Rebecca Taylor will be guest blogging here once a week for the next month. Rebecca is a Technologist in Molecular Biology, MB(ASCP) and a practicing Catholic. She has been writing and speaking about Catholicism and biotechnology for five years at her blog Mary Meets Dolly. This is the second installment.
Do you get that feeling? You know when you hear about a new prenatal test and you shake your head, let a little grumble escape from your mouth, and then you notice the sickening feeling in the pit of your stomach. Many pro-lifers get that feeling because they know that a new prenatal test performed even earlier means more innocent babies aborted. I normally don’t talk about something as mushy as feelings, but today, I want to talk about that feeling.
A few months ago scientists announced a new way to genetically test a fetus as early as 12 weeks. Unlike amniocentesis, or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) each with a risk of miscarriage, this new method finds fragments of the fetal DNA in the mother’s blood. This test is not the same as a serum test often called a quad-screen or AFP. This is a test that actually tests minute quantities of the fetus’ DNA in a maternal blood sample. So prenatal genetic testing is likely to go from invasive procedures like amniocentesis and CVS to a simple blood test with no risk to the life of the fetus. Instead of a shout of joy from the pro-life community, this news received the whispered grumble, the shaking of the head and the sickened stomach. Why? Because most pro-lifers view any prenatal test as a precursor to abortion.
Admit it. We all do it. We lump prenatal testing and abortion together. We assume that with one comes the other. Sometimes the line between the two is so blurred, we lay the blame for the killing of an unborn child on the testing. In a piece on prenatal testing at LifeNews.com, Kristan Hawkins, a pro-life advocate whose son Gunner has cystic fibrosis, wrote about how genetic testing is killing babies:
As I have written before, I have become deeply involved with the current healthcare reform debate arguing that the system desired by the President and Democratic Congressional leaders will lead to rationing of care and slower development of potential life-saving treatments for children like Gunner. Recently my research into this issue has led me down another path: pre-natal genetic testing….
One theme is apparent; unlike with cancer where we are “racing to a cure,” these scientists offer hope that we can eliminate diseases by terminating those with them. An AP article yesterday, on February 17th, headlined, “Testing curbs some genetic diseases.” Couldn’t the article title have been, “Testing snuffs out those with genetic diseases?”
I am not angry at the AP writer for the writing the story as I was excited for finally someone has admitted that genetic testing is killing little girls and boys like Gunner. [my emphasis]
I understand Ms. Hawkins’ anger and frustration. Having tested pregnant mothers and their partners for cystic fibrosis mutations, I am fully aware of how this information is being used. But I disagree that it is the “genetic testing [that] is killing little girls and boys like Gunner.” Genetic testing may be cited as the reason to kill a baby with a genetic disease, but the REAL killer is abortion on demand. Without legalized abortion, prenatal testing would be what it should be, a way to find out more about the life going in the womb, especially if something is going wrong. Without legalized abortion, the use of prenatal testing would be naturally limited to conditions that could benefit from some kind of prenatal intervention.
In fact the Catholic Church has no problem with prenatal testing, unless it is done with the intent to abort if the results are not what the parents want. Prenatal testing is only immoral when the parents are already planning to abort when the testing is acquired. I have a suspicion that this scenario happens less often than we think. After reading many heartbreaking accounts of women who have been pressured and harassed by medical professionals to abort their “genetically-defective” children, I suspect that most women go into prenatal testing because their doctor recommends it and then are bullied into abortion when the test results aren’t perfect.
The problem is abortion and a medical establishment that uses it as a “solution” to medical problems. Always has been. Abortion takes clinically useful information and makes it deadly.
Why do I feel compelled to make this distinction? Because I know that someday doctors will likely be able to treat genetic disease in utero. Possibly even with gene therapy. I envision a day where drugs that are currently being tested to reverse the cognitive symptoms of Down Syndrome are used in the womb to halt the effects of an extra chromosome 21. That cannot happen without an accurate prenatal genetic test If we have labeled that prenatal testing as immoral because of its association with abortion, we close down an avenue for healing.
Morally, we need to separate the prenatal testing from the abortion. We can not equate prenatal genetic testing with murder. If we do, we may lose valuable future opportunities to heal in the womb.
I do wholeheartedly agree with Ms. Hawkins’ assessment of the way eugenic abortion is portrayed. Aborting a child with a genetic disease DOES NOT cure the disease. It only gets rid of the people with it. That wouldn’t work with cancer, but somehow when it comes to life in the womb, death is described as a “cure.”
Now there are those pro-lifers who would to like to restrict access to prenatal testing of any kind because it can lead to abortion. I understand that as a practical means to protect life in an imperfect world where abortion on demand is a reality. I just want to make sure that in doing so, or thinking it should be so, that we lay the moral blame where it belongs, with the abortion, not with the testing itself. It is important to recognize that sickening feeling we get around prenatal testing is due to the abortion that may follow and not due to the actual testing. After all, we Catholics pray our Rosary outside abortion clinics, not outside our local genetics lab.
