Prenatal testing

Until recently, pregnant women over the age of 38 in France were systematically advised to have amniocentesis--a prenatal test to determine whether a baby has a genetic disorder or a chromosomal abnormality. In the US and many other countries, women over 35 are recommended to have amnio. Being 34, and determined not to slip through this inter-cultural gap, whether to get this test done or not was something that I considered seriously.

The contradictions of genetic prenatal testing are well-described by Sandra Steingraber in her book Having Faith. Amniocentesis is very narrow in focus in that "the whole enterprise implies that the future life of a child can be read by counting its chromosomes and scrutinizing their architecture" (click here for an excerpt of the book chapter where this issue is discussed). This is quite problematic when one considers that the majority of birth defects are not attributable to inborn genetic errors; children born with defects due to environmental factors, such as mercury poisoning or thalidomide, would not be detected using this method. Moreover, so many disorders and defects due to environmental factors are not detected until many years after birth; studies link pesticide exposure to autism, neurological disorders, and other developmental problems. A question Steingraber asks is "What if amniocentesis inquired about environmental problems as well as genetic ones?"

The results of two screening tests that I went through--the nuchal translucency scan (at 12 weeks) and HT21 blood test (at 17 weeks)--came out to indicate that the possibility of my fetus having Down syndrome and neural tube defects were extremely low--1:2495 for Down syndrome. The morphological scan (done at 22 weeks) indicated no physical abnormalities--even though, of course, as was written in the papers that were attached to all the test results, they do not guarantee that the fetus will be free of abnormalities/disorders.

In the end, we decided against having amniocentesis. But if a prenatal testing that allows us to determine the amount of environmental contaminants in our body, one that could diagnose whether or not the fetus will be free from problems arising from such contaminants existed, I would certainly have taken it. Since being diagnosed with “sick house syndrome” (a Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) six years ago, I have changed my lifestyle so that I am exposed to as little environmental toxins as possible. However, if such prenatal testing existed, it would be very important for me to know how much my diagnosis six years ago could negatively affect my child. This would be such an important information for all parents-to-be.

Another thing we found out during the second trimester ultrasound was that the fetus' growth is normal and that all measurements--the diameter and circumference of the abdominal area, thigh bones, etc.--are in the 50 percentile, i.e., average. What a relief to parents (to-be): having a completely average child! Having grown up in an environment where one's academic aptitude is measured using scores and percentiles, it was a big relief to know that the measurements of the fetus are 50 percentile. At what point in our lives as parents does having an average child become NOT enough? We'll have to wait and see.