Talk:Prenatal diagnosis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| Start | This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance assessment scale |
Contents |
[edit] ethics
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)
[edit] prenatal diagnosis vs prenatal screening
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)
- 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)
[edit] Non-invasive techniques
- 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)
- The article presents "invasive = diagnosis, non-invasive = screening", which is false. Non-invasive ultrasound scanning can be used to correctly diagnose many problems (eg, bulky tumors, spina bifida, anencephaly, missing limbs). Invasive amniocentesis sampling can be used to screen for but not diagnose some problems (eg, open abdominal wall, spina bifida). Una Smith 03:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge here?
Fetal screening is a stub. Merge it here? --Una Smith (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Screening versus diagnosis
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)