Rebecca writes at Mary Meets Dolly which is, literally, the meeting of the world of genetics and genetic engineering, represented by Dolly, “mother” of modern biotechnology, and the teachings of the Catholic Church on the sanctity of life, represented by Mary, mother of Christ and the Church. Rebecca started www.MaryMeetsDolly.com to help everyday Catholics better understand the science and ethics surrounding modern biotechnology in light of Catholic Church teaching.
March 23, 2011 at 5:25 am
You bring up a great point. I work for a pro-life OB/GYN, and I find myself getting slightly irritated when patients ask for genetic testing. But it is because it is so often hand-in-hand with abortion these days.
Thanks for putting it in perspective. When there are ways to cure genetic disease in the womb, genetic testing will be a great tool to have. You're right that we shouldn't blame the testing itself for the evils that sometimes come about as a result.
March 23, 2011 at 5:42 am
Even now the testing serves some positive purpose. As a mom of a certain (ahem) age, I did have the non-invasive tests done with my last pregnancy. If there had been indications of Down Syndrome, it would have tipped off the doctors to examine the baby's heart more closely for the defects that accompany DS fairly frequently. Such a defect would have lead me to deliver at a more specialized hospital than the local one I normally go to. It would have been a truly pro-life thing to have this information before delivery.
March 23, 2011 at 10:23 am
While I agree that having information about the child in the womb could be extremely helpful, and even life-saving, the reality continues to be that the medical community is heartlessly persistant in recommending termination of an "imperfect" fetus. It is estimated that over 90% of unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted. I don't see that doctors or parents will be convinced that drug therapy to alleviate the condition would be an attractive choice.
Until laws are in place to protect the unborn, and until our society is more accepting of those who are different, I can't rejoice over new prenatal testing procedures. And, despite my "advanced age", I don't do any prenatal testing, except for an ultrasound at 20 weeks (although I would do more, non-invasive tests if the ultrasound revealed issues). Right now, any prenatal surgeries to correct problems are done in the second half of the pregnancy. There is no advantage to knowing earlier in pregnancy that there are issues…except that an early abortion is deemed "easier" and is certainly more legal than one performed after 24 weeks.
March 23, 2011 at 11:58 am
#3 had a cystic hygroma at 12 weeks. Testing was, of course, recommended. The concerns were Trisomy-18, Down's Syndrome, Turner's Syndrome, Trisomy-13, or absolutely nothing. After a tough weekend, and consulting with a priest, we chose not to increase the risk to the baby. But we were tempted…not to justify abortion (which is unjustifiable), but to prepare us if the baby did have a genetic defect. The hygroma resolved by week 20, and she's now 5.
#4 fell off the growth charts. The doctors still have no idea why. They seemed to think cystic fibrosis was the likely explanation, and recommended testing for that along with an amnio. Amnio was pushed multiple times, along with an experimental drug in case there was a uterine infection. We used the same logic from #3, and left it in God's hands. But the literature for CF said (paraphrased): "If the test comes back positive, the only way to not have a baby with cystic fibrosis is through abortion." Right in the CF literature. Born at 26 weeks, 15 weeks in the hospital, came home on oxygen, had hearing aids, had ROP, a hernia, low muscle tone, wears AFOs, she's now 4, and a joy.
Having been there, I can understand why people would want testing, so as to try and mentally prepare (and prepare the house) for a child with special needs. But I also saw right in the literature how testing is used to push abortion. Thankfully my wife's OB/GYN knows better than to recommend abortion.
March 23, 2011 at 12:54 pm
I've had similar discussions on prenatal testing. Yes, it is absolutely horrific that so much prenatal testing is used to "justify" abortions.
But I've also known moms and dads who were better able to prepare for the medical needs of a child after prenatal testing. A neighbor's second child was diagnosed with CF through prenatal genetic testing. She is not Catholic, but never considered abortion. But she read about CF and spoke to specialists so she could consult them very shortly after his birth.
He is now 11 and healthy and well with a lesser "degree" or type of CF. Maybe this will (someday) have a positive effect in proving that genetic tests can indicate a wide range of issues and nonissues.
I also know of a couple who discovered their unborn child had Downs. They were able learn more about Downs, connect with other parents, and face their fears and disappointment. Then they were fully ready to welcome their daughter at birth with love and were not shocked and dealing with new grief.
None of these examples change that the so many women will opt to abort a child with abnormal genetic testing. But, as Rebecca noted, that doesn't make prenatal testing morally wrong.
But I had (noninvasive) prenatal testing with blood tests. My husband and I discussed it. We would never consider abortion, but knew that we'd want to know and be prepared for our child's needs, whether that was immediate postnatal medical care or just our own knowledge.
I wouldn't limit prenatal testing to conditions for which prenatal intervention is possible. The possibility of parent preparation can also be a blessing.
March 23, 2011 at 2:43 pm
I'm with Rebecca (as usual).
