"Yes, it's going to lead to more termination, but it's going to be fair to these women who are 24 who say, 'How come I have to raise an infant with Down's syndrome, whereas my cousin who was 35 didn't have to?' " Dr. Lalonde said. "We have to be fair to give women a choice."
Such is the profound wisdom of Dr. Andre Lalonde, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Ottawa and the executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.
The National Post is reporting that amniocentesis, a test routinely performed on pregnant women over 35 to test for genetic defect, will be recommended by the SOGC for all pregnant women in Canada.
I strongly reject this suggestion.
I reject it first of all on medical grounds. Amniocentesis is an invasive procedure into the womb where a small sample of the amniotic fluid surrounding the baby is removed then examined. There have been studies to suggest that the procedure can cause death to the child though miscarriage. The SOGC is suggesting that new studies refute this claim, however, this makes no difference in my mind.
The sole purpose of the test, as is clear from the quote above, is to determine if a baby is "worth giving birth to." I reject that such a question can be answered in the negative since worth is never determined by role or contribution to society - it is determined by man being made in the image of God. To terminate a pregnancy for suspected genetic defect is, in my opinion, pure selfishness on the part of the parent.
I reject this proposal for widespread testing on ethical grounds. These tests are not perfect and they place the parent in an impossible situation. To be told that your child has a certain percentage likelihood of a genetic defect is too much. Parents are at their most vulnerable at this time.
I reject this proposal from personal experience. Although we rejected amniocentesis as an option in our son's pregnancy (for the simple reason it might have killed him), we were given indicators through non-invasive testing that there might be a genetic problem. Readers of my blog will know that my son was born with a genetic defect labelled Williams Syndrome - a full-orbed physical and mental disability.
Is my son an accident? A faltering of the progressive cycle of evolution? A drain on society and its money? A thing not as valuable as a fully-functioning "normal" person?
My son is my flesh and blood and his worth is bound up in the fact he was made in the image and likeness of God, knit together in his mother's womb and held together by the grace and power of Jesus Christ right now. If he never moved a muscle, never spoke a word, never made my life happier at any point, he would be no less valuable to the One who made Him. And no less valuable to me.
Dr. Andre Lalonde disgraces the medical profession and ought to be ashamed of himself.
Well said...
ReplyDeleteBoth in rejecting amnios and in rejoicing in God's gift of your son.
There are doctors out there that do not support amnios, and will only reluctantly refer for them--the risks to the baby are one reason for this. Some are also Christian.
My wife knows of a couple that was told their child would have Downs Syndrome--they decided not to have an abortion. During the pregnancy they read all the info they could to prepare--and guess what? Their child did not have Down's Syndrome! They could have aborted a healthy baby based on a false result of a test! But that's not all--they were so prepared for a Down's Syndrome baby--they went & adopted one...
God uses our folly to help others--in spite of ourselves. He protected that baby as well.
Pilgrim -
ReplyDeleteI could recount many false positives like the couple you note.
A dear family in our church was told their boy would likely die minutes after birth due to massive growths on his brain.
Either God answered our prayers or the test was incorrect - that fella is a joyful 5 years old now! Every time he smiles up at me and tells me of some new Lego or Star Wars toy I rejoice in the Lord's kind providence!
Our daughter-in-law is pregnant with our third grandchild, and the docs wanted to test for DS. Our question too, was "What if it's positive? What changes?"
ReplyDeleteThen an article on MSN caught my eye a few days later where they came out and said if DS is suspected, abortion is offered. WHAT??? How far gone is our culture?
Regarding the little guy in your church, let's err on the side that gives God glory, eh? What a blessing to see that little reminder of Grace every week!
thank you
ReplyDeleteThank-you for the post. I guess this makes official what was really always the case, abortion is for convenience of the one bearing the child, and on the alter of convenience millions of unborn children are offered every year. This makes the worship of Molech pale in comparison.
ReplyDeleteAmen and Amen
ReplyDeleteso true.
ReplyDeleteKerux,
ReplyDeleteWhile I completely agree that that the results of amniocentesis should never be used for unethical purposes (i.e., abortion a child with Down syndrome), I think you overstate the risks and underestimate the benefits of the test.
First, there appears to be no direct correlation between the test and miscarriage. Misstating the risk may lead people to think the procedure is unsafe, causing them to forego a test that may be beneficial to the baby.
Second, you say that “The sole purpose of the test, as is clear from the quote above, is to determine if a baby is ‘worth giving birth to.’” That’s not accurate. The results of the test could be used to provide potential interventions that may be necessary (i.e. fetal surgery for spina bifida) or to make preparations for complicated births.
