RE: Down syndrome testing recommended for expectant moms

[Guest guest]

I am glad that all of my children were born over 10 years ago, and that I am too old to have to worry about or deal with whatever new tests they may come up with for pregnant women (for now anyway, until my kids get a bit older...arghh). Back in the days when I was pregnant, even amniocentesis testing did not give any clues about the problems a few of my kids would develop after birth. I am glad it didn't, because I cannot imagine life without my kids. Despite some of the problems they had when younger, most of them are doing much better now. A few of them are probably a little ticked off with me right now, as we are waiting for our dinner to get ready in the oven...a humongous lasagna, big enough to last us for cerca 3 days! Happy New Year to all of you, and let's appreciate our families, as unique as they are! All the best, Aasaschaferatsprynet

<schafer@...> wrote: This eugenic "cure" for Down Syndrome is the kind of cure historicallyfavored in the genetic research done privately by NAAR/AutismSpeaks/CAN and more recently, favored in the Pharma friendly CombatingAutism Act. This is the ultimate "early intervention" sought by theCDC and friends. It's more expedient to get mothers to quietly aborttheir unborn children damaged by environmental toxins than it is toget causative industrial poisons identified and taken out of theenvironment. I

find it interesting that so much indignation is heardwhen mothers want to use abortion to select for sex, but not for suchconditions as Down Syndrome. People with Down Syndrome are human,too. Or aren't they? Which genetic attributes or "defects" aresocially acceptable, and which aren't? BTW, another recent report says that domestic violence has dropped inhalf over the last decade. It's amazing how fast the domesticviolence gene (apparently that Y chromosome) is able to mutate.LennyDown syndrome testing recommended for expectant momsBy Associated PressWASHINGTON (AP) - There's a big change coming for pregnant women: Downsyndrome testing no longer hinges on whether they're older or youngerthan 35. This week, the American College of Obstetricians andGynecologists begins recommending that every pregnant woman,regardless of age, be offered a choice of tests for this common birthdefect.The

main reason: Tests far less invasive than the long-usedamniocentesis are now widely available, some that can tell in thefirst trimester the risk of a fetus having Down syndrome or otherchromosomal defects.It's a change that promises to decrease unnecessary amnios - givingmothers-to-be peace of mind without the ordeal - while also detectingDown syndrome in moms who otherwise would have gone unchecked.The new guideline is published in the January issue of the journalObstetrics & Gynecology.About one in 800 babies has Down syndrome, a condition where having anextra chromosome causes mental retardation, a characteristic broad,flat face and small head and, often, serious heart defects.Age 35 was always a somewhat arbitrary threshhold for urgingmothers-to-be to seek testing. Yes, the older women are, the highertheir risk of having a baby with Down syndrome.But it's a gradual increase in risk -

from one in 1,200 at age 25 toabout one in 300 at age 35. Nothing suddenly changes at the 35thbirthday. Indeed, because more babies are born to younger women thanolder ones, women under 35 actually give birth to most of the nation'schildren with Down syndrome.''It's clear there's no magic jump at 35,'' said Dr. Goldberg ofSan Francisco Perinatal Associates, a member of the ACOG committeethat developed the guideline. ''We've done away with age 35 becausethe screening tests have gotten much better.''It's not just a question of whether to continue the pregnancy.Prenatal diagnosis also is important for those who wouldn't considerabortion, because babies with Down syndrome can need specialized careat delivery that affects hospital selection, he added.The original age-35 trigger was chosen years ago when doctors had lessinformation about the risk of Down syndrome, and the only choice forprenatal

