Slashdot Mirror
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.
So this Y2K bug led this program to believe these mothers had a negative age? Or at least that's what I can draw from it... You'd think it's programmers would have a line of code to make sure that didn't happen. I guess it must not pay to be thurough anymore...
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
The screening test does not tell you whether or not the fetus actually has Downs -- for that, you need further tests, such as amniocentesis. It's this chance for further testing that was missed.
I would like to question the reason such testing is necessary in the first place. If a woman wants to become a mother doesn't the fact that she would consider termination of her pregency because her baby is "less than perfect" create some doubt about her ability to parent? We became parents because we loved children, not because we wanted perfect children.
My wife is a midwife (and previously worked with down's syndrome adults) and we are against most prenatal testing and find it offensive that a person who chooses to be a mother could reconsider because a doctor told her that her baby was damaged.
And no, we are not right to lifer's. We are liberal, UU's and pro-choice.
What is pirate software? Software for inventory of stolen treasure?
Sure, ignorance is bliss. Now, I'm sure you'll consent to your lobotomy, right? After all, some patients go on to very happy lives, even if they're a bit simple...
I'm sure that non-retarded people live much more fulfilling lives, so while someone with a mental problem may be happy, they'd have been more independant, and likely much happier, if they were healthy.
For instance, my relationship with my fiance is the best thing that's happened to me, I wouldn't be independant enough to support myself, let alone able to find a lover and have a meaningful relationship.
Not to mention, don't the parents ever want the kid to move out? Wouldn't the kid be unhappy when his parents die and he has to move to a home? And wouldn't he, to the degree he'd be able, feel upset about being such a burden?
I've made MY decision. I've asked family to withdraw life-support if I'm ever badly brain-damaged. The most painful thing for me would be to go through life, remembering everything I could have been. Can you imagine knowing you had once been able to program, but now not been able to comprehend a mouse, or read even simple books?
No way! Better off dead!
This is just...sad.
I'm at a client's this afternoon for a meeting. When I'm done I'll go home to my wife and three daughters. Daughter #3 has Down syndrome.
There is no such thing as impartial journalism--the words a writer uses color the facts (and opinions) that he or she presents. In an article about a simple date validation problem the writer--and the hospital--manage to convey the idea that this simple computer bug is a catastrophe. After all--two children were born with Down syndrome.
Some readers might miss a point that isn't adequately made in the article: the computer program did not tell the mother whether or not the baby had Down syndrome--all it did was some simple calculation based on age (that's about the only significant factor) and project a statistical risk for Downs. A woman in the high-risk group would be informed that she might wish to have amniocentesis performed--there is no indication (or reason to believe) that the two mothers would have agreed to have the test, or if they had the test they would choose to dispose of their babies.
I submit that there's no moral catastrophe. But this article is an obvious symptom of a serious moral disease: use technology to select characteristics we like in children, and to dispose of children we don't want. Great heavens! A child who might have an extra chromosome, or a child who might have a predisposition to red hair. Egad--a child who might not have a Y chromosome (that would be a girl, if you slept through biology). Nope--terminate her, we'll try again.
The moral issue here isn't the software bug. (The bug, IMHO, is not that big a deal--any Ob/Gyn knows the risk factors. The program strikes me as a boondoggle.) The moral issue is the tone of the article--the obvious belief of the writer that families have been injured by having their children.
Those two cases aren't even in the same ball park.
Is the statement that you wouldn't want to live if you sustained a brain injury a justification for killing a child before they have the opportunity to make that choice?
A woman who suffers from tuberculosis is pregnant. Her husband has syphilis. There are three children in the family. One is blind, another deaf, and the other suffers from tuberculosis. Yet another child died in infancy. Under the circumstances, what would you recommend? An abortion?
Congratulations, you?ve just killed Beethoven.
Euthanasia is one issue; infanticide is something else entirely.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Although I had never met the boy, I went to the memorial service to support my friend. It was a very informal event. His family, friends, teachers and therapists were all present. One by one they took the podium to say a few words about how Michael had enriched their lives with his joy, enthusiasm, and love. Not a single person in the room -- and certainly not his parents -- regretted having known him, or begrudged him their efforts on his behalf. As far as these genuinely good people were concerned, the rewards for having done so far outweighed what it cost them, and Michael's presence in their lives was a gift from God. It was extraordinarily moving.
Having made the choice myself, together with my wife, to maintain life support for a very prematurely born infant when we were given the choice to terminate it, knowing full well that he would likely be severly disabled, I cannot regard the decision to abort a potentially disabled child as anything but evil. They really are gifts from God. Raising them makes you a better person. Throwing them away as if they were nothing more than organic trash is sick. The fact that society seems to assume that anyone would want to do so is a sign of a very sick society.
In other matters, I suspect the reliance on a computer program to diagnose risk factors is a consequence of the UK's wonderful national heath system. Yes, a living, breathing OB/GYN certainly would have known the risk factors for Down Syndrome and other diseases without the aid of a computer. But I suspect that MDs are dispensed with for routine pregnancy counselling and diagnoses in order to save money, being replaced with relatively untrained personnel running expert system. Disturbing as the implications of this story are, it's a good example of why this is a rather bad idea.
And the brethren went away edified.
um, Stephen Hawkings position has nothing to do with this really. He was completely normal, and didn't even know anything was wrong until he was a grad student at college. Besides which his phisical condition has never had anything to do with his mind; using him in that scenarios is apples to oranges.
I know of two people who were advised to terminate pregnancies here (Westmead Private Hospital, Sydney, Australia) on the basis of nucal translucency results alone.
Neither did so; the children were fine in both cases.
In both cases the test was flawed because the fetus was unusually large and thus the doctors involved got the conception date wrong.
In both cases the doctors ignored the mother's protests that the conception date was off by a couple of weeks...
Stephen