Third, your ethical objection is unsound. If a parent is opposed to abortion on moral grounds then they should never be tempted to kill their child. Saying that parents should remain ignorant about the genetic defects a child might possess since it might lead them to kill their baby is a perverse view of the moral situation.
True, some parents would be tempted (and we should pray for such immoral people). But if such parents are that weak, they can simply ask not to know about test results that can’t be treated prior to the birth.
We weaken, rather than strengthen, the defense of life when resort to bad information or unethical firebreaks to prevent us from doing evil to our own children. It just shows that we are only pro-life in certain cases and that we’d change our position based on a genetic test rather than on the inherent dignity of human beings.
Joe -
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
If it can be proven that an amniocentesis does not carry with it the potential to harm an infant in the womb, I am willing to agree with some of what you write. But the SOGC's own website notes: "Amniocentesis carries a risk of losing the pregnancy of about 1:200 or 0.5%." (http://www.sogc.org/health/pregnancy-prenatal_e.asp) So, it is difficult for me to accept the charge that I am giving out bad information unless it can be shown otherwise.
It is quite clear that the very process of having an amniocentesis puts the baby at risk. If we are pro-life, I can see no way to proceed with a test that knowingly endangers that life in the womb. (Just as a pregnant woman must not smoke or do anything else that is proven to harm her infant.)
In my post I am showing the motivation of the SOGC in using amniocentesis – to weed out genetically-defected babies. That is precisely what Dr. Lalonde admits.
And it is this to which I am ultimately (and rightly, I think) opposed.
As for the weakness of my ethical objections, I think I will address that in a separate post.
If it can be proven that an amniocentesis does not carry with it the potential to harm an infant in the womb, I am willing to agree with some of what you write. But the SOGC's own website notes:
ReplyDeleteThe latest studies are rather recent so you certainly can’t be faulted for not knowing about them. It is, however, inexcusable for the SOGC to have outdated and inaccurate information on their website. The old figure of .5% was always a rough estimate (read: wild guess). The new research, published this past November in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, shows that when it comes to miscarriages, there is no statistical difference between women who have amniocentesis. For the SOGC to make such a recommendation in favor of amniocentesis while still having outdated material about it on their website is just plain sloppy. (The abstract from the latest study can be found here: http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/108/5/1067.
In my post I am showing the motivation of the SOGC in using amniocentesis – to weed out genetically-defected babies. That is precisely what Dr. Lalonde admits.
And it is this to which I am ultimately (and rightly, I think) opposed.
I agree that the SOGC has bad motives. We are seeing the same thing here in the U.S. And I applaud your efforts to point out that they are encouraging the test solely for immoral reasons. My only concern is that we don’t want to throw out legitimate medical tests just because some people might use if for the wrong reasons. In China, they are killing prisoners to harvest their organs. Yet that immoral action shouldn’t stop us from the legitimate uses of organ transplantation.
My only quibble with your post was the implication that we should completely refrain from amniocentesis. If it truly were as dangerous as we had once believe, then I would completely agree that we shouldn’t use it (or at least only rarely, and when absolutely essential for the health of the child). But if it is safe and there are legitimate uses* (which I believe is the case) then we shouldn’t reject an ethically acceptable medical test simply because it is often used by immoral people to further immoral objectives.
*I can't imagine, though, that all women would need the test. I think it can be used legitimately but still there is no reason to stick a needle in woman's womb unless it has the potential to be medically beneficial to the child.
But Joe, what of these other studies?
ReplyDelete“Mid-trimester amniocentesis is associated with a small but significant risk of fetal loss of 0.86%.” [Risk factors for procedure-related fetal losses after mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis. (2006 Oct;26(10):925-30.) by Kong et. al. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16838383]
Or I might offer this 2002 study: “Over a 5-year period, pregnancy loss after midtrimester amniocentesis performed by general obstetrician-gynecologists was 1 in 366 procedures.” [Five-year experience with midtrimester amniocentesis. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:1130-2.) http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ajog/abstract.00000447-200206000-00004.htm;jsessionid=FmzYnJLQ9Ly6ymfLSTTTbLGXF34XgPvJhByh8nhkbwG4WddqygrF!994915254!-949856145!8091!-1]
My point in quoting these studies is to suggest that the jury is out on the accuracy of the greenjournal study you quote. I am not a scientist nor a medical professional, but it seems to me that much more work needs to be done before we can unequivocally state there is “no statistical difference.”
I am willing to be corrected here, but the fact is that the SOGC itself has not changed its statistical information. This could be a website oversight, granted. But even if they change their tune, what do we do with competing studies that indicate opposite results? Do we just side with the latest information? It seems like that strategy has failed more than once. Wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of “safe rather than sorry?”
You are smarter than me, Joe, so I will gladly listen to your thoughts.
- Paul
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!
ReplyDelete