that knowledge
and even with the other pregnancies when younger i didn't bother with all the sonograms,exotic blood work etc etc
as i didn't even want to know boy/girl.
i like the surprise announcement.
what i am now wondering,is--will the time eventually come that IF one refuses these tests...you won't get the care or COVERAGE ? THE state will simply refuse/deny you on the grounds of liability,COSTS of care of a severely handicapped preemie etc.


45 posted on 03/07/2007 6:44:51 PM PST by catroina54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TXBubba

My youngest son was diagnosed with severe hydronephrosis of the kidneys, 6 months into the pregnancy.

After the OB-GYN explained the situation to us, she began discussing abortion (as if it were the next logical step). As soon as she started, I had to interrupt to let her know that we had no intention of aborting our baby.

I am disgusted to this day at her callous presumption.

Nevertheless, there was a legitimite concern that other birth defects were present. We opted to have the sac fluid tested so that the appropriate medical staff and equipment could be present at the time of birth, if necessary (it was explained to us that this benefit far outweighed the very minor risk associated with the test).

There were no other detectable birth defects. My son is now almost 5. His one remaining kidney has kept up with his weight, without a transplant or dialysis. He is, in all respects, quite normal.

We were about 40 years old when we we first informed of the kidney problem. I had the benefit of a strong faith, maturity and experience. However, I can easily see how the OB-GYN could have scared a younger couple into having an abortion.


46 posted on 03/07/2007 6:46:43 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Second opinions have been known to save a life. Praise God for this miracle!


47 posted on 03/07/2007 6:52:29 PM PST by skr (Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: catroina54

Some prenatal diagnosis would cause a parent to change the method of giving birth.... if a child has spina-bifida for example, then a cesarean might be less traumatic on the baby. Also, you would be able to arrange ahead of time to have specialists in the delivery room.


48 posted on 03/07/2007 6:52:37 PM PST by Reddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Wrong diagnosis happen all the time, but when it causes the death of a person it is more egregious just as in this case.

If she had the US at 5 l/2 weeks, a heartbeat wouldn't be seen anyway. Lots of women get the diagnosis of failed pregnancy early on when the heartbeat isn't seen, but sometimes waiting several days or weeks helps because then you can more readily detect the baby's heartbeat. I know several women who were told to abort early in their pregnancy because the pregnancy was not viable, only to detect a healthy heartbeat later.

Maybe this abortion was done at 5 l/2 weeks? What a horrible tragedy.
49 posted on 03/07/2007 7:02:27 PM PST by Reddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBall
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.

The "scan" the article mentions was most likely an ultrasound "scan." Yes a heartbeat can be missed on ultrasound at five-and-a-half weeks gestation, even on the newest tech machines. It's as likely as not to see a heartbeat at that stage. When we do an ultrasound at that stage and do not see a heartbeat, the docs usually recommend a repeat sono (aka ultrasound) in one to two weeks. By six weeks, and surely seven weeks, a heartbeat should be evident. Sometimes the mom has her dates just a little bit off, and at that early stage, a week can be the difference between seeing a heartbeat in a 2 to 3mm embryo and not even seeing the embryo.

As for the D&C the docs did on this woman, thankfully it was half-a$$ed and the baby survived.

50 posted on 03/07/2007 7:05:28 PM PST by tgslTakoma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: beaversmom

Here's yet another one!

Baby fights for life in Italy after abortion attempt
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1797156/posts


51 posted on 03/07/2007 7:19:21 PM PST by cgk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: catroina54
will the time eventually come that IF one refuses these tests...you won't get the care or COVERAGE ? THE state will simply refuse/deny you on the grounds of liability,COSTS of care of a severely handicapped preemie etc.

Excellent question... and a frightening thought.

52 posted on 03/07/2007 7:21:13 PM PST by cgk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cgk

Just saw that one too--saw that you had already been pinged. Poor little babies--it's open season.


53 posted on 03/07/2007 7:22:12 PM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: oneamericanvoice

They're dating the pregnancy from the last menstrual period - so 5 1/2 weeks is more like 3 1/2 weeks from conception. And if ovulation occurred 4-10 days days late, the baby would only be 2-3 weeks from conception - and the heart doesn't start to beat until three weeks. Maybe it was just too early for a heartbeat. Maybe her dates were off.

They didn't open her up, they did a blind D&C, got some blood and uterine lining, which is what they'd expect to see. But they missed a spot, where the baby was by a blessing, and he lived.

Mrs VS


54 posted on 03/07/2007 7:22:53 PM PST by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
you think someone just wanted to murder a baby?

Yes. Abortionists, including Planned Parenthood, earn a living off of it.

Why so reactionary? Have you had an abortion yourself, and you're trying your best to defend your decision?

55 posted on 03/07/2007 7:57:38 PM PST by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: oneamericanvoice

Agreed. She didn't sue because...? There's a fine line where it's "okay" (in my book) to sue - this is one of them.

So they took the baby out? And the baby survived...and they told her 3 weeks later?? (I'm sorry, I'm just slow. I still am confused about the article. It was unclear to me) What the heck is up with that?


56 posted on 03/07/2007 8:07:58 PM PST by GlasstotheArson (Fire can make a conscience clean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GlasstotheArson; oneamericanvoice

Hahah, nevermind. I'm dumb. I figured it out! (Go me!)

-Glass


57 posted on 03/07/2007 8:13:27 PM PST by GlasstotheArson (Fire can make a conscience clean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: mware
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
58 posted on 03/07/2007 9:17:01 PM PST by ME-262 (Nancy Pelosi is known to the state of CA to render Viagra ineffective causing reproductive harm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cgk

Thanks for the ping!


59 posted on 03/07/2007 10:02:28 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ME-262

Oh I love that photo. Just learning to stand huh. 8 months?????


60 posted on 03/08/2007 3:18:01 AM PST by mware (By all that you hold dear.. on this good earth... I bid you stand! Men of the West!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson