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

Just an excuse for an abortion

[kence]

So really, the problem is that the software designed to calcuate the risk of a given fetus having down's syndrome failed and told women that there was a smaller-than-actual risk, correct?

So worst-case is that some selfish woman (I won't bother to call her a "mother") decided to continue with the pregnancy instead of abort it, because of the incorrectly-reported low-risk and her child was born with down's syndrome.

While no computer error is good, at least it err'd on the side of life. It could have been worst and the software informed the women that they had higher-than-actual risk factor and caused more of the women to seek an abortion.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Three daughters? Jeez, you a rabbit or something? With parents as thick as you, no wonder the bitch is a spastic. Take her out and shoot her, you wouldn't want other honest Americans to catch Downs.

Re:I am not pro-life or anything

[nanojath]

"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."

Hey Dolt, try actually reading the article. I did twice and I can't find the slightest indication that there is any evidence these mothers would have terminated their pregnancies. In fact, two of the "false negatives" terminated their pregnancies anyway, according to the article, not that much can be inferred from that.

The "tragedy" (I'm afraid that word has a different scale attached for me now) here is that the women were given an assurance, missed the opportunity for the safest access to the most accurate testing, and ended up dealing with a situation they could have been better prepared for - I think we can all agree it would be best to know regardless.

The article carefully avoids the obsfucating mire of the abortion debate. Slashdot's innacurate treatment of it unfortunately drags it right back in - and people who need to spout off but can't be bothered to read the f'in article help.