Refusing Newborn screen, am I alone?? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 67 Old 07-13-2010, 02:42 PM - Thread Starter
 
clarasmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ok, so anyone that lives in Texas knows there was a big to-do about the state selling left over blood spots for research and saving DNA for law enforcement purposes.... I have had my other babies do the newborn screen in the past, and I even had a false positive that caused my baby to be put awful bloodwork for no reason. We are refusing the PKU this time around, and I'm curious if there are any other mommas out there skipping it. My dd was put through over an hour and more than a dozen heelpricks to get her first test done, we did not repeat it at the two week visit. my ds had a "false positive", had to held done to get blood taken from his arm, only to find out that the false positive was caused by having the test done at two days old, too early to get an accurate result.
I'm not looking for reasons why we should do the newborn screen, we've already made the desicion not to, I'm just curious what other people's experiences were with refusing.
clarasmom is offline  
#2 of 67 Old 07-13-2010, 03:22 PM
 
*MamaJen*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I would call myself very low intervention, but I always advocate strongly for doing the newborn screen.
It's not an intervention in the sense of something going into your baby, like a vaccine or vitamin k shot -- it's just a heel prick. My homebirth midwife did it quickly and skillfully as I nursed, and it was really non-traumatic. DS cried more for the footprint. She also waited until breastfeeding was established to do the test. We only had to do it once.
The thing is, PKU and the other metabolic disorders are absolutely devastating if not caught in time -- think profound mental retardation -- but can be totally controlled if discovered early. I would never skip the PKU testing, because I feel it has little to no risk, but could give my child a normal life rather than a severely disabled one.
Here's what happened with the blood spots; apparently they are not selling them now: http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-...rss_news_41793.
I think there are also some opt-out procedures in place.

Jen, journalist, policy wonk, and formerly a proud single mama to my sweet little man Cyrus, born at home Dec. 2007 . Now married to my Incredibly Nice Guy and new mama to baby Arthur.
*MamaJen* is offline  
#3 of 67 Old 07-13-2010, 04:12 PM
 
jorona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank you for that link. As a relatively new Texas resident I wasn't aware of any of this. I planned to allow our midwife to perform the PKU test and I still will, I also believe the benefits outweigh the risks. But I definitely plan to ask about and look for the opt-out section as well.

Wife to 8/07, SAHM to DS1 12/08 & DS2 7/10
jorona is offline  
#4 of 67 Old 07-13-2010, 05:09 PM - Thread Starter
 
clarasmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
there is a huge loop-hole with the op-out..... "According to the Use and Storage of Newborn Screening Bloodspot Cards information provided to parents, identifying information linking a child to a particular bloodspot is not allowed outside of the Department of State Health Services without advance consent of the child’s parent or guardian unless otherwise provided by law."

Patient privacy expert Dr. Deborah Peel said those words, "unless otherwise provided by law" create a huge loophole.

Also the lawsuit did not include the samples being sent to the military labs for DNA storage.

I'm not going argue for or against the newborn screening... you will and can find people who argue for and against vitamin K, eye drops, circumcision,etc...etc... Having had a false positive for a disorder, putting my newborn through horrific follow-up care, to be told " the test has really high false/positives because it's done too early after birth", I'm not interested in going that route again. for every positive result, there are 200 false/positives... the test isn't perfect...

And as far as the arguement of the
clarasmom is offline  
#5 of 67 Old 07-13-2010, 08:12 PM
 
Illiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
if the problem with the test is that it's done too soon, when should it be done? I'm definately going to do it, but I thought it was supposed to be done within like 48 hours of the birth or something like that. That was always the ONE test that I was fine with them doing. With my DD they only did it once right after birth.. they never did it again after that.

Jade, momma to Ariana 5/23/06 and Trystan 9/28/10
Illiana is offline  
#6 of 67 Old 07-13-2010, 08:19 PM
 
LittleBirdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vacationland
Posts: 791
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
DH and I are going through the decision process right now. My biggest concern is that my state retains the sample INDEFINITELY. My midwives said that if you write to the state they will send you back the screening card (they take 4 blood spots and use 2). That has satisified me but DH is still concerned.

