Y2K Bug Blamed For Miscalculated Down Syndrome Risk

Albanach writes: "The BBC are reporting in this story that the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield, England is blaming the Millennium Bug for getting wrong 150 tests for Down Syndrome with four mothers going on to give birth to affected children." The article actually idicates that four women were pregnant with Down Syndrome babies, and that two of them brought the pregnancies to term.

Comments

I am not pro-life or anything

[The Slashdolt]

but should this be "y2k bug saves two lives"? It seems that (according to the article) the two mothers would have aborted their babies had they known they were going to have downs syndrom. I do consider myself pro-choice, but I don't think that aborting a baby just because it has downs syndrome is the right thing to do. I know many people with downs syndrome, including some family members, and there is no reason they can't live a happy life with parents that love them.

You suck

[nanojath]

I can't get over how many people are either not reading or paying no attention to the article. There is NO reason to believe these mothers would have aborted these pregnancies. The point of these tests is to give the mothers the best understanding of their situation and to promote the use of more accurate and complete tests at the earliest stages. The problem, as clearly stated in the article, is that these mothers had an assurance that wasn't justified - and so were not prepared, as they could have been, to deal with the reality of their situations.

This story is providing a nice little showcase of how pro-lifers are so fixated on a single topic that they are incapable of grasping a reality with a broader context. Thanks, I've never been more confidently pro-choice.

Has anyone noted the article explicitely states that 2 pregnancies were terminated despite the false negatives?

Re:The Calendar says 2001--but it seems to be 1984

[nanojath]

I'm mystified as to where you are finding the message in this article that suggests in any way that the author's issue is with terminating pregnancies. The article explicitly states that the issue is the mothers not getting the best information for her range of options - termination not even being mentioned - of as you note, choosing to have amniocentesis at the safest time. There is a clear benefit to knowing in advance if your child is going to have a serious medical concern of any time - it allows proper prenatal care and both practical and emotional preparation. The point, as the article states, is that they should have known they were high risk but were misinformed they were low risk.