Talk:Prenatal testing

message: Article uses many loaded terms like "needlessly worry", etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.54.50 (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Opinion

message: It seemed to me that the ethics issues are delicate.  I changed the lanugage to be more neutral and non-judgmental.
Removed " or mental retardation" from section. The sentence was that women should have their child screened if their partner comes from an ethnic background prone to genetic disorders "or mental retardation". Sounds like something from the 50s to me.
:Reply to anonymous. The problem you noticed was not obsolescence but rather that an encyclopedia like this should be descriptive, not prescriptive. It should describe what people do, it can describe what a certain authoritative organization advocates, it can describe the views of those who support or oppose certain actions, but it should not say "you should do x" or "a woman over 40 should do x" or anything similar.  The other part of the problem is that nowhere in the introductory paragraphs is there a reason for prenatal diagnosis. There are three purposes of prenatal diagnosis: (1) to enable timely treatment of a condition before or after delivery, (2) to give the parents the chance to abort a fetus with the diagnosed condition, and (3) to give parents the chance "to prepare" for a baby with a problem (this last is emphasized in the article but in fact it is the first two reasons that have really driven policy and practices in this field and we should not be shy about acknowledging them.  alteripse 00:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics

message: This generally excellent article seems to be more about screening than diagnosis but it sort of covers both without explaining the distinction. This is my first look at this article and I dont know if it is currently "tended" by anyone. I am going to set up a redirect from prenatal screening, which is what I was looking for when I found this. Anybody want to keep them two distinct articles? Anybody object to renaming this article prenatal screening and making prenatal diagnosis the redirect? This is not my field of expertise or special interest. alteripse 00:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply - I agree; it would be better for this article to be titled 'prenatal screening' and redirected from 'diagnosis'. Tynam 13:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree. Prenatal screening tests look for markers that may show a fetus at higher risk of an abnormality, such as less invasive blood tests looking for markers like AFP, inhibin, etc, but this does not guarantee the fetus actually has an abnormality. Prenatal diagnostic testing is the test that actually confirms or denies an abnormality. These are the tests like amniocentesis which may be more invasive. I think this can be kept as a single page, but this distinction needs to be made very clear since it can be confusing for patients to determine what screening vs diagnostic testing means for their fetus.  Sohinihalder (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: prenatal diagnosis vs prenatal screening

message: * This article seems strong on invasive and ultrasound diagnostic techniques but says little about the (increasingly common) use of non-invasive protein and hormone measurements for preliminary screening.  This is related to the rather vague distinction this article makes between screening and diagnosis.  Compare to the 'prenatal screening' section under Down syndrome or in individual marker articles such as Alpha-fetoprotein.  Do we need separate sections on non-invasive and invasive tests?  Tynam 13:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-invasive techniques 

message: Fetal screening is a stub.  Merge it here? --Una Smith (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge here?

message: Currently the article does not adequately explain the differences and relationships between screening and diagnostic tests. --Una Smith (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like the article might be better titled Prenatal testing, which would encompass both diagnostic and screening tests.  But it does seem like several places diagnosis is used in the article when screening would be better term, (probably because the article started with that title, rather than because it is the right term). Zodon (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Screening versus diagnosis

message: The article links to sex but in that context it really means gender.  Follow both of these links and judge for yourself. Spotfixer (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The determination is typically done by genetic testing or observation of physical characteristics, which gives an estimate of the sex of the fetus/embryo.   (See for instance sex#genetic). According to the wikipedia article, gender refers primarily to sociology or grammar.  (I haven't heard of prenatal test to determine gender, (e.g. identify those "whose gender identity feels incongruent with their biological sex" etc.))  Zodon (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex and gender 

message: New user with connection to fetal genetic testing from maternal blood (commendably disclosed) added a lot of new information and sections. They need though some further work to integrate better into the article, prevent duplication of some details, and also consider some US-centric legal aspects.
* IMHO a new test will need to await its commercial release before inclusion in wikipedia article
* Will need sources other than just those of the company to provide the idealised secondary sources that WP:MEDRS aspires to.
* Some of specificity and sensitivity details of new 'Typical screening sequence' section duplicates that of existing 'False positives and false negatives' section - I'm not sure which way to proceed to copyedit this - thoughts please :-)
* 'Informed consent and medical malpractice' section needs work:
*# Firstly that off-topic here to spend too long discussing what are basic issues for all testing and medical procedure consenting issues - better for perhaps just short section with link to main article of informed consent
*# Currently reads as somewhat of instruction manual for a patient rights (i.e. WP:NOTGUIDE applies) (and investor of a new test not best person IMHO to add such direction re potential for perception of COI - but I fully accept new editor had best of motives and at least some consideration of this diffcult ethical area needs mentioning) 
*# US-centric in suggesting that women have right to be informed of all possible tests and choose which ones they will have. In UK there are clear screening guidelines and NHS service commitments, but outside of that a women without specific risk-factors has no inaliable "right" to additonal tests nor therefore expectation to be counselled on them (hence whilst poor practice not to offer testing to those over 35, no NHS access for Nuchal Thickness scans for those under 35 and so no requirement to consent on this topic - yet plenty of other aspects that would still need be covered such as our routine UK morphology scans at 18-21 weeks that provides a layer of universal screening). 
Anyway link to discussion thread on my talk page is here, but further discussion is probably better undertaken below :-) David Ruben  Talk  21:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: April 2009 new sections and US-centric legal commentary

