Got my ire up!
Find a Conversation
Got my ire up!
| Wed, 04-16-2008 - 3:52pm |
Ther more I think about this, the more upset I am getting... must share.
I went to the building in which my sister (Shannon) works to tend to a client account.

Pages
Really? Hmmm, that's interesting because a friend of mine from another board just got test results back that indicate her fetus may have Downs and she wasn't given any information on abortion. She was simply given the news, statistics, next steps in testing, and then had the chance to ask questions.
&nbs
I am not saying that it is 'standard' practice - but it obviously does happen, per my sister's awful experience.
If that happened that's a shame, but at the same time, perhaps the doctors wanted her to make a decision ASAP so if she elected to terminate, that it would be done within a normal amount of time.
Also, I think it's silly for you to be upset. All patients are told that test results are not guaranteed accurate, so you and your sister should have been aware that your niece may be completely fine. I know one prenatal test actually has a very high false positive rate, which is why I declined said prenatal test when I was pregnant with my daughter.
&nbs
With my last pregnancy, I was 37 and wanted to know if the fetus had any chromosomal anomalies. I actually declined the triple screen and told them I wanted the amniocentesis. The triple screen has a high false positive, and is a "screen"- only gives you odds. The amniocentesis is a DNA assay with a very high degree of accuracy ( an accuracy rate of between 99.4 and 100 percent in diagnosing chromosomal abnormalities. )
I think it wold be deplorable to counsel abortion based on blood screens. In fact, I think it would be deplorable to counsel ANYTHING but further testing based on blood screens. That's bad practice and if that's what happened in the OP's case, there should have been a complaint lodged against the practice.
.
.
It was a blood test - and she did refuse the amnio - something about risks to the baby (the amnio poses risks) and said it would not effect her desire to birth Olivia, so would have made no difference.
<>
Then they were way out of line- I might even say unethical, in counseling abortion for fetal defects that haven't even been shown to exist in a reliable testing method.
<< and she did refuse the amnio - something about risks to the baby (the amnio poses risks) >>
I understand. I only had amnio with my last.
<< and said it would not effect her desire to birth Olivia, so would have made no difference. >>
Bah- more people need to be given the information that doctors are not the final say either. I declined the AFP due to its high false-positive score card. It's a crappy test, IMHO and should be phased out. Some women like to know so they can prepare themselves to care for a child with anomalies- but amnio has its riska nd they may want to weigh risk vs benefit.
.
.
I would say one of two things has happened: either your sister had one twisted doctor's office (they're rare but they do exist) or something was taken quite out of context.
On my EC, there were perhaps 200 women coming and going around blood test time. Many (I'd say a quarter or third) of them got "positives" (I put it in quotes because most of these kinds of prenatal blood tests only predict likelihood of having a particular condition) on their blood tests. None of them was offered or encouraged to abort based on the blood test alone.
I just can't imagine how a doctor's office could/would encourage abortion based on a test that probably has an inaccuracy rate of 20% or more.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Thanks
It is actually a branch of the local hospital Miami Valley Hospital - Berry Women's Clinic.
Pages