Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - When knowing can be harmful

When knowing can be harmful

Jan 24, 2007 - 10:53:25 CST

By WILLIAM SCHUH
Mandan

We are informed (Tribune, Dec. 31) that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is now recommending earlier and more frequent use of prenatal genetic screening for Down syndrome, because of new tests that are more suitable than amniocentesis for early use. Ostensibly, the purpose is to provide “peace of mind” for younger prospective parents.

Ah. “Peace of mind.” The soft-sounding sophistry almost slips by unnoticed. The wonders of modem medicine. Comforting all these young parents who are worrying themselves sick about a less than one-in-a-thousand chance of one possible disability. And they will be so relieved when told their child is fine. The fact is, I never knew a young parent that was preoccupied with a fear of Down syndrome, unless they were assaulted with irrational fear by some morbid jerk. There is nothing more conducive to natural joyful optimism than the wonder of a nascent child.

But what, may I ask, will the young parent do if the test is positive? Here’s the key. There’s no treatment; not one thing a person can do to change that genetic makeup — nothing except — I think readers are getting it now. It’s about early screening to destroy the child.

Now talk about peace of mind. Picture an optimistic young mother suddenly given the (unsolicited) results. At a time she has never felt more vulnerable, when she is experiencing morning sickness and emotional and physical ups and downs, and anticipating the agony of childbirth, she has this “comforting” news laid on her shoulders. And of course she’s told she has a “choice,” and it belongs to her alone. Under such conditions, nonconducive to objectivity, she is faced with the most horrific choice of her life; and not once, but every day. Her “counselors” offer it to her again and again, every time she feels frightened. And not for a brief period, but for the entire pregnancy — remember we are testing earlier. What’s more, there is vital information missing — the incredible joy that these gentle children bring is not something someone can tell her. She can only experience it — but likely it will be too late and she will never know.

Now picture a frightened, vulnerable mother, who wants to bear the child, being browbeaten, with support withdrawn by a panicking husband, for months on end.

Or how about a supportive and loving husband, who is determined to love and protect his children, trying to stay the panic of his frightened wife — or devastated by her determination to escape this “peace of mind” by killing his unborn child.

Some comfort, huh? Then picture bitterness, disrespect and even hatred between them after disposing of the child. Picture destroyed marriages.

I know what I’m talking about here. Our gift was born 20 years ago, and thankfully without the foreknowledge of amniocentesis. I know what fear is. I know what it means to feel devastated by a sudden turn from my expectations. I know, and even more my wife knew, what it means to feel vulnerable.

But I also know what it means to slowly awaken to and experience one of the greatest wonders of my life. No brutal prenatal “peace of mind” could have prepared our family for our Annie and the love and beauty she has brought.

This rude and invasive testing has nothing to do with “piece of mind.” It’s about eugenics and “the child as product.” Strip away the sweet smelling facade, and there’s nothing left but heartbreak and systematic screening for murder.

News > Opinion

Printer friendly version When knowing can be harmful

Comments

Julie L. wrote on Jan 25, 2007 8:17 PM:

" Regarding Jody's comments above that stated: "don't start about well they could adopt that baby out that is not really a feasible option too many children are not adopted because of medical problems or are too old that means we just end up housing them in an institution that is overcrowded and not a high quality of life." Just to advise her of the actual situation, there are groups with waiting lists out there of people wanting to adopt children with Down Syndrome. Waiting lists exist because there aren't enough kids to fill the homes of those who desire them. Also, I love the idea that the kids may not have "a good quality of life," but having no chance at life at all is better than the 'possibility' of a not so high quality life. Interesting point of view, and one which really makes no sense. Just IMO. "

Deb wrote on Jan 24, 2007 4:34 PM:

" As dante would say, SCates, you truly are a remarkable man. "

SCates wrote on Jan 24, 2007 4:18 PM:

" Deb: Once again, thank you for your interesting comments that are so germane to the subject matter and instrumental in advancement of this discussion. Attempted belittling other is so impressive and definitely illustrates the superiority of you argument. "

