-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: MSAFP vs triple screen From: Cheri Van Hoover (cherivh@waonline.com) Sun Jul 13 10:49:42 1997 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Bernard Cristalli: "Pregnancy end surveillance" Previous message: Melisa Anne Guilbeault: "Re: Premarin: estrone/estradiol metabolism" Maybe in reply to: Danny Tucker: "MSAFP vs triple screen" Next in thread: Malcolm Griffiths: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Reply: Malcolm Griffiths: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Samir Saidi wrote: > > Thanks, Danny, and other listers. I agree with the points. > > I think the point I was trying to iterate in my first post, rather than > start a debate on FNT was to emphasise the attitude to Down's screening > in the community, i.e. "Have a test for Down's". That's the way it > appears to be presented to our antenatal patients, without any > significant explanation of the implications and inadequacies of the > test(s). > > Any comments? I recently wrote an 8 page paper on the ethical implications of prenatal diagnosis. I agree that this is an area which has been sadly neglected in the rush to embrace new technologies. Informed consent for genetic screening is very difficult because of the complexity of the legal, ethical, and moral issues involved in this testing. Here's my reference list, for those who are interested in reading more. If anyone is interested in the paper itself, let me know and I'd be happy to send it to you. -- Cheri Van Hoover, CNM Midwifery Service at Stanford Palo Alto, CA Asch, D.A., Hershey, J.C., Pauly, M.V., Patton, J.P., Jedrziewski, M.K., & Mennuti, M.T. (1996, May). Genetic screening for reproductive planning: methodological and conceptual issues in policy analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 86(5), 684-690. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association (1994, July). Ethical issues related to prenatal genetic testing. Archives of Family Medicine, 3(7), 633-642. de Montalembert, M., Guilloud-Bataille, M., Ducros, A., Galacteros, F., Girot, R., Herve, C., Maier-Redelsperger, M., & Feingold, J. (1996). Implications of prenatal diagnosis of sickle cell disease. Genetic Counseling, 7(1), 9-15. Elkins, T.E., & Brown, D. (1995, Spring). Ethical concerns and future directions in maternal screening for Down syndrome. Women's Health Issues, 5(1), 15-20. Ganiats, T.G. (1996, January-March). Justifying prenatal screening and genetic amniocentesis programs by cost-effective analyses: a re-evaluation. Medical Decision Making, 16(1), 45-50. Glover, N.M., & Glover, S.J. (1996, August). Ethical and legal issues regarding selective abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome. Mental Retardation, 34(4), 207-214. Khalid, L., Price, S.M., & Barrow, M. (1994, March). The attitudes of midwives to maternal serum screening for Down's syndrome. Public Health, 108(2), 131-136. Murray, T.H. (1994, Fall). Assessing genetic technologies. Two ethical issues. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 10(4), 573-582. Searle, J. (1996, August). Fearing the worst--why do pregnant women feel 'at risk'? Aust. and N.Z. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 36(3), 279-286. Sheridan, E., Williams, J., Caine, A., Morgan, R., Mason, G., & Mueller, R.F. (1997, January). Counselling implications of chromosomal abnormalities other than trisomy 21 detected through a maternal serum screening programme. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 104(1), 42-45. Next message: Bernard Cristalli: "Pregnancy end surveillance" Previous message: Melisa Anne Guilbeault: "Re: Premarin: estrone/estradiol metabolism" Maybe in reply to: Danny Tucker: "MSAFP vs triple screen" Next in thread: Malcolm Griffiths: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Reply: Malcolm Griffiths: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen"

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Dec 2 05:20:20 2009

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.