Do fundies not do prenatal testing?

[WonderingInWA]

Obviously fundies don't believe in terminating pregnancies, but do they also shun prenatal testing? If a woman is pregnant with a tri-somy baby, for example, do they just not participate in the testing to know that ahead of time?

[ophelia]

since they are always happy with what god gives them, it seems like it doesn't matter to know that ahead.. although most of them are all about finding out the gender before birth.

[smores]

I would guess that they don't. I went over all the testing pros and cons with my doc and midwife, and opted out of just about every test. They told me you can catch quite a lot in the 20 week anatomy scan; that would tell us more than the tests that just give a 1:300 chance of it happening. Since they told me most tests were useless unless I would consent to an amnio and the test itself would change my mind about having the baby, I saw no need.

Some of the tests can be expensive - a $400 ultrasound for the NT scan, for example. I doubt many fundies have the money for that.

[Constance Vigilance]

There's not a lot of point having a screening test unless you're prepared to have a diagnostic test. However, having a diagnostic test obviously does not mean you have to terminate the pregnancy if it's positive.

It can be very useful for parents and doctors to know ahead of time that a child with serious medical needs is going to born. The parents are prepared, and the extra preparation on the part of the medical team can save the baby's life.

[Guest Anonymous]

I know many non-fundie evangelical Christians who don't accept those forms of pre-natal testing that carry a risk of miscarriage, eg amniocentesis, on the grounds that they would not abort the foetus anyway, so why put the pregnancy at risk?

The one friend who now has two Downs Syndrome children' and a third child with physical disabilities, has revised her views radically. While she still says she would not abort, she wishes very much that she had known earlier, in order to cope better with the shock and be more prepared for each child's arrival.

[Feberin]

I had NT scan done (it was covered by insurance) even though I don't have any risk factors for having a Downs Syndrome child. However I would want to know if there was something wrong. My aunt who was 39 when my cousin was born did not have one done even though she is not fundie. She wouldn't have had an abortion regardless of the results since this was a baby that they spent many years ttc so she saw no point in having any tests.

I would assume most fundies would only get the 20 week scan and they would see the reason for that to be to find out the gender more then looking for problems. Since you have to know if you're going to need to get some fake pigtails and big flowers for the baby's head.

[Lady]

I know many non-fundie evangelical Christians who don't accept those forms of pre-natal testing that carry a risk of miscarriage, eg amniocentesis, on the grounds that they would not abort the foetus anyway, so why put the pregnancy at risk?

One of my mother's friends, who in my opinion was fundy-lite, refused because it may harm the baby and she wouldn't have aborted anyway. In fact she was so anti-abortion she refused to take her children to McDonald's because Ronald McDonald House supported procedures she didn't agree with.

[ADoyle90815]

I think there are some who would change their minds about prenatal testing and even abortion if there were a prenatal test for homosexuality, as there are people who tweeted that if their child were gay, they would commit murder.

thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/100-shocking-tweets-from-people-who-say-they-will-murder-their-gay-child/discrimination/2012/03/15/36505

Just a warning, these tweets are very disturbing.

[YPestis]

This is crazy. Why wouldn't people want to undergo prenatal care? This has nothing to do with abortions. There are plenty of medical conditions which can be diagnosed inutero which may require immediate medical interventions after birth.

Not undergoing prenatal care means the ill or disabled baby will get suboptimal care, or delayed care because no one thought the baby had a congenital heart condition or gastroschisis or tracheoesophageal fistula etc.....This has nothing to do with abortions. This is no different than saying we don't want to let our children see a doctor because it may cause parents to neglect their children once a diagnosis is made. Most people would consider this a form of parental neglect.

Does any parent want to have this type of surprise? I don't know a single doctor that would want to forego prenatal care for themselves knowing what could be in store for their children.

[Caxpax]

My fundie-lite BIL and SIL refused all prenatal screening in both pregnancies- even though SIL is an OB. I think she wanted to do the testing, but BIL was strongly opposed so like a good wife she went along with it (although I sometimes wonder whether she might have gone behind his back and had it done without his knowledge, but knowing her it's unlikely). They did the 20 week scan anatomy scan, although I'm imagining BIL did that to find out the babies sex. Fortunately both girls are healthy. I don't know if they plan on having more, and now that SIL would be in the higher-risk category for something like Downs, I hope they re-consider getting testing if they chose to have another. They'd never terminate, but at least they could prepare themselves somewhat. My BIL strikes me as someone who would be a terrible parent to a child with special-needs- he'd need all the prep time he could get.