detection was an amnio, using a needle to draw fluid from theamniotic sac, he said. Amnios are highly accurate but were reservedfor women at higher risk of an affected pregnancy because theyoccasionally cause miscarriage. A study this fall put the miscarriagerisk at one in 1,600 pregnancies, far lower than previous estimates.Also today, women have more options. Doctors already frequently offeryounger women blood tests that don't definitively diagnose Downsyndrome like an amnio or a similar invasive test called chorionicvillus sampling _ but that can signal who's at higher risk.The newest method, topping ACOG's recommendation for everyone, is afirst-trimester screening that combines blood tests with a simpleultrasound exam, called a ''nuchal translucency test'' to measure thethickness of the back of the fetal neck.Studies from England, where the nuchal translucency combo has beenused for about a decade, and

the U.S. conclude that screening methodis more than 80 percent accurate, with a very small risk of falselyindicating Down syndrome in a healthy fetus. It is performed between11 and 13 weeks into pregnancy, and women are usually given numericalodds of carrying an affected fetus.A woman determined to be high risk then still has time for an invasivetest to tell for sure.Women who don't seek prenatal care until the second trimester canstill undergo blood tests known as the triple or quadruple screens.The guideline also says women of any age can choose to skip thescreening and go straight for invasive testing, an approach that mightappeal to those with chromosomal defects in the family.''This new recommendation makes a lot of sense,'' said Dr. Greenof the March of Dimes. ''Maternal age no longer plays such animportant role because the screening is better.''Each test comes with pros and cons, and the

new guideline advisesdoctors to check what's available in their communities - nuchaltranslucency testing isn't easy to get everywhere - and discuss thebest options with each patient.

[Guest guest]

I think they should create a test like

this for husbands. If they test defective, you can run like hell! That would

be a test worth taking!!!!

Holly, enjoying the Marx Brothers

marathon on this fine New Years Eve!

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of Aasa

Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006

9:21 PM

EOHarm

Subject: Re: Down

syndrome testing recommended for expectant moms

I am glad that all of my children were born over 10 years ago, and that

I am too old to have to worry about or deal with whatever new tests they may

come up with for pregnant women (for now anyway, until my kids get a bit

older...arghh). Back in the days when I was pregnant, even amniocentesis

testing did not give any clues about the problems a few of my kids would

develop after birth. I am glad it didn't, because I cannot imagine life without

my kids. Despite some of the problems they had when younger, most of them are

doing much better now.

A few of them are probably a little ticked off with me

right now, as we are waiting for our dinner to get ready in the oven...a

humongous lasagna, big enough to last us for cerca 3 days! Happy New Year to

all of you, and let's appreciate our families, as unique as they are!

All the best,

Aasa

schaferatsprynet

<schafersprynet> wrote:

This eugenic " cure "

for Down Syndrome is the kind of cure historically

favored in the genetic research done privately by NAAR/Autism

Speaks/CAN and more recently, favored in the Pharma friendly Combating

Autism Act. This is the ultimate " early intervention " sought by the

CDC and friends. It's more expedient to get mothers to quietly abort

their unborn children damaged by environmental toxins than it is to

get causative industrial poisons identified and taken out of the

environment. I find it interesting that so much indignation is heard

when mothers want to use abortion to select for sex, but not for such

conditions as Down Syndrome. People with Down Syndrome are human,

too. Or aren't they? Which genetic attributes or " defects " are

socially acceptable, and which aren't?

BTW, another recent report says that domestic violence has dropped in

half over the last decade. It's amazing how fast the domestic

violence gene (apparently that Y chromosome) is able to mutate.

Lenny

Down syndrome testing recommended for expectant moms

By Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - There's a big change coming for pregnant women: Down

syndrome testing no longer hinges on whether they're older or younger

than 35. This week, the American

College of Obstetricians

and

Gynecologists begins recommending that every pregnant woman,

regardless of age, be offered a choice of tests for this common birth

defect.

The main reason: Tests far less invasive than the long-used

amniocentesis are now widely available, some that can tell in the

first trimester the risk of a fetus having Down syndrome or other

chromosomal defects.

It's a change that promises to decrease unnecessary amnios - giving

mothers-to-be peace of mind without the ordeal - while also detecting

Down syndrome in moms who otherwise would have gone unchecked.

