7 ms·

Having gone through two twin pregnancies (where the odds of these tests being correct are especially low) we declined all of them. Anecdotally, I know of severa

by tinbad 5y ago

Having gone through two twin pregnancies (where the odds of these tests being correct are especially low) we declined all of them. Anecdotally, I know of several parents who had a positive test for genetic disorder, went ahead with the pregnancy anyway and children were perfectly healthy. Until these tests are close to 100% reliable I don’t see the point.

CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
The point is that it is a screening test. A positive test will be followed by a more invasive test that has a lower false positive rate.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sundvor 5y ago
  "The good news is that the invasive test proved the screener was incorrect. The bad news is that it looks like you've now lost your baby. It was fine though!". The risks associated with this extended testing are just not worth it, perhaps aside from Down's (from a numbers point of view). Even then, there are many completely gorgeous children and people with Down's .. chances are you'll have a curveball in life one way or another at any rate. I have two children, one diagnosed with ADHD/ASD, the other likely not too different but too early to tell. Apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Wouldn't change a thing, other than to avoid the ABA services companies like plague - they prey on your insecurities and you might face financial ruin for possibly no real benefit to the child if you go along with their spiels. So, to see medical companies exploiting vulnerable new parents who will do anything for their children? I am shocked. (/S...)
  - CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
    You are free not to take the test, but I think we would have taken the 0.3% risk to see if it is really Down's. While children with Down's can be gorgeous, I am not up to the task.
    - sundvor 5y ago
      We did get the test for it for my two; can't recall if we did any extra ones. Believe we skipped them, at least on the 2nd. I've come around to maybe change my mind since then, however I'd need to be in a very good position to be able to be up to the task. I truly wouldn't have been, the ASD diagnosis was hard enough - and made magnitudes harder due to the manipulations of the "autism industry". Do this, do that, or else - you only have one chance for an early intervention, so better throw your own life away or you'll be a bad, bad parent.
- d0mine 5y ago
  Tests (the consequences) are not harmless e.g., https://empowertotalhealth.com.au/new-study-on-screening-mammography-shows-more-harms-than-benefits/ https://empowertotalhealth.com.au/new-study-on-screening-mam...
XorNot 5y ago
"it worked out fine for me" is not particularly reassuring when the alternative is a lifetime of medical bills and possibly a permanent dependent.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tagoregrtst 5y ago
  The alternative is loving a human being and playing the cards you’re dealt
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    The alternative is to take the same energy you'd spend on that one unlucky human being and spend it raising 3 healthy children who will go on to live full lives. Parenting is an enormous time investment and families that take on the burden of raising disabled children almost universally reduce their family size. This is not a decision without cost, to those who lose their chance at life.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    with one of those cards being a lifetime of medical debt
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - tagoregrtst 5y ago
      Thats a political and social problem, not an ethical consideration.
      - oneoff786 5y ago
        So what?
  - honkycat 5y ago

by tinbad 5y ago

CorrectHorseBat 5y ago

The point is that it is a screening test. A positive test will be followed by a more invasive test that has a lower false positive rate.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sundvor 5y ago
"The good news is that the invasive test proved the screener was incorrect. The bad news is that it looks like you've now lost your baby. It was fine though!". The risks associated with this extended testing are just not worth it, perhaps aside from Down's (from a numbers point of view). Even then, there are many completely gorgeous children and people with Down's .. chances are you'll have a curveball in life one way or another at any rate. I have two children, one diagnosed with ADHD/ASD, the other likely not too different but too early to tell. Apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Wouldn't change a thing, other than to avoid the ABA services companies like plague - they prey on your insecurities and you might face financial ruin for possibly no real benefit to the child if you go along with their spiels. So, to see medical companies exploiting vulnerable new parents who will do anything for their children? I am shocked. (/S...)
- CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
  You are free not to take the test, but I think we would have taken the 0.3% risk to see if it is really Down's. While children with Down's can be gorgeous, I am not up to the task.
  - sundvor 5y ago
    We did get the test for it for my two; can't recall if we did any extra ones. Believe we skipped them, at least on the 2nd. I've come around to maybe change my mind since then, however I'd need to be in a very good position to be able to be up to the task. I truly wouldn't have been, the ASD diagnosis was hard enough - and made magnitudes harder due to the manipulations of the "autism industry". Do this, do that, or else - you only have one chance for an early intervention, so better throw your own life away or you'll be a bad, bad parent.
d0mine 5y ago
Tests (the consequences) are not harmless e.g., https://empowertotalhealth.com.au/new-study-on-screening-mammography-shows-more-harms-than-benefits/ https://empowertotalhealth.com.au/new-study-on-screening-mam...

XorNot 5y ago

"it worked out fine for me" is not particularly reassuring when the alternative is a lifetime of medical bills and possibly a permanent dependent.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tagoregrtst 5y ago
The alternative is loving a human being and playing the cards you’re dealt
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  The alternative is to take the same energy you'd spend on that one unlucky human being and spend it raising 3 healthy children who will go on to live full lives. Parenting is an enormous time investment and families that take on the burden of raising disabled children almost universally reduce their family size. This is not a decision without cost, to those who lose their chance at life.
- oneoff786 5y ago
  with one of those cards being a lifetime of medical debt
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tagoregrtst 5y ago
    Thats a political and social problem, not an ethical consideration.
    - oneoff786 5y ago
      So what?
- honkycat 5y ago