My super-fundie cousins had a child that was born with a rare genetic condition- they'd had a healthy child, then their daughter was born and lived for an excruciatingly painful two months. The only thing doctors could do for her was tell them to pray for her to die- it was that bad. She couldn't be held she was so fragile. I'm assuming they must have skipped the 20 week scan because the condition should have been obvious at that scan. Anywho, they were told they'd if they had more children, the baby would have a 25% chance of having the same condition- doctors begged them to either adopt, or agree to do pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. They refused, and refused all testing during pregnancy. Just kept on having kids, and refusing testing during pregnancy. Fortunately none of their kids have suffered their sister's fate. But I think they are the evilest fuckers on earth to keep having kids knowing that there is a decent chance they'd be condemning them to a brief, painful life. But of course their story is considered beautiful "testimony" on trusting God. Assholes.

[Minerva]

This is crazy. Why wouldn't people want to undergo prenatal care? This has nothing to do with abortions. There are plenty of medical conditions which can be diagnosed inutero which may require immediate medical interventions after birth.

Not undergoing prenatal care means the ill or disabled baby will get suboptimal care, or delayed care because no one thought the baby had a congenital heart condition or gastroschisis or tracheoesophageal fistula etc.....This has nothing to do with abortions. This is no different than saying we don't want to let our children see a doctor because it may cause parents to neglect their children once a diagnosis is made. Most people would consider this a form of parental neglect.

Does any parent want to have this type of surprise? I don't know a single doctor that would want to forego prenatal care for themselves knowing what could be in store for their children.

There are now surgeries that can significantly improve certain conditions if they're done in utero (spina bifida comes to mind). Given that fundies aren't against modern medicine when it saves their kids, and given how the anti-choice movement practically jizzed themselves when pictures of a fetus being operated on in utero came out, you'd think they'd be all over this kind of testing.

[Guest Anonymous]

This is crazy. Why wouldn't people want to undergo prenatal care? This has nothing to do with abortions. There are plenty of medical conditions which can be diagnosed inutero which may require immediate medical interventions after birth.

Amongst the British people I know, they take full advantage of the free NHS care available to them, including non-invasive screenings, but refuse amnio because it carries a risk of miscarriage.

I come from a family with fertility problems and can sort of understand the wish to keep a pregnancy viable by every means possible.

[TXDuck]

But I think they are the evilest fuckers on earth to keep having kids knowing that there is a decent chance they'd be condemning them to a brief, painful life. But of course their story is considered beautiful "testimony" on trusting God. Assholes.

How exactly does this demonstrate one's trust in God? No, I don't expect to have a logical answer.

Ya know, I would not have aborted* but I had all those tests. I wanted the time to prepare. Fortunately, I didn't have to. All those weeks, you could have spent reorganizing your lives for the extra challenges, mourning the child you thought you were going to have, and get happy about meeting this kid. But I'm guessing people like this make no accommodations for their special needs child. Thus proving they do not in fact value all life.

*In the above case, I would have. There's no point in making people, yourself or your baby, suffer because you misunderstand how medicine and biology work.

[alaeangelorum]

Amongst the British people I know, they take full advantage of the free NHS care available to them, including non-invasive screenings, but refuse amnio because it carries a risk of miscarriage.

I come from a family with fertility problems and can sort of understand the wish to keep a pregnancy viable by every means possible.

Lots of the fundies seem to have scans, but I doubt many would have an amnio. I don't think this is that unreasonable. In the UK we have screening by means of scans and separate testing for Down's syndrome. It would be extremely unusual for anyone to refuse the scans but some people refuse the Down's screening and I think if it was me I would also refuse it. All it does is tell you whether you have an increased risk of Down's, say 1 in 100. That means you then have an extra worry that you're at higher risk and have to decide whether you want an amnio with the associated risk of miscarriage. A fair few people (including doctors that I know) don't bother with the screening test because they know they wouldn't choose the amnio.

