There are potentially so many issues to examine while one is expecting that it can be overwhelming even contemplating them all. In fact, the typical obstetric prenatal care in America does not normally even acknowledge all the choices parents make, often assuming unless parents are assertive, that certain procedures will be complied with as a matter of course. The choices seem to begin at the moment of conception, with prenatal screening being offered earlier and earlier.

While most parents believe that the advantages of screening are obvious, are they worth placing our precious children in the system, subjecting them to often inaccurate and unpredictable test results, and the same parents to increased worry and potentially “insensitive and rude” advice from consulting physicians? If these trends continue, how are we to be sure that our “unfit” children, once born, are given the same quality of medical care as more “perfect” children? By prediagnosing them, do we place them at risk? There is very often nothing that can be done before birth to correct birth defects. While giving birth to a child with unknown defects can be a shock, it can also be a blessing. I’ve known through a birth professional friend, of a family whose first child was born, shockingly afflicted with Trisomy 18 (despite having many typical prenatal screens). They felt that they had received a blessing by not knowing, because they acheived the pregnancy and birth experience that they desired and were not pressured to take other courses of action which the medical professionals may have deemed appropriate, but would have stolen something vital and precious from their child’s short life and birth.

I believe these tests serve more to protect health professionals than they do to increase the health and well being of our children. In the interest of disclosure, I’ve not had any of my 5 children tested prenatally except for the first. It is a great blessing that they are all healthy (or I assume the one I am still carrying is, and I trust in God’s provision), but the tests did not make my first son healthy. However, it is proven that too much testing can, in fact, create health problems where none before existed. For instance, amniocentesis and other early invasive diagnostics, have a very high post-operative miscarriage rate. Frequent ultrasound testing has been shown to lower birth weight. Testing can also leave parents with worries that are completely unnecessary. Should a woman be off dates by as little as a week or two, blood tests may show that the budding soul in her belly is afflicted with Down’s Syndrome or other genetic mutations, when the baby is perfectly healthy. Even ultrasounds can be misread, and lives have been lost which were perfectly healthy, because the ultrasound exam data was misinterpreted.

By accepting prenatal testing as a routine matter of course, are we encouraging doctors in the view that our children are a product that should be tested for flaws before being reliquished to the hands of consumers, when we take our precious unborns in for their routine exams? Even ACOG warns, “Casual use of ultrasonography, especially during pregnancy, should be avoided,” and perhaps even more ominous, “In addition, first trimester ultrasound examination can lead to earlier detection of clinically unsuspected fetal malformations and earlier detection of multiple pregnancy. These effects have not been shown to improve ultimate fetal outcome, although studies have lacked power to assess for secondary outcomes. Improvements in technology, increasing experience, and refinements in visualization should make the detection of anomalies in the first trimester more efficient at a time when termination of pregnancy is possible and private.” [ACOG ultrasound recommendations; emphasis added] So that, the purpose of early identification of fetal anomalies is not to improve the health of our children, but to destroy “bad products” before consumers are burdened with them, rather like an assembly line in a factory.

In all honesty, there is little risk to avoiding all invasive prenatal testing. A baby who moves well, and whose heartbeat is strong, together with a healthy mom whose urine tests, bp, measurements and weight gain is normal, will almost always be a healthy baby. Abnormalities can usually be identified through non-invasive methods which doctors and midwives have practiced for centuries. High tech evaluation can be helpful after an anomaly has been detected through noninvasive means, and may sometimes offer solutions which can improve outcomes. But routine testing is not for the purpose of increased health of mothers and babies. It is to cover the backside of physicians who might be threatened with lawsuits, or to guarantee the quality of the “product”.

Doctors who do not warn mothers about their fetuses’ defects run the risk of being sued. One article quoted the publication Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy: “[C]ourt rulings across the country are showing that the increased use of genetic testing has substantially exposed physicians’ liability for failure to counsel patients about hereditary disorders.”

It’s rather haunting, isn’t it?