Quote:
Originally posted by SEC_Chick
The thing about amnio and cvs is that the chance of miscarriage due to the procedure is about the same rate as defects are confirmed by the procedures. Mr. Chick and I have been discussing how much screening we'll have done. Unfortunately, the non invasive ones like neuchal transleucency (ultrasound) and triple screen (maternal blood test), etc. have an extremely high rate of false positives. Since we won't have amnio or cvs due to the risk, and we definitely won't terminate the pregnancy in the event of a problem, the issue is does the chance for peace of mind from a negative outweigh the freaking out we'll do if it's positive (since we won't do more invasive testing to be certain). In the event that there is a problem, would you rather have the opportunity to read up on the condition and possible resources, or have a stress-free pregnancy at the price of having a freak-out and being unprepared at birth.
|
The risks of amnio, however, are somewhat misleading, as they take into account all amnios, throughout the nation. If you factor out the poor hospitals/clinics/PAs (generally in rural areas, or public hospitals in urban areas) that perform them the risks of miscarriage from amnio are very, very small. After maternal-age 35, even if you include the "backwoods" amnios in the sample group, the risk of miscarriage resulting from an amnio is lower (as a percentage chance) than the risk of having a child with a genetic abnormality. (Which is why amnios are recommended for women over 35.)
(hope this isn't a stp situation, but if it is - meh)