I know nothing about what goes on at the lab, etc. With the 2 spots they use, they look for the specific disorders they test for and there's a chance they could retain the results (i.e. child was negative for PKU disorder, etc.) but there's no way they could map my child's entire DNA from one little spot of blood, right? Once they run their tests on the 2 samples they are no good, right? This may sound absolutely stupid but I am not a science person and I really have no idea!

Would love to hear others thoughts/experience/knowledge from a privacy standpoint.

Mumma to DS July 2010 and expecting another baby boy late July 2012 belly.gif

LittleBirdy is offline  
#7 of 67 Old 07-13-2010, 08:53 PM
 
CoopersMommy0308's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
We are not having the newborn screening done.

SAH Mama to Cooper (3-9-08) and Sawyer (9-3-10).   
CoopersMommy0308 is offline  
#8 of 67 Old 07-13-2010, 09:07 PM
 
crunchy_mommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wonder if you could go through a private lab rather than through the state?

Co-sleeping is really wonderful when your child actually SLEEPS!! familybed1.gif
crunchy_mommy is offline  
#9 of 67 Old 07-13-2010, 09:36 PM
 
meg_shannon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No you cannot "map" an entire DNA genome from a drop of blood. Usually scientists only analyze certain markers (kind of like comparing brown hair to blond, lets count how many each in a certain geographic/demographic area).

You also have the fact that there isn't much DNA in a tiny blood spot. Red blood cells do have a nucleus (the center "capsule" of a cell that contains the DNA). They don't have a nucleus because of their shape (if they did they wouldn't fit through the blood vessels properly).

The government has been collecting these samples for LONG time, and they cannot be used for "tracking." (I really mean they cannot, the information isn't there - a lot of samples are a disorganized mess). They are used for population studies by researchers as an easy source of data/samples.

Both myself and my husband are involved in research and are both scientists, myself a biochemist and he's a physicist. Our science backgrounds are extensive. I also polled my FIL about this; he's a academic pediatric researcher for a university.

It can see very big brother, but really the government doesn't have the organizational skills to pull off what you're scared of.
meg_shannon is offline  
#10 of 67 Old 07-13-2010, 11:26 PM
 
jennmk13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illiana View Post
if the problem with the test is that it's done too soon, when should it be done? I'm definately going to do it, but I thought it was supposed to be done within like 48 hours of the birth or something like that.
We have just been doing some research on this as well. Between 4-9 days after birth is the best time to do the test. If you do it sooner the likelihood of getting a false positive goes way up, because the baby's breastfeeding or feeding has not been established.

Jenn (30) wife to DH (42) and Mama to DS (2). Looking forward to our with #2 due Nov. 2 2010.
jennmk13 is offline  
#11 of 67 Old 07-14-2010, 01:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
clarasmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Texas agreed to take part in the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory database project, which gets it samples from the newborn screen. Jim Harrington the civil rights lawyer who sued for the samples being sold to Texas A&M, is considering suing again, because the state did not disclose or include the samples sent to the DNA database in the lawsuit settlement. This is not fridge science, these are the facts in my state. In many states it automatic to store the samples and use it for research, over 20 papers have been published based on research done on newborn samples. Honestly, the mis-use of the samples is not why we won't be doing it, but it certainly doesn't motivate me.
clarasmom is offline  
#12 of 67 Old 07-14-2010, 02:23 PM
 
NortheastSuperstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here is a link to what each state tests for in their newborn screening:

http://genes-r-us.uthscsa.edu/nbsdisorders.pdf

NortheastSuperstar
Three boys and a sweet toddling girl joy.gif
NortheastSuperstar is offline  
#13 of 67 Old 07-15-2010, 01:13 AM
 
AugustLia23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: In the present
Posts: 3,574
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm all for choice, and chose to do one with both my homebirth's. Happy that I did it, because it told me that my kids carry a hemoglobin trait that won't affect their lives, but may affect their children's, depending on who they mate with. I think the info that it provides can be very useful.

