Controversy Over Invasive Prenatal Testing: The Up Side of Down's

Description: "In Australia, there is more freedom to abort and here is a controversy that has arisen that to me seems amazing. People sueing for damages when found there child was born with down syndrome and they weren't given this information so they could abort their child. Is it really about love? Or is it about greed?"

http://community.heywhateversocial.info/_Abortion-and-information-on-reasons-to-abort/VIDEO/1178891/22914.html

The subject of prenatal testing for Down syndrome is an emotionally charged one. The Frontline video provides us with an array of examples of the advantages and disadvantages of prenatal screening and testing, particularly pertaining to screening for Down Syndrome by amniocentesis. The first example provided is about a couple who underwent screening and ending up keeping their baby, despite the positive diagnosis that their baby had Down Syndrome. The second example is about a couple who is not given the chance to undergo screening for Down Syndrome, in which they are told that the test was not available, and the couple ends up suing the hospital for not providing the opportunity to screen for abnormal defects or disease of the fetus . Lastly, the third example is about a couple who also sues the hospital for not allowing amniocentesis to be done, after tests by the ultrasound had detected problems with the pregnancy and abnormalities of the fetus. All of these examples exemplify the controversies surrounding blood tests, ultrasounds, and invasive screening during pregnancy. The comment in the video, “All patients are not equal when testing for Down Syndrome”, is illustrated by all three of these examples, as each provides an example of how the different couples are treated when undergoing prenatal testing. The video ends with a proposal to this problem and controversy about prenatal testing by concluding that the problem should not have to do with the increased costs of raising a child with special needs, but the problem is about fixing the support system for these families, rather than individual litigation.

Rayna Rapp’s article “Accounting for Amniocentesis”, focuses on difficult decision making of pregnant women who are counseled to undergo amniocentesis to detect genetic abnormalities in their fetuses, mainly the abnormalities pertaining to Down Syndrome. The article provides an analysis of the moral complexities and social impacts of amniocentesis. Rapp is particularly considerate of the ways the prenatal testing technologies become signifiers of “scientific literacy” and social status. The article centers around the genetic counseling and testing centers that deal with patients of different social strata and ethnic backgrounds, which allows for economic and cultural comparisons among heterogeneous patients that approach prenatal testing with a range of social, moral, and political beliefs and concerns. Rapp’s article provides a personal look at the differences among the reproduction of and the cultural apprehension among amniocentesis, based upon how moralities figure into women’s testing decisions and understandings.

In comparison, the Frontline video conveys some of the implications made in Rapp’s article on the “social impact and cultural meaning of prenatal diagnosis” (Rapp, 70). Drawing upon amniocentesis stories, Rapp “raises the problem of how to understand the development and routinaization of prenatal diagnosis” (55). The problem is most often found as “combining the literature on “patient reactions to prenatal diagnosis”, which is highlighted in the video as the reactions of the couples and their concerns are uncovered according to parental screening and diagnosis (60). Rapp furthers our understanding of the problem in her efforts of finding “four overlapping medical discourses: geneticists spoke of the benefits and burdens their evolving technical knowledge conferred on patients; heath economists deployed their famous cost/benefit analysis to suggest which diseases and patient populations should be most effectively screened; social workers and sociologists interrogated the psychological stability and decision-making strategies of “couples” faced with “reproductive choices”; and bioethicists commented on the legal, ethical, and social implications of practices in the field of human genetics” (60). Both the video and Rapp’s article illustrate the particular interest and controversy of childbirth experiences and how birth has become more medicalized through time, including the events that lead up to birth, the practices surrounding birth, the techniques and technological tools utilized by traditional and biomedical practitioners, and the differences in practice across cultures.

Amniocentesis has become a controversial topic of expecting parents due to its advantages and disadvantages and ethics. I would like to expand on the social impacts and cultural meaning of prenatal diagnosis portrayed in both the video and the article by discussing the pros and cons of the test of amniocentesis. The pros and cons of this controversial prenatal test continue to increase with time. After reviewing the pros and cons of this test that is used to determine whether a baby has a genetic or chromosomal defect, I believe it should be offered to pregnant women who want to have it, and here’s why: amniocentesis offers many advantages to the expecting mother (and father). Amniocentesis identifies genetic disorders, one of the most common being Down Syndrome, in which identification of theses disorders can determine whether the baby is at risk to various conditions and check the well-being of the baby. It is important to determine whether the baby is maturing correctly and developing properly to ensure the baby’s and mother’s safety during pregnancy and labor. By undergoing amniocentesis, women who have babies that are diagnosed with an abnormality, or one of the diseases, can gain advanced knowledge of the special needs that the child may need, and better prepare before the birth of their child to accommodate these particular needs. This would allow the parents to seek better care for their child and find hospital’s specializing in these needs, so that parents are better equipped for the birth of their child. This test is important, as it provides the mother with information about her baby. Amniocentesis also offers various disadvantages, aside from the many advantages, however. The test runs the risk of miscarriage and/or infection, in which each of these risks should be considered before having the test done. In addition to the health risks, this test has become a controversial issue because of ethical perspectives. For women who receive the results that their baby has a defect, these women can choose to raise their child or have an abortion, which raises the ethical question about the use of the test. For those who choose to abort are making their own choice, however many view this as unethical. After weighing these advantages and disadvantages of amniocentesis, I believe it is up to the mother to decide if she would like the test. I personally believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Lastly, I would like to note that almost all tests done in hospitals exist with either medical risks or ethical controversy, and amniocentesis is one of these critical issues. However, through the use of amniocentesis, this test can provide an advance in technology and science for generations to come, and researchers can one day discover ways of treating these defects found, in order to help future parents who experience the birth of a child with a defect.