4 ms·
There are various levels of screening tests available (but not required) like ultrasounds, but the more definitive diagnostic tests (like amniocentesis) are mor
by Johnny555 8y ago
There are various levels of screening tests available (but not required) like ultrasounds, but the more definitive diagnostic tests (like amniocentesis) are more invasive and carry some risk to the fetus.
If you aren't sure that you'd abort the fetus if a genetic abnormality were detected, you'd probably be less likely to take a screening test that poses even a minor risk to the fetus. (of course, there are other reasons to know, like if you are considering a home birth versus hospital birth, you'd want to know if the baby will have any special needs at birth)
- silencio 8y agoScreening generally doesn't affect the fetus and can help make a decision about whether or not to do a more invasive test in the absence of other risk factors. Most screening is also before the timeframe that you're able to perform something like amniocentesis. Thinking PGD (for IVF), NIPT, NT ultrasound, serum screening, other such things... I don't know a lot of people that refuse the noninvasive prenatal screening offered by California... even if you don't act on the information you receive.
- Johnny555 8y agoYes, screening is non-invasive (and also is not definitive), but is optional and some people refuse even non-invasive screening because nothing will change their mind about continuing the pregnancy "for as long as god intends it".
- lowsenberg 8y agoYour quotation marks seem like you disagree. There are other reasons not to do screening, for example not be faced with the decision to abort or not to abort. Here in Germany, at least in my circles, people tend to avoid such screenings not because of religiousness.