Non Practicing Midwife, going back to school! Mamma to my 3 loves, living each day to the fullest.
AugustLia23 is offline  
#14 of 67 Old 07-15-2010, 01:40 AM
 
Aka mommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am not in Texas but we had a big issue refusing the newborn screen. My mw was ok with us not doing it, as we had a homebirth. But we had an emergency transfer after his birth and the PICU was livid that we wouldn't give in. Even tried to railroad my dh that they wouldnt release our son until we did the test, while i was showering and not present. I put the stop on it and asked for the paperwork to waive the test. Once the Dr. realized i wasn't budging and knew the waiver existed they complied.

Loving mom to 2energy.gif ,1jammin.gif , & 1dog2.gif . Surrodaughter 4/09
Aka mommy is offline  
#15 of 67 Old 07-15-2010, 01:52 AM
 
luv-my-boys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: stuck between baskets of laundry
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy View Post
I wonder if you could go through a private lab rather than through the state?
there are several private labs that do newborn screening that will NOT sell/disclose the information to anyone but you. We did this with 2 of ours due to the limited screening in state compared to all the private labs could test for. They are done the same way as all the other newborn screenings but the results (at lesat for ours) was sent to us. I feel this way I have the info which I believe to be vital and can choose whether I need to follow up with it or not but feel better knowing my child's dna isnt being sold or *researched*.

google expanded newborn screening
luv-my-boys is offline  
#16 of 67 Old 07-15-2010, 02:02 AM
 
grumpybear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 918
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
how can our babies' blood spot be used against us (or our babies)?
Not being snarky here, just sincerely trying to understand what harm can befall on us as a result of the blood swapping for supplies.
I understand that it is at the very least very, very unethical, but realistically, what harm (as opposed to the benefits of catching a severely debilitating condition early)?
grumpybear is online now  
#17 of 67 Old 07-15-2010, 09:42 AM - Thread Starter
 
clarasmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpybear View Post
how can our babies' blood spot be used against us (or our babies)?
Not being snarky here, just sincerely trying to understand what harm can befall on us as a result of the blood swapping for supplies.
I understand that it is at the very least very, very unethical, but realistically, what harm (as opposed to the benefits of catching a severely debilitating condition early)?
The problem is informed consent. You probably wouldn't let them cut a lock of hair from your child to do research on, and probably wouldn't allow them to take a blood sample just to hold on to DNA information for future use... and who knows how the information will truly be used... The newborn screen itself is part research... parents get a call that your baby carries a gene for a certain disease but doesn't have the disease.... great, so now you are worried about your future grandchildren in the future, maybe possibly having a disorder... Well if your child wants genetic testing done before having kids, they can make the desicion when they get there. They use the newborn screen as an oppurtunity to take information for private and public use that you would not consent to otherwise... they use the "dead baby" card to scare pregnant mommas to comply. The vitamin K shot might possibly prevent something.... the eye goop might possibly prevent something.... circumsision might possibly prevent something... the newborn screen might possibly find something...but it does provide a great chance to get info that the parents wouldn't otherwise give us.
clarasmom is offline  
#18 of 67 Old 07-15-2010, 01:03 PM
 
IVAMOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As a seasoned mom of four children ages, 19, 16 12 1/2 and 7, I wanted to share my perspective on newborn screening. They were each screened in the hospital where they were born and all was fine and each are not any worse for the wear as a result of their little heel prick. PKU is just one disorder that is a part of newborn screening. Currently, the American College of Medical Genetics recommends each state screen for 29 disorders. My two younger children have a disorder that was not being screened for at the time of their births. Nine years ago, Stephen was 3 1/2 and that is when his undetected disorder revealed itself. Imagine finding your beautiful, healthy toddler unrepsonsive and breathing faster than you can imagine with a pulse that took EMTs 3 times to get because they couldn't count fast enough. Within 24 hours, Stephen was in a coma on life support and we got the diagnosis. It was too late however, to prevent severe brain damage. He remained in that state for 3 weeks and we nearly lost him. He spent almost 4 weeks in the PICU and 6 weeks in rehab. He survived, but is now a child with severe disabilities unable to walk or talk or eat. He is fed through a G Tube, is legally blind, takes 4 medications for seizure control and has many orthopedic issues. Remember, he appeared to be normal prior to his crisis and was running around with his big brothers, playing with is Thomas the Tank Engine trains the day before he got sick. he was my little buddy that went everywhere with me. Our latest hurdle is that Stephen has to have major surgery this fall to place titanium rods in his back to correct his scoliosis due to his lack of muscle strength and spasticity. He has had surgery for retracted testicles due to spasticity. Hospital admissions are a part of life for him along with the high medical bills. We also live with the perpetual grief of all that we have lost with Stephen. Our dreams for him are very different from what they were when he was born. All of this could have been prevented if his disorder was part of the newborn screening process at the time of his birth. My daughter is the youngest and she was screened in utero after what we learned through Stephen. As sad as we were, we were happy that we found out early and by doing so, she benefited from early management and treatment of her disorder and continues to do so. She is living the life that Stephen was robbed of. If I can offer one piece of honest to goodness advice, please make sure your baby gets his or her newborn screening. We had no indication at all that we were at risk of having one of these disorders in our family. Most people don't. For all having babies, this is a very special time in your life and as you pick our nurseries, car seats, clothes, etc., you will be doing your baby a great disservice if you opt out of the newborn screening, because you never know if it will come back to haunt you like it did for us and our chidlren were screened. It is such a simple screening test in which most people move on with life and never have to give a second thought to, but for a certain few, it will be a lifesaving test done that can make the difference of a life like my daughter's or one like Stephen's. Not a day goes by that I don't think about all of the "what ifs". As for the government using the blood spot cards for DNA testing, be cautious of people who are trying to taint a program that was developed years ago to protect babie's health and save lives from disorders that are very unforgiving if a baby is affected. There is a lot of propoganda out there from people who really don't grasp the true consequences of these disorders if not screened for. Much effort is being done to ensure that parents are properly educated on the whole process to include to blood spot card storage and use. Parental consent is included. Remember, the sole purpose of newborn screening is to save lives and it is doing so each day as more babies are being picked up with their disorders early and spared the life Stephen lives. As for the storage and use, it is a separate issue and is dealt with separately. It too is not some scifi activity taking place by the government to rob people of their DNA and use it for negative reasons. People are trying to find ways to better understand these disorders to improve screening, treatment and management. As a country, we are all demanding more research for cancer cures, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc. We need it with metabolic disorders too because without it, babies may never have a childhood or reach adulthood. When you look at your new baby, protect his or her life and the dreams you have for him or her. Get your baby screened and educate yourself on newborn screening from reputable medical staff and websites like that given in another post. The National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center, Genetic Alliance and the American College of Medical Genetics are all wonderful sites to go to.
IVAMOM is offline  
#19 of 67 Old 07-19-2010, 02:37 PM - Thread Starter
 
clarasmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am very sorry for your situation, I am. However, I have seen the other side. The newborn screen is not anywhere close to being an accurate predictor of a disorder. People make strong arguments for and against vitamin K and circumcision also, and I think it's important for every parent to examine what they think is best for their child.
"They were each screened in the hospital where they were born and all was fine and each are not any worse for the wear as a result of their little heel prick." I'm not afraid of a heal prick, but I have been put through a false positive, only to be told that the newborn screen in not accurate and that 200 times to 1, it panics a family for nothing. My reason for posting this in the first place was to see what other people's experiences with refusing the test were like. I stand behind my choice not to screen 100%.
clarasmom is offline  
#20 of 67 Old 07-20-2010, 02:01 AM
 
*MamaJen*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for sharing your story, Ivamom.