The new guideline is published in the January issue of the journal

Obstetrics & Gynecology.

About one in 800 babies has Down syndrome, a condition where having an

extra chromosome causes mental retardation, a characteristic broad,

flat face and small head and, often, serious heart defects.

Age 35 was always a somewhat arbitrary threshhold for urging

mothers-to-be to seek testing. Yes, the older women are, the higher

their risk of having a baby with Down syndrome.

But it's a gradual increase in risk - from one in 1,200 at age 25 to

about one in 300 at age 35. Nothing suddenly changes at the 35th

birthday. Indeed, because more babies are born to younger women than

older ones, women under 35 actually give birth to most of the nation's

children with Down syndrome.

''It's clear there's no magic jump at 35,'' said Dr. Goldberg of

San Francisco Perinatal Associates, a member of the ACOG committee

that developed the guideline. ''We've done away with age 35 because

the screening tests have gotten much better.''

It's not just a question of whether to continue the pregnancy.

Prenatal diagnosis also is important for those who wouldn't consider

abortion, because babies with Down syndrome can need specialized care

at delivery that affects hospital selection, he added.

The original age-35 trigger was chosen years ago when doctors had less

information about the risk of Down syndrome, and the only choice for

prenatal detection was an amnio, using a needle to draw fluid from the

amniotic sac, he said. Amnios are highly accurate but were reserved

for women at higher risk of an affected pregnancy because they

occasionally cause miscarriage. A study this fall put the miscarriage

risk at one in 1,600 pregnancies, far lower than previous estimates.

Also today, women have more options. Doctors already frequently offer

younger women blood tests that don't definitively diagnose Down

syndrome like an amnio or a similar invasive test called chorionic

villus sampling _ but that can signal who's at higher risk.

The newest method, topping ACOG's recommendation for everyone, is a

first-trimester screening that combines blood tests with a simple

ultrasound exam, called a ''nuchal translucency test'' to measure the

thickness of the back of the fetal neck.

Studies from England,

where the nuchal translucency combo has been

used for about a decade, and the U.S. conclude that screening method

is more than 80 percent accurate, with a very small risk of falsely

indicating Down syndrome in a healthy fetus. It is performed between

11 and 13 weeks into pregnancy, and women are usually given numerical

odds of carrying an affected fetus.

A woman determined to be high risk then still has time for an invasive

test to tell for sure.

Women who don't seek prenatal care until the second trimester can

still undergo blood tests known as the triple or quadruple screens.

The guideline also says women of any age can choose to skip the

screening and go straight for invasive testing, an approach that might

appeal to those with chromosomal defects in the family.

''This new recommendation makes a lot of sense,'' said Dr. Green

of the March of Dimes. ''Maternal age no longer plays such an

important role because the screening is better.''

Each test comes with pros and cons, and the new guideline advises

doctors to check what's available in their communities - nuchal

translucency testing isn't easy to get everywhere - and discuss the

best options with each patient.

[Guest guest]

Hey me too!  (On the Marx Brothers)  Gotta love Monkey Business!On Dec 31, 2006, at 6:37 PM, Holly Bortfeld wrote:I think they should create a test like this for husbands.  If they test defective, you can run like hell!  That would be a test worth taking!!!! Holly, enjoying the Marx Brothers marathon on this fine New Years Eve!  From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of AasaSent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 9:21 PMEOHarm Subject: Re: Down syndrome testing recommended for expectant moms 

[Guest guest]

> By Associated Press

> WASHINGTON (AP) - There's a big change coming for pregnant women: Down

> syndrome testing no longer hinges on whether they're older or younger

> than 35. This week, the American College of Obstetricians and

> Gynecologists begins recommending that every pregnant woman,

> regardless of age, be offered a choice of tests for this common birth

> defect.

>

Is Down Syndrome a birth defect? I thought it was genetic.....