Last spring there was a false alarm about a noninvasive form of prenatal testing, in particular for Down syndrome. But if The Guardian is right then the British NHS is pushing forward on a more general program in this direction:
The early signs are so promising that the professor leading the programme says that the risk-free test could be the standard method of detecting babies with some genetic conditions inherited from the father within two to three years and those with Down's syndrome within five - and in the process save the lives of an estimated 265 mostly normal babies a year.
The life-saving part is that there would be far less need for amniocentesis, which is invasive and results in a risk of miscarriage. The cost vs. benefit of prenatal screening would presumably shift. Though British newspapers are inclined toward sensationalism and inaccuracy, this is probably grounded in something real.
- Log in to post comments
The Guardian seems to have adopted the pro-lifer terminology, "unborn babies" instead of "fetuses."
The Guardian seems to have adopted the pro-lifer terminology, "unborn babies" instead of "fetuses."
why do you think that american terminologies would have any valence for british people?
There was a recent example (a few years ago) of an attack on academic freedom when a professor raised the issue of aborting Down's syndrome fetuses:
http://www.wnct.com/nct/news/state_regional/article/-NCT_2008_02_16_000…
Salient (unbelievable quote) by a student:
"But senior Lara Frame of Charlotte said the classroom was no place for Harris to express his opinion."
Razib is right: for British people the two terms are interchangeable. Fetuses sounds more scientific, though, so I think it tends to get used less just because it sounds a bit awkward.
ah, I see they're using extracellular DNA(?). New development since I last looked at the field. Seems more efficient than the way they used to try to do it, straining the bloodstream for the tiny numbers of fetal cells.