Jen, journalist, policy wonk, and formerly a proud single mama to my sweet little man Cyrus, born at home Dec. 2007 . Now married to my Incredibly Nice Guy and new mama to baby Arthur.
*MamaJen* is offline  
#21 of 67 Old 07-20-2010, 02:38 AM
 
IVAMOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks. Our road is not an easy one and every day is an uncertain one. I can understand the frustration with all of the arguments on circumcisions, because it really can go either way. As for the Vitamin K issue, I am not familiar with arguments on that one. With newborn screening, yes, there have been false positives, but there is a great deal of work being done to improve the screening process in the labs to reduce the number of false positives and that number is very small compared to that in the past. Is it scarey for parents to go through that? Sure. I had a false positive AFP screening with my 2nd son only to have all normal with an ultrasound. It was a difficult few weeks that I wish I didn't have to go through. I don't regret it though. I know of families with false positive newborn screens, but when they realized what could have been prevented if their baby did indeed have the disorder, they were very relieved. After my state expanded the number of disorders that it screened for, 33 babies were picked up in the first year from the newly added disorders. Those babies will go on to have normal lives because they were picked up early. That is what the goal is. I would trade a few weeks of anxiety for what happend to my son any day, and would never wish this on any one. The reality is that if more parents refuse newborn screening, the instead of the number of cases like my son's going down like it has with expanded screening, it will rise, and once again, more babies will either die or live a life of disabilities like his. I could tell you countless stories of some very sad situations due to lack of screening, from a baby passing away from what was thought to be SIDS at 4 weeks old, only to have the autopsy find an undetected metabolic disorder as the cause of death, to a 16 year old who experienced the same situation that my son did at 14 months old on Christmas Eve, pass away last summer due to complications. I always think of it and compare it to mammograms and pap smears. Women constantly get called back for repeats sending them through a daunting period of anxiety and fear of cancer, only to be told with repeat screens that "all is fine and we will see you next year!"
IVAMOM is offline  
#22 of 67 Old 07-20-2010, 02:43 AM
 
IVAMOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wanted to share it because I don't think parents really get to hear what can happen if a baby's disorder goes undetected at birth and I just don't want anyone to go through the same experience we and many others have gone through because of it.
IVAMOM is offline  
#23 of 67 Old 07-20-2010, 12:00 PM
 
chelle.ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarasmom View Post
I'm not afraid of a heal prick, but I have been put through a false positive, only to be told that the newborn screen in not accurate and that 200 times to 1, it panics a family for nothing.
could you possibly share a resource where people can read about the false positive rates for screening? i think we can all agree the more accurate information we can have, the better!

i can't imagine having to deal with the stress of a false positive right after giving birth! i appreciate ivamom's experience, i think we all do - but it really irritates me how many tests a woman is *supposed to* endure during her pregnancy that really are not all that accurate. the example that we *should* also undergo regular paps and mam's with the same fair chance of a false positive is just frustrating!

i can understand how one wouldn't want to deal with that.
chelle.ra is offline  
#24 of 67 Old 07-20-2010, 01:51 PM - Thread Starter
 
clarasmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I was told directly from the Texas DSHS that the stats were 200 to 1 .... when you get an abnormal result, you get a phone call from someone at DSHS, telling you to take your newborn right away to get retested because their test came back positive, the nurse manager that called me also told me the disorder my son had was fatal, there was no treatment and children usually don't live past 10 years old... I got my call on Saturday morning, had to wait until Monday to get him into an appt... took over a week to get the call that said, "nevermind, the test was taken too early, he's fine." I cried for a week and a half thinking my newborn son going to die in less than 10 years... "anxiety" is not how I would I describe the feeling I had.... I should've been bonding with my baby. I think it's easy for some to marginalize the situation because my son wasn't sick, but I will never put my family through that situation again.