Mother wrote on Jan 24, 2007 4:01 PM:

" I think what Mr. Schuh is trying to put across is that he is glad they didn't have a chance to have a test because he and his family are blessed with a "special child" and that maybe overall it is better to not know. "

Deb wrote on Jan 24, 2007 4:01 PM:

" SCates: you're so loopy! Isn't it your God who is allowing us to evolve and learn newer and better scientific knowledge? Without Him would we even be here? Or is it the Devil who is interfering and pushing us into the science? I get the feeling that you are reincarnated (and didn't evolve) from a couple of hundred years ago in an Amish community. "

Jody wrote on Jan 24, 2007 3:12 PM:

" It should be the parents choice to have the tests done. I wanted to know so that I had an idea of what to expect unfortunately it didn't go the way planned so to those that choose to have the tests done they need to be fully informed that just because a test comes back negative for something doesn't mean that it can't happen. I just think that if you do not want the test done you should not be forced to by insurance, doctor, or government. Again like so many issues out there today it should be a personal choice not wrapped up in a neat bow from our government. Personal choice instead of someone telling someone what they should or shouldn't do. "

To DD wrote on Jan 24, 2007 3:10 PM:

" So, what you are saying is that if the child tests positive for a physical or mental disability, then there will be nothing more for the parents to worry about? "

SCates wrote on Jan 24, 2007 1:43 PM:

" Cole L: Brilliant, Simply Brilliant. "

DD wrote on Jan 24, 2007 1:42 PM:

" To Mother: This legislation would stop state or insurance funds from paying for the testing for diseases's, such as down's syndrome, where there are no known medical treatments available. This legislation would be good and could protect parents from spending their pregnancy worried about possible outcomes rather than enjoying the first nine months of the growth of their child. "

Say "NO" to testing wrote on Jan 24, 2007 1:32 PM:

" To Jody: if you do no testing and all doctors tell mothers-to-be that there are always possibilities that a child can be born with a diesease or other problems (which all people already know).................problem solved. No testing needed! "

Wyoming wrote on Jan 24, 2007 1:29 PM:

" Thank you Mr. Schuh for writing on such an important topic. Due to being an "older" first time mother-to-be (33), my insurance company insisted that I was tested for three disabilities, Downs being one of them. I was against testing, but didn't have any options. My test results came back 1 in 1,100 chances of our son having any of the disabilities. Thankfully, my son was born 15 months ago WITH Down Syndrome:) I couldn't have asked for a better experience. My son is a gift from God that could never be replaced by a genetically perfect child. "

Tribune Reader wrote on Jan 24, 2007 1:17 PM:

" To ARTHUR L. GEIGER, President and CEO, Avitus Group: You posted your response in a forum that has absolutely nothing to do with what you write about. Simply put, you made a mistake. You should have posted your response in the letter regarding Morton County's decision to outsource some administrative duties. What's truly interesting here is this doesn't bode well for you and your organization. You can't even get the correct placing of a post right and you want to convince us that you should be allowed to handle all personel and pay matters with the county!!!! Yes, mistakes happen. But you have just shown us that you can fail miserably at the simplest of tasks. This incident should raise some eyebrows in Morton County. "

Huh wrote on Jan 24, 2007 1:05 PM:

" What is this advertisement from Avitus group doing on the forum? "

FuturePlanner wrote on Jan 24, 2007 12:53 PM:

" A test for Down's syndrome...then a test for obesity...then a test for something else until we have a perfect society? Isn't that where Hitler was headed? "

Mother wrote on Jan 24, 2007 11:14 AM:

" I think this legislation is just wrong. It is making it look like if we have "not perfect children" that there is something wrong with us. The world is full of many different kids of people and that is what makes this world go around. Not right! "

ARTHUR L. GEIGER, President and CEO, Avitus Group, a PEO with offices in Billings wrote on Jan 24, 2007 11:03 AM:

