Wednesday, August 1. 2012
Maybe because I have chosen genetic testing as a profession, I am reluctant to blame prenatal testing for the mass eugenic abortion that occurs in our modern society. I see great potential in protecting and treating the unborn with every new advance.I often argue that it is the abortion that kills not the information provided by testing and pro-lifers are getting distracted by every new advance in prenatal testing taking our eye of the real moral evil: abortion. It is dangerous, and frankly wrong, to spend our efforts on restricting access to prenatal testing and the information it provides instead of continuing to tackle the abortion industry.I think a good analogy would be assisted suicide. If assisted suicide was legal all over the United States and rampant among those who get terminal diagnosis, would we urge doctors to stop giving out terminal diagnoses to solve the problem? Of course not. We would work toward changing legislation to restrict assisted suicide and work to support those who have received a terminal diagnosis.Sometimes I feel alone in the pro-life community as the only one who doesn't get upset at the news of yet other prenatal genetic diagnostic tool. That was until I read this awesome piece by Dr. Gerard Nadal. In response to the many e-mails he got from his readers about early genetic prenatal testing from a simple maternal blood sample, he wrote this:We live in the age of Molecular Biology, where diagnostics (including those for Down Syndrome) are becoming much more accurate, sensitive, and inexpensive. It’s a blessed thing to behold.
That may come as a surprise statement to many, but the truth of the matter is that diagnostic testing for Down Syndrome has great potential for good, especially the newer blood tests that can detect Down Syndrome earlier.
First, letting parents know much earlier takes from the more eugenic Ob/Gyn’s the leverage that comes with the more traditional (and later) amniocentesis. Women often receive those tests results within days to a couple of weeks of the legal limit for having an abortion. It doesn’t give the woman time to emotionally digest the diagnosis, leaving her vulnerable to coercive pressure from genetic counselors, doctors and family.
Next, the earlier blood tests allow more time for women to sit with their decision, and to seek out and receive alternative advice without the deadline for abortion looming large on the horizon. Contrary to arguments that say the abortion rate will skyrocket with such testing, as early term abortions are easier to have, one need only consider that research from Harvard University shows that 93% of all Ds babies diagnosed are being aborted; so there’s little margin for any skyrocketing of abortions.
The glass is half-full here.
By itself, the technology is morally neutral. This technology can alert an Obstetrician to the need for more sonograms and the need for bringing onboard a perinatologist. Some Ds babies have anomalies that require immediate surgical intervention at birth. Early diagnostics can help to determine whether the birth should be vaginal or C-section, and whether or not a surgical team needs to be on standby....
Knowing the devastation that often comes with such diagnoses is key to helping parents through that difficult time, and the earlier the diagnosis, the more time we have to help them.
With so much potential good that can come from this technology (and so little room for matters to get worse), it is unwise, even counterproductive to fight against it. Science has actually given us a buffer zone.
We need to exploit it.
Thank-you Dr. Nadal. I no longer feel so alone!
|