Got my ire up!

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2008
Got my ire up!
77
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2007
Fri, 04-18-2008 - 8:46am

My thoughts exactly. When I went to my OB with my 2nd pregnancy, I was not given information on termination until I asked. Should I be stamping my foot and saying how wrong it was that they assumed I was going to continue the pregnancy? No. Of course not.

Plus, I have to wonder who all these people were that were asking her about aborting? I mean, how many people at a doctor's office do you really talk to about your condition? I talk to my doctor and the nurse if I need a script or what have you. But, I really don't see how multiple medical personnel would be "pushing abortion". Sounds kind of like a HIPPA violation...

melissajune21.jpg picture by ambersspace


&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Fri, 04-18-2008 - 9:40am



DS is more common than most (if not all) other conditions that are diagnosed prenatal and also has a high abortion rate.




How would you suggest that they would find the women that aborted after a prenatal diagnosis?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Fri, 04-18-2008 - 9:57am



Maybe that

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
Fri, 04-18-2008 - 10:03am

That says they felt pressured to make a decision not to have an abortion. The thing is if they think about it too long there is no longer a decision that can be made as after a certain point abortion is not a viable option as they will not be able to find a local provider.

Pressure to make a decision is different than pressure to abort.












Photobucket

I love my computer
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
Fri, 04-18-2008 - 10:10am

>>I hate to say this, but I think that you'd be very hard-pressed to find someone who would not consider receiving a DS diagnosis in their child to be a negative experience, regardless of what anyone said to them. <<

ITA IMO DS2 had the best most supportive doctors in the world (well minus one) but no matter how kind they were about it (and they were as kind and gentle as I can imagine them being) I would still say the days they told me he had catastrophic brain damage and the day they told me his liver was failing for no known reason after having been removed from all forms of life support for 3 days (no IV's, no IV food, No intubation etc) were 'negative' days. Heck I would call that word far too mild but it is no reflection on my doctors OR the fact that they needed me to make life and death decisions on the matter of minutes/hours.












Photobucket

I love my computer
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2004
Fri, 04-18-2008 - 10:10am

baby siggy
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Fri, 04-18-2008 - 11:03am


Yes. Even if you test negative for DS, you may still have a baby with health problems.


http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site616/mainpageS616P0.html


As mentioned above, a person who "carries" one copy of an autosomal recessive gene is usually not aware they carry the gene, because they do not show any signs of the disease or condition. It is estimated that all people carry about 20 recessive genes that cause genetic diseases or conditions.


< I would be interested to read any information you have on this topic.>


Here are a few.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html


http://circlevilleherald.1upmonitor.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&SubSectionID=98&ArticleID=105851&TM=48333.93


http://www.dsawm.org/Programs-ChrisBurke.htm


http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=162085&src=1

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2007
Fri, 04-18-2008 - 11:10am

""

Um, what is the positive side to having a Downs baby rather than a healthy one? You didn't answer this in your post. You simply said that there are other medical problems babies can have, which is not addressing the issue of a healthy vs DS baby.

melissajune21.jpg picture by ambersspace


&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Fri, 04-18-2008 - 1:55pm

"How would you suggest that they would find the women that aborted after a prenatal diagnosis?"

The same way they found the women who continued the pregnancy- by going where those women are. My hospital network routinely calls me or sends me letters asking me to critique my experience with ultrasound techs, doctors, particular offices, etc. Had I had a diagnosis of any condition, and obtained an abortion from that network afterwards, they could have asked me at that point if I wanted to participate in a study that would help determine better ways to communicate with patients about a prenatal diagnosis.

I stand by my argument. If these researchers were really interested in finding out what would make the dissemination of information and the diagnosis less stressful on women (as the study indicates), they needed to not exclude 90% of the women who would have received such a diagnosis and information.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Fri, 04-18-2008 - 1:56pm

"

"Maybe that would not be the case if women were given accurate information that did not focus on the negative."

Of course, we don't know that, since the study only involved women who did not abort. You've proven here why they should at least have made an effort to involve women who received the diagnosis and chose to abort.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

Pages