message: See Wikipedia entry on amniocentesis for more accurate information about the risks of amnio. The 1 in 200 miscarriage rate from amnio is a very old statistic and may never have been accurate for an experienced practitioner--certainly that's a dramatic overestimate given the way things are done nowadays (although there is probably significant variation among doctors and facilities). It's outrageous that it's taken so long to start updating the information people are given in deciding whether to have an amnio. 
Anyhow, the risk estimate should be updated here. See http://www.marchofdimes.com/printableArticles/14332_1164.asp#head5, for example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katydid99 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  amniocentesis risk dramatically overstated 

message: I realize this page is in start-up mode, but this section really shouldn't stand as-is with a note that it applies to the U.S.
Some states go by a Reasonable Doctor standard and some states go by a Reasonable Patient standard. The tie-in to informed consent is messy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.107.31 (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Societal Pressures on testing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Prenatal diagnosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120308181947/http://newsite.fcmb.dk/index.php/fcmb-publications.html to http://newsite.fcmb.dk/index.php/fcmb-publications.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See 
* 
-- Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible source 

message: The last section, after discussing general ptoperties of tests and some probably globally similar pregnancy checkups, all of a sudden reads "Performing tests to determine possible birth defects is mandatory in all states." Most probably this should have meant "US states", and not "states" as "countries". Not knowing what all more in the article is US only, and not being able to find the correct country bias or POV template that I could feel safe placing in the article text, I make at least this note here, hoping that someone will pick it up and act upon it. Thank you in advance! --Blahma (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the edit for you. You should not be discouraged from making this kind of edit in the future. Deleet (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  US country bias 

message: Hello,
I tried to clean up this new section, however, after re-reading the section, I feel that it needs quite a bit more work before it should be added to article. I reverted my revisions and also the addition of the following paragraph. You can see my reverted edits here for ideas on how to improve this and make it read more like an encyclopedia. Link to my revisions (which I reversed).
Content added by : These paragraphs ARE of my authorship: 
*A meta-analysis that investigated the success rate of using fetal cell-free DNA from maternal blood to screen for aneuploidies found that this technique detected trisomy 13 in 99% of the cases, trisomy 18 in 98% of the cases and trisomy 21 in 99% of the cases [30][31]. Failed tests using fetal cell-free DNA are more likely to occur in fetuses with trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 but not with trisomy 21 [32]. Previous studies found elevated levels of cell-free fetal DNA for trisomy 13 and 21 from maternal serum when compared to women with euploid pregnancies [33] [34][35][36]. However, an elevation of cell-free DNA for trisomy 18 was not observed [33]. 
*Another important issue to address is the uncertainty of prenatal genetic testing. Uncertainty on genetic testing results from several reasons: the genetic test is associated with a disease but the prognosis and/or probability is unknown, the genetic test provides information different than the familiar disease they tested for, found genetic variants have unknown significance, and finally, results may not be associated with found fetal abnormalities. Richardson and Ormond thoroughly address the issue of uncertainty of genetic testing and explained its implication for bioethics. First, the principle of beneficence is assumed in prenatal testing by decreasing the risk of miscarriage, however, uncertain information derived from genetic testing may harm the parents by provoking anxiety and leading to the termination of a fetus that is probably healthy. Second, the principle of autonomy is undermined given a lack of comprehension resulting from new technologies and changing knowledge in the field of genetics. And third, the principle of justice raised issues regarding equal access to emerging prenatal tests.
 This is NOT of my authorship, neither the rest of the article. 
*Parents need to make informed decisions about screening, diagnosis, and any actions to be taken as a result. Many screening tests are inaccurate, so one worrisome test result frequently leads to additional, more invasive tests. If prenatal testing confirms a serious disability, many parents are forced to decide whether to continue the pregnancy or seek an abortion.  The "option" of screening becomes an unexpected requirement to decide (see wrongful abortion). 
I now notice that this is a student initiative. It is great to see students here improving articles!  please speak with your instructor and make some tweaks to this content before uploading it to the site.
 adding to the original article was part of the assignments. 
JenOttawa (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics of prenatal testing 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Non invasive prenatal testing which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 00:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: — Assignment last updated by Rafpez (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: UCSF SOM Inquiry In Action-- Wikipedia Editing 2022

message: — Assignment last updated by Jellyfish829 (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Molecular Genetics