I'm sorry for any parent that loses a child or has a child suffering from an illness... but the same arguement could be, and often is, made for and against vaccinations... some moms argue that vaccinating is the respondsible thing to do to protect all children... some moms don't think it's the right choice for their child.
clarasmom is offline  
#25 of 67 Old 07-20-2010, 02:44 PM
 
RedPony's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
clarasmom, we also opted out of newborn screening with both our surviving babies. You are not alone. My midwife infromed us of the false positives and the things screened for, we did our research, and made our choice! Good for you for being proactive and doing what's best for you and your baby. Even if you were to change your mind and do the screening (I don't plan on a third, but it's crossed my mind), you are a heck of a lot more informed than many other parents!

Stacy - mom to Lily 5-20-06 , Angel, stillborn @ 25 wks 12-17-07 , and Cami 4-21-09.
RedPony is offline  
#26 of 67 Old 07-20-2010, 02:46 PM
 
spanishcrunchymama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
According to this extensive article: LINK....

"...As a result, for many of the conditions that most states screen for, a large majority of the initially positive screening results will turn out to be incorrect. For instance, in 2007, 3,364,612 infants were tested for MSUD in the United States. Of those tested, 1,249 were initially reported back as testing positive, but only eighteen newborns were eventually confirmed, after further testing, as having the disease16 The other 1,231 out of 1,249 positive results turned out to be false.17 Pediatrician Beth Tarini and colleagues have calculated that the screening of all American newborns for metabolic disorders by MS/MS is likely to yield some tens of thousands of false positive results per year..."

As many pp have mentioned, the key words here are: "informed consent". While Ivamom's story and experience is truly sad, most parents are not even aware of the test/procedures/vaccines which are being administered to their children within minutes of their birth. The goal is to leave the choice to the parents, we do not need the state mandating and regulating what goes in or comes out of our bodies or or children's for that matter, it is a clear violation of our rights.

CDing, BWing, Non-vaxer, Bedsharing SAHM to JC (born 01/01/09 and place in our arms the same day) Married to Prince Charming Dr. B (Mad Scientist at the USDA) and finally EDD 08/24/10
spanishcrunchymama is offline  
#27 of 67 Old 07-20-2010, 03:05 PM
 
Anastasiya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by IVAMOM View Post
As a seasoned mom of four children ages, 19, 16 12 1/2 and 7, I wanted to share my perspective on newborn screening. They were each screened in the hospital where they were born and all was fine and each are not any worse for the wear as a result of their little heel prick. PKU is just one disorder that is a part of newborn screening. Currently, the American College of Medical Genetics recommends each state screen for 29 disorders. My two younger children have a disorder that was not being screened for at the time of their births. Nine years ago, Stephen was 3 1/2 and that is when his undetected disorder revealed itself. Imagine finding your beautiful, healthy toddler unrepsonsive and breathing faster than you can imagine with a pulse that took EMTs 3 times to get because they couldn't count fast enough. Within 24 hours, Stephen was in a coma on life support and we got the diagnosis. It was too late however, to prevent severe brain damage. He remained in that state for 3 weeks and we nearly lost him. He spent almost 4 weeks in the PICU and 6 weeks in rehab. He survived, but is now a child with severe disabilities unable to walk or talk or eat. He is fed through a G Tube, is legally blind, takes 4 medications for seizure control and has many orthopedic issues. Remember, he appeared to be normal prior to his crisis and was running around with his big brothers, playing with is Thomas the Tank Engine trains the day before he got sick. he was my little buddy that went everywhere with me. Our latest hurdle is that Stephen has to have major surgery this fall to place titanium rods in his back to correct his scoliosis due to his lack of muscle strength and spasticity. He has had surgery for retracted testicles due to spasticity. Hospital admissions are a part of life for him along with the high medical bills. We also live with the perpetual grief of all that we have lost with Stephen. Our dreams for him are very different from what they were when he was born. All of this could have been prevented if his disorder was part of the newborn screening process at the time of his birth. My daughter is the youngest and she was screened in utero after what we learned through Stephen. As sad as we were, we were happy that we found out early and by doing so, she benefited from early management and treatment of her disorder and continues to do so. She is living the life that Stephen was robbed of. If I can offer one piece of honest to goodness advice, please make sure your baby gets his or her newborn screening. We had no indication at all that we were at risk of having one of these disorders in our family. Most people don't. For all having babies, this is a very special time in your life and as you pick our nurseries, car seats, clothes, etc., you will be doing your baby a great disservice if you opt out of the newborn screening, because you never know if it will come back to haunt you like it did for us and our chidlren were screened. It is such a simple screening test in which most people move on with life and never have to give a second thought to, but for a certain few, it will be a lifesaving test done that can make the difference of a life like my daughter's or one like Stephen's. Not a day goes by that I don't think about all of the "what ifs". As for the government using the blood spot cards for DNA testing, be cautious of people who are trying to taint a program that was developed years ago to protect babie's health and save lives from disorders that are very unforgiving if a baby is affected. There is a lot of propoganda out there from people who really don't grasp the true consequences of these disorders if not screened for. Much effort is being done to ensure that parents are properly educated on the whole process to include to blood spot card storage and use. Parental consent is included. Remember, the sole purpose of newborn screening is to save lives and it is doing so each day as more babies are being picked up with their disorders early and spared the life Stephen lives. As for the storage and use, it is a separate issue and is dealt with separately. It too is not some scifi activity taking place by the government to rob people of their DNA and use it for negative reasons. People are trying to find ways to better understand these disorders to improve screening, treatment and management. As a country, we are all demanding more research for cancer cures, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc. We need it with metabolic disorders too because without it, babies may never have a childhood or reach adulthood. When you look at your new baby, protect his or her life and the dreams you have for him or her. Get your baby screened and educate yourself on newborn screening from reputable medical staff and websites like that given in another post. The National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center, Genetic Alliance and the American College of Medical Genetics are all wonderful sites to go to.
If you don't mind my asking, what disorder does he have? I am curious as to whether our state tests for it.