[WonderingInWA]

Lots of the fundies seem to have scans, but I doubt many would have an amnio. I don't think this is that unreasonable. In the UK we have screening by means of scans and separate testing for Down's syndrome. It would be extremely unusual for anyone to refuse the scans but some people refuse the Down's screening and I think if it was me I would also refuse it. All it does is tell you whether you have an increased risk of Down's, say 1 in 100. That means you then have an extra worry that you're at higher risk and have to decide whether you want an amnio with the associated risk of miscarriage. A fair few people (including doctors that I know) don't bother with the screening test because they know they wouldn't choose the amnio.

Yes, same testing here in the States. The Downs test used to be called the "triple screen" and then it became the "quadruple screen" in between my two pregnancies (babies born in 1998 and 2002). I passed on the screen the second time around because I knew I wouldn't do an amnio and I also wouldn't terminate.

I guess one of the things I wonder is what the Maxwells knew about their baby Susannah prior to her birth based on whatever tests and care they chose. They knew she had something wrong (I believe) with her heart so they were ready to operate on her once she was born, but then when she was born, she was completely non-responsive (and I think she'd been active in the womb prior to birth). They never said whether they knew what caused her death, but I'm guessing (wildly, mind you!) that it must have been something genetic -- a trisomy of some kind?

That whole story is so very sad to me. Their blog post today remembers that this would have been her 5th birthday. Sad, sad, sad.

[Constance Vigilance]

The thing about the biochemical screening is that it quantifies the risk. If someone is under a 1 in 150 chance for Down syndrome they won't even offer CVS/amnio now. But if the risk was, say, 1 in 12 the parents might feel differently about doing an amnio than if it was 1 in 149. It gives more information.

Also if the the neural tube defect biochemical screening identifies you as high risk, the diagnostic test is a detailed ultrasound -- no risk to pregnancy. (I did hear that they're introducing the 18-20 week detailed ultrasound for all UK pregnancies soon though, so that might become irrelevant.)

ETA: Also, if they do take a CVS or amnio sample they will do a full karyotype and a check for Trisomy 13 (Patau) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards). Neither of those are pleasant, many children with them die within a week if they make it to birth. A karyotype check can also be very useful -- there can be something very wrong, that doesn't necessarily gives signs on an ultrasound.

I think I know too much about the things that can go wrong with a foetus now to not want as much information as possible :( . Even if I wouldn't abort in such a case (which I probably would), I would want the best possible medical care for the kid if I were bringing it to term.

[Third]

We refused further testing because We wouldn't terminate either way. Amnio has a risk of miscarriage.The ultrasounds showed both our kids were fine.

It's a choice just because it's not a choice all would make it doesn't make it wrong. I support choice which means I support whatever choice a couple makes either way no choice is more right or wrong. I only have control over me and my body.

Money was not a deciding factor for us and I wish it wouldn't be for anyone.

[lilwriter85]

It isn't only fundies who don't do prenatal testing/screening. Non-fundies will not do prenatal testing for reasons such as finances or dealing with pain from certain tests. A few years back when I was in college, I wrote a paper on people with disabilities and I followed a few blogs of parents of Down Syndrome children and they stated that they didn't do prenatal testing because of finances.I tried to find the blogs that I used to look at. I couldn't find them. I did stumble onto a few blogs with parents of DS children under 4. One of the bloggers has a 2 year old son with DS and they didn't find out until birth because she didn't have prenatal screening. This blogger is Catholic and she stated that if she had undergone prenatal testing she wouldn't aborted her son. I think with this particular blogger and her husband they likely didn't do prenatal screening because of finances. They had only been married for a year before the pregnancy and they are moving into their first house right now which they have been saving up for a lot. This couple also tries to be frugal and I get the feeling the cost of prenatal screenings is what turned them off from doing it in the first place.

[browngrl]

I can understand why some people might opt out of amniocentesis/CV sampling. However, I find it hard to understand why anyone would opt out of ultrasound/serum screening. Both provide important information that can dramatically alter management and neither involves any danger to the baby. The tests may be uncomfortable/nerve racking for the mother but will not involve any significant risk to the mother either.I realize that financial constraints may limit care in the US but would not the care of a severely disabled child also significantly impact finances?

We routinely do screening for cancer and other medical problems. We routinely do screening for hearing/vision problems and learning disabilities. So I am not sure why prenatal screening is so very different.