" North Dakota, with its long tradition of standing up for working people, has done more than most states to ensure all its people have health insurance. While the state has half as many uninsured as the nation, still almost one in 10 North Dakotans runs the terrible risk of getting seriously ill with no insurance. Most of these people are employed, and most of those work in small businesses. Small businesses are far less likely to offer expensive health benefits. Yet there’s a way to help change that. Small businesses can outsource all their time-consuming human resources work to professional employer organizations, or PEOs – the work that must be done right but doesn’t make profits. PEOs also make it easier for small businesses to offer big-business benefits like a 401(k) and health benefits (while taking responsibility for enforcing safety regulations, making workplaces safer; and helping ensure businesses pay all the employment-related taxes they’re liable for – pay roll, workers compensation and unemployment insurance. That makes government happy, too.) Like all businesses, though, PEOs need a clear set of rules. Right now there is no such certainty in North Dakota. PEOs also seek this legislation to protect workers, small business and the state. (When was the last time an industry came to the legislature asking for regulation?) PEOs handle a lot of other people’s money as they collect those taxes from the companies that outsource to them. Yet the state doesn’t require PEOs to file an audited financial statement every year or to maintain a minimum reserve of working capital. PEOs in North Dakota have done business wisely and cautiously. Now the industry is asking for a law that would set clear rules for this business – a modern, useful industry whose goal is to help small businesses grow and provide benefits for employees. Twenty-eight states have passed similar legislation. North Dakota should consider joining them. "

Jody wrote on Jan 24, 2007 10:56 AM:

" The reason for the testing is not to push a woman to have an abortion it is to give them the opportunity to know what they will be dealing with and that better care will happen right after birth. I had several ultrasounds and 2 amnio's while pregnant with my son. Tests can be wrong and in this case they were I was told I was having a healthy baby girl and when HE was born and finding out the number of birth defects he has and that their is no cure for it was a shock. Not all tests are correct and doctors that are good at their job let the parents know this now in my case I might as well have not had the test but if they would have shown what was wrong at least I would have been prepared. That is why I think this testing should be done not for the reasons of possible abortion. Yes that does happen but if you have a good doctor they let you know that not all tests previous to birth are accurate. The stress of child birth and being told that your child is not healthy is very traumatic so I would rather know in advance if there is a possibility of something wrong and if it is not GREAT alot more to celebrate. Doctors are in a practice and are not perfect and do not know everything and tests can be wrong sometimes but knowing that there may be something to deal with at least you know in time to make arrangements for after the birth and those that feel it is not an option for them and decide on abortion that is their decision not yours and don't start about well they could adopt that baby out that is not really a feasible option too many children are not adopted because of medical problems or are too old that means we just end up housing them in an institution that is overcrowded and not a high quality of life. "

Enlightened wrote on Jan 24, 2007 10:47 AM:

" This is the most thoughtful, well-written letter I've seen in a long time. Thank you Mr. Schuh! "

Wondering wrote on Jan 24, 2007 10:37 AM:

" KNOWLEGE: BAAAAAAD IGNORANCE: GOOOOOD. "

mom wrote on Jan 24, 2007 10:28 AM:

" I remember being pregnant with my last child and the doctor wanting to do the needle in the womb test, to test for genetic abnormalities. When asked by the doctor, I said "why would I want a test to tell me the baby might have down or some other genetic "defect"." He said so you could make a decision whether to proceed with the pregancy. I told him I did not want the test, I would never have abortion no matter what the test results were. I had made up my mind the baby would be loved no matter what "defect; why else are these tests performed but to make a decision to terminate the pregancy. These tests at least back than; also had risks to the baby and mother. Life is too precious to take so lightly. "

Cole L. wrote on Jan 24, 2007 8:39 AM:

" The more advanced science becomes, and the more knowledge the human mind gains; the more we justify and interpret to our means the laws that were laid down for us by God. The closer we become to acting like God, the farther away, we are from him. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.