The Pros And Cons Of Prenatal Genetic Testing

The medical field constantly changes and improves with new technology invented everyday. One newer test that has been discovered in recent decades includes a test known as prenatal genetic testing. This type of testing refers to the ways one may discover whether their child obtained birth defects or inherited illnesses before or during pregnancy if parents show concern (Cooper, 2013, p. 1). Like many advancements in the medical field, controversy broke out regarding the consequences and messages prenatal genetic testing sends, with several arguing it promotes abortion and “sends the message that the lives of people with mental and physical disabilities are not worth living” (Painter, 1997, p. 1). Unfortunately, genetic testing receives backlash

To prevent these safety concerns, alterations to the test need to take place. While many parents choose to take the chance and go through with the test, “others refuse testing because it carries risks: Amniocentese causes miscarriage in between 1 in 200 and 1 in 400 cases; CVS has even higher risk--1 in 100” (Painter, 1997, p. 5). Amniocentesis and CVS consist of two examples in genetic testing that have been statistically proven to come with risks. Amniocentesis is “a test of the amniotic fluid around the baby” and Chorionic villus sampling, CVS, consists of “a test of a sample of tissue from the placenta for chromosomal problems (Cooper, 2013, p. 2). The statistics provided prove the risks of acquiring prenatal testing and how it could affect the fetus. As an alternative for unsafe tests, another option offered to parents includes a blood test. Unfortunately, these tests prove less accurate than the invasive tests. Many “experts say positive results in a blood test should be confirmed with invasive procedures,” however, negative results would rule out the need for an invasive test (Weaver, 2013, p. 2). Preventing false results remains essential, as this would cause further problems for parents. One non-invasive test needs invented as a way to assure accurate results and

This creates concerns and protests against such tests as they believe this encourages the idea that the disabled prove less important than healthy people in society. In addition, they argue the decision to end one’s life “contradicts our society’s cornerstone believe that individuals have the right to make their own health care decisions, and that no one has a right to terminate another’s life” (Sprague, 2016, p.1). However, fetuses, or the developmental stage of a baby, do not feel emotions or conscious thoughts to make healthcare decisions, therefore, the decision must fall on the parents. If parents choose to obtain a test, this decision should not offend anyone with a genetic disorder, instead, it simply permits parents to ensure their child grows up in a healthy, appropriate environment. Tracey DiLascio (2016) argues “genetic screening would still be beneficial, as it would allow the parents a better opportunity to plan accordingly for the additional needs of their child” (p. 3). Prenatal testing tests for diseases where children suffer. Conditions, such as Tay-Sachs, lead to early deaths of children, and emotional turmoil on parents. By performing these tests, the parent can choose to prevent the draining, emotional experience of burying their child. For example, parents Meredith and Jim Margolis decided