[Guest Anonymous]

I can understand why some people might opt out of amniocentesis/CV sampling. However, I find it hard to understand why anyone would opt out of ultrasound/serum screening. Both provide important information that can dramatically alter management and neither involves any danger to the baby. The tests may be uncomfortable/nerve racking for the mother but will not involve any significant risk to the mother either.I realize that financial constraints may limit care in the US but would not the care of a severely disabled child also significantly impact finances?

We routinely do screening for cancer and other medical problems. We routinely do screening for hearing/vision problems and learning disabilities. So I am not sure why prenatal screening is so very different.

I don't think it necessarily is so very different for some fundies.... the ones who routinely don't vaccinate, don't keep a first aid kit, and don't get overly bothered when a child overheats to the extent that they find him and believe him to be dead... but on finding a pulse, fail to contact the emergency services because God will provide.... :(

Many of of them are poorly educated and totally lack common sense, sadly.

[Dinaberries]

My sister-in-law and her husband are I guess fundie-lite. They are Sydney Anglicans. Sydney Anglicans are the most conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians I've ever met. Anyway, they are very much pro-life. But I was surprised when my husband told me that he'd spoken to his sister, and she said that they chose not to do a a nuchal translucency scan to test for chromosomal abnormalities. They did have a 20 week ultrasound, though. His sister said that since they wouldn't choose to terminate for any reason, that there wasn't a need to do the nuchal. She is a very intelligent and educated woman, so I wasn't expecting this! I figured that she'd be the type of person who would at least see the benefit in being prepared for having a special needs child, and that she would understand that a nuchal translucency scan poses no risk to a fetus and that nobody would be forcing them to terminate even if there was a high risk for a chromosomal abnormality. It really boggled my mind.

[Constance Vigilance]

My sister-in-law and her husband are I guess fundie-lite. They are Sydney Anglicans. Sydney Anglicans are the most conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians I've ever met. Anyway, they are very much pro-life. But I was surprised when my husband told me that he'd spoken to his sister, and she said that they chose not to do a a nuchal translucency scan to test for chromosomal abnormalities. They did have a 20 week ultrasound, though. His sister said that since they wouldn't choose to terminate for any reason, that there wasn't a need to do the nuchal. She is a very intelligent and educated woman, so I wasn't expecting this! I figured that she'd be the type of person who would at least see the benefit in being prepared for having a special needs child, and that she would understand that a nuchal translucency scan poses no risk to a fetus and that nobody would be forcing them to terminate even if there was a high risk for a chromosomal abnormality. It really boggled my mind.

Not doing a CVS or amnio because of risk to the pregnancy, I can understand. Even refusing the biochem/serum screening if you wouldn't abort regardless. That isn't the way I would do things, but it's your pregnancy so do your thing.

This way of thinking I just cannot get my head round. Ultrasound can spot things that can be treated in utero (like some spina bifidas, as someone mentioned upthread), they can spot heart defects so there's a medical team there at birth, they can spot signs that indicate the pregnancy is going to miscarry, they can spot indications that the baby is going to be born extremely sick if at all and possibly die immediately (anencephaly comes to mind), which must be a huge shock if you're expecting a healthy kid. I don't understand not wanting any of that information.

I mean, it's her pregnancy and of course she can do exactly what she wants. But I cannot wrap my brain round it. :think:

[AmyP]

fundie I don't know, but most pro-life types will have non-invasive tests done, but not amnio except to verify something serious, and then only if there is a medical benefit to being prepared.

[nomi]

My reformed fundie parents FREAKED when I told them I was getting an amnio done when I was pregnant with my daughter. I'd failed the serum test and there were some markers on the u/s scan. For some reason they thought I'd terminate if I had a baby with downs when in reality I needed to know so that I could gather as much information and resources as possible to prepare myself with a special needs child.

[dawbs]

My reformed fundie parents FREAKED when I told them I was getting an amnio done when I was pregnant with my daughter. I'd failed the serum test and there were some markers on the u/s scan. For some reason they thought I'd terminate if I had a baby with downs when in reality I needed to know so that I could gather as much information and resources as possible to prepare myself with a special needs child.

All I had was the quad/nt/whatever testing, and I had people react that way to me.

I can't imagine a circumstance where I would have terminated, but I still wanted info--I consider info to be a hot commodity!