I am sorry it went so wrongly for you and Stephen.
Anastasiya is offline  
#28 of 67 Old 07-20-2010, 06:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
clarasmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[I]"As for the government using the blood spot cards for DNA testing, be cautious of people who are trying to taint a program that was developed years ago to protect babie's health and save lives from disorders that are very unforgiving if a baby is affected. There is a lot of propoganda out there from people who really don't grasp the true consequences of these disorders if not screened for."[I]
Maybe they should use the extra blood spots to improve the quality of test, instead of giving/selling them for other uses, such as DNA storage. I'm not arguing that metabolic disorders aren't worrysome, I'm arguing that the test isn't giving accurate results, and that the left overs are misused. You call it propaganda, I call it informed consent. A&M University was using the samples to study cancer, not metabolic disorders...
I never intended for this to be a debate... I don't think it's a right or wrong situation... It's a choice, one that should be made after careful consideration.
clarasmom is offline  
#29 of 67 Old 07-21-2010, 01:50 PM
 
peainthepod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chasing sanity
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
We did the PKU screening with our first and will most likely be skipping it with our second. I'm not comfortable with either the reliability of the test or the idea of my child's blood going into a database somewhere. I'm still extremely irritated that we checked the box to opt out of giving him a Social Security number at birth, and yet received his shiny new SS card in the mail a few weeks later.

I still need to do more research but my gut tells me no to this one. You're not alone.

Loving wife partners.gif and mama to my sweet little son coolshine.gif (Fall 2008) and a beautiful baby girl babyf.gif(Fall 2010)

 

When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty. --George Bernard Shaw

peainthepod is offline  
#30 of 67 Old 07-21-2010, 02:04 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Lost in a good book (in San Diego)
Posts: 4,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That's terrible, peainthepod! That must have felt very violating.

I think we will do the screen, but the midwives around here all do it at the right time. We tried to do that last time, but it was a hopsital birth and they said we'd need to make an appt at the hospital to come back and have it done; basically they made it sound like a real hassel and I was worried about not feeling up to leaving the house at all during our babymoon. I wonder how much of a difference doing it at the right time makes? I have always felt rather worried that so many get it done too early, and if babies are missed that way! I understand why people make either choice, though.
St. Margaret is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off