I wonder if people realize that the 20 week ultrasound picture they have on their refrigerator is not a souvenir from a photo session, but in fact a diagnostic procedure – a kind of prenatal test. While the sonographer did not say, "Now I'm going to see if your child has hydrocephalus so you can make a decision about whether to abort" or, "Now I'm going to make sure your baby is clear of HLHS" while she hovers over the heart, that is exactly what she is doing. And most of the time, we walk out with cute pictures – and don't complain about the "search and destroy" ultrasounds. Shrug. We need better informed consent surrounding prenatal tests and screens, and perhaps we need to monitor the influence of laboratory kickpacks in the doctor/patient relationship . . . but all the other stuff we are complaining about when we touch on this topic has to be dealt with in our own homes, parishes, communities, etc. If we ourselves go about our lives day after day, month after month, never taking interest in or advocating for people (including unborn babies) with syndromes or birth defects, then really, nothing much is going to change.
March 23, 2011 at 3:14 pm
I know of situations where they parents themselves do not entertain any ideas of abortion, but the doctors themselves will automatically ask when they want one if the test comes back with bad news. Some will begin to bully parents if they refuse.
One of the families at my parish had that happen to them, and it turned out in the end that it was a false positive and the baby was fine.
March 23, 2011 at 3:22 pm
I was always opposed to prenatal genetic testing, too–I worked at a Christian clinic, and thought that we shouldn't even offer it. But after reading a book about moms who have babies with Down Syndrome, I began to understand why a pro-lifer might choose to have the test done.
The moms who knew about the condition were able to prepare for it, and to deliver with neonatalogists who understood the condition and could provide good treatment. They worked through much of their anxiety, shock and fear before birth, and welcome their children with unmixed joy and delight. I am with Elizabeth m and Margaret above–there are some solid "pro-life" reasons for these tests!
Having said that–a mom who might be tempted to abort should turn down these tests.
March 23, 2011 at 5:49 pm
When my wife was pregnant with our daughter, testing revealed that she had an elevated risk of having Down's. The medical professionals were all *very* serious about it and sent us to a "genetics counselor." We wanted info, we needed to know what that risk meant, what we needed to do to prepare, what support there was out there. But that wasn't what the visit was for. Turns out that "genetics counselor" was just a euphemism for eugenics counselor. Once it was made clear that we would not abort no matter once, she had absolutely no role, nothing to offer. The hospital essentially paid someone to make people feel better about killing their children. (Perhaps there was something that she could have done for parents facing different situations, but nothing but eugenics for us.)
And the elevated risk? .8% Less than 1% chance justified a death sentence in this world. Our little girl was born without Down's, and there was always a part of me that wanted to to take her to them and shout "Look at her! She's wonderful. And would have been wonderful if she had had Down's. And you wanted me to KILL her!!"
March 23, 2011 at 6:17 pm
I am so glad this post has sparked some much needed conversation. I truly believe that one of the biggest problems surrounding prenatal testing is the health professionals that are bullying these vulnerable women into aborting. When you see it or experience it call it out. Complain. If you know a pro-life young person who is interested in genetics suggest genetic counseling. It would be a tough career, but pro-life genetic counselors are so desperately needed.
March 26, 2011 at 11:12 pm
I think that the goal of all of this is to create a heaven on earth…To remove any and all problems…To believe that these tests will in the future be helpful is to not learn from the past…I truly wish they had never discovered the gene for Down Syndrome…Countless beautiful human beings are missing from our planet and I think it is our loss not medicine's gain…
March 30, 2011 at 2:22 am
Mary,
The genetic cause of Down Syndrome was discovered by a very great Catholic, Jerome Lejeune. Just because his discovery has been used immorally does not mean that it was wrong to begin with. Let us put the blame where it belongs: on Roe vs. Wade not on Dr. Lejeune.
April 4, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Prenatal screening is a tool, and it can be used for good or for evil, like a gun. You can use the gun to kill the innocent civilian, or you can use the gun to protect and provide for the innocent civilian.
I know a woman who went in for her ultrasound, was informed her #1 baby was a girl, was then informed that she had hydrocephalus, and was immediately advised to abort her. Over the course of her pregnancy, she was told every single time she came in to "terminate the pregnancy", was told her baby would be born a vegetable, a freak, a cyclops, was told not to even get a pediatrician because the baby wouldn't even live to be born, etc. etc. etc. Every single time she came home in tears.
But at the same time, I believe this baby would not have lived unless she had had the ultrasound, for two reasons. The first reason is that the doctors and nurses at the hospital were able to know in advance what was coming, and so to prepare for it. The second reason is that all of her friends knew of this baby, and so the prayers were being sent up to heaven in a flood.
This woman's mother-in-law was the principal of a small school, and the children prayed for the baby girl every day. Everyone prayed throughout the next months. Rosaries, novenas, masses… we were hammering at the gates of heaven non-stop.
Meriam Sofia, known as "Meeso" is now over two years old with a beautifully unconscious devotion to the Blessed Mother, a big sister, and a wonderful, charming, precious child with blonde hair and blue eyes. She will probably never be completely normal, but is definitely not a vegetable, a freak, or any other of the nasty names they called her. She is such a bright light to everyone, and to not have a "Meeso" in the world would have been such a loss.