Strollerderby : genetic testing

Late-Term Abortion Provider on Trial in Kansas

Kate Tuttle — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:01:00 GMT

Let's get this out of the way first off: I'm from Kansas. Not everyone from my home state is narrow-minded or politically conservative. Even those who are conservative tend toward the "live and let live" ethos so absent from much of the far-right fundamentalist playbook. This may explain why it's taken three decades for George Tiller, MD, to find himself on trial, defending his vocation as the abortion provider of last resort.

Tiller's Wichita clinic, one of the few places in the country where a woman can get a second-trimester abortion, is by all accounts a haven for those who need to be there. Nobody wants to be there (it seems ridiculous to have to point this out, but I think it's necessary). Many if not most of his patients are having an abortion so late because they have only recently discovered that the fetus they're carrying is afflicted with grevious birth defects. Women do not get a late-term abortion because they're frivolous, or heartless -- their hearts are only too broken by the situation they find themselves in. This is the point at which terms like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" start to mean less and less, and real life becomes as complicated as it's possible to be. Even though it's vanishingly rare, late-term abortion is the flash point where politics and pain ignite. This is why there's a whole section called "Kansas stories" on a website devoted to women facing difficult choices after devastating test results. It's why volunteers walk patients through the gauntlet of protestors, mostly organized by the Wichita-based Operation Rescue, which refers to everyone born after 1973 (the year of Roe v. Wade) as a "survivor." It's why Dr. Tiller has been shot for doing his job, and why he came back the next day to work anyway.

Now Tiller's on trial, charged with violating a Kansas state law mandating that any abortion slated to be performed after fetal viability (defined as 22 weeks gestation) undergo a second opinion phase by a doctor not legally or financially tied to the doctor performing the abortion. At issue in this trial is whether the relationship between Tiller and another physician, Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus, crossed that line. It's a case that's been brewing for years now, initiated by a rabid anti-abortion state attorney general who was since defeated by the kind of Kansas voters who, even though they might call themselves pro-life, realistically figure that life happens and they are not in the business of playing God. The new AG, a guy I went to high school with, is a moderate Democrat, pro-choice in this issue, who had no choice but to continue to proscute Tiller under the indictment (and law) he inherited.

There are no winners here. One of the patients seen by Drs. Neuhaus and Tiller and given an abortion by Tiller was ten years old at the time. As fetal viability moves one way on the scale (it wasn't long ago that babies born before 28 weeks almost never lived), genetic testing gets better but moves more slowly. A woman having an amniocentesis at 20 weeks will find out at 21 weeks that the baby she's grown to love will live a brief life of unendurable pain and no hope of cognitive function; her choice is awful any way you cut it. At clinics like Dr. Tiller's she's given the chance to perform a humane and awful duty, a mother's unendurably painful act of love and letting go. I hate that his clinic has to exist -- I wish all babies were wanted and healthy -- but I'd fight like hell to keep a bunch of righteous idealogues from taking it away.

More by this author:

Boomer Grandmothers: Out Of Control?

Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

Newborn Screening Programs Grow, Lives Are Saved

Kate Tuttle — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:26:00 GMT

Since 2000, programs that screen newborns for genetic disorders have been expanded in all 50 states, according to a report released today by the March of Dimes. Though only 24 states currently test for the 29 core genetic diseases identified by the American College of Medical Genetics, all 50 screen for at least 21 of them. It's a huge improvement from the situation just nine years ago, when most states only tested for four genetic illnesses. According to March of Dimes President Jennifer L. Howse, “It’s a milestone.”

Among the disorders included in the screenings are PKU, maple syrup urine disease, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. Some of these diseases are incurable but highly treatable, in particular the metabolic disorders, which can cuse mental retardation or death if untreated, but require only diet modifications for the child to lead a normal life.

In an era when scientific progress can begin to seem like it's taking us into scary directions -- from the Octomom fertility madness to the rise in genetically modified foods -- it's welcome news that the medical community, nudged by one very persistent advocacy group, has expanded its focus to identify babies at risk.

To see which tests are provided in your state, and to find out more about advocating for universal total testing, visit the March of Dimes website.

More By This Author:

Kittens Have Their Say (Aided by Nutty Six-Year-Old)

Twenty-Year-Old Kidnapping Solved

Little Girl with Bowel Disease Kept Alive on Donated Breastmilk

They Say: More Abuse, Neglect Among Bottle-Feeding Moms

A Genetic Test That Predicts Kids' Athletic Futures

JeanneSager — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:32:00 GMT

Think your toddler has the foot to bend it like Beckham one day? What if the only thing standing between you and knowing if they'd one day be kicking balls in the big leagues was $149? Oh yeah, and a cheek swab which should be bagged and sent out to a lab in Colorado for testing.

The Boulder-based Atlas Sports Genetics is touting a new test which they say can help pinpoint a child's natural athletic future. For that $149, you'll get a report telling you whether your kid is designed for speed or endurance.

It all sounds a bit West German, Soviet bloc to me, but Atlas owner Kevin Reilly says his test will actually help protect kids with an overzealous parent from being pushed into a sport they simply weren't made to play. The tests are built off of the 2003 study which linked the gene ACTN3 to athletic ability. The study found that the R variant of the gene directs the body to produce a protein used in developing the type of muscle mass needed for power and speed. By contrast, the X variant of the gene was found to be more prevalent in the elite endurance Olympians studied.

Atlas' test breaks down the ACTN3 gene from the swabs and looks for either R or X variants, then reports back to parents. They test kids ages one through eight, with the hopes of giving parents a chance to properly foster a kid's natural abilities from a young age (although, to give him credit, Reilly advises against heavily pushing children into competitive sports until at least eight years old . . . to avoid burnout).

Besides the fact that many scientists have said ACTN3 studies are still in their infancy, and a more in-depth look at the genetic make-up of athletes is in order, I'm skeptical. So a kid may have an R variant of a gene (the one supposedly pointing to power sports); what if he doesn't like football? Won't this promote more overzealous parents rather than limit them?

My husband is a big soccer fan, so he loves kicking the ball around with our three year old. For a tot, she's got a great handle on the ball. But does that mean we should cut out all requests for tee-ball, softball, even a bid to run cross country? Whatever happened to letting our kids play sports because they enjoy them, because they'll gain discipline, learn sportsmanship, get their butts off the couch? Last time I checked, it really is just a game.

Growing up in a small town where the fight for passing the school budget was to ensure we'd still have a football program every year - so boys would have a chance to get noticed by a college scout - I've got to tell you, excellent athletes are few and far between. The best athletes may not be the girls who score every goal or the quarterbacks who lead their teams to the state championships. The kids who are told constantly that they're destined for great things are often ball hogs and prima donnas.

But the kids who discover talent on their own . . . they're the kids who play just for the love of the game.

Image/Source: The New York Times

Say Hi To Grandma Through the Screen

Kid Arrested for Farting

What Makes a Yuppie Parent?

What Do You Mean the Guinea Pig Isn't Living on a Farm in Ohio?

They Say: Genetic Testing Doesn't Make Parents Any More Anxious

JeanneSager — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:57:00 GMT

Would knowing your child inherited your family's worst genes make you worry more? If it does, you're in the minority according to a new study in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine.

Researchers at the University of Michigan used survey information from more than one thousand parents to conclude parents are just as worried about their family's medical history as they would be by the results of genetic testing. As testing for genetic risk factors has become more accessible to the general public, healthcare practitioners have worried that parents will overreact to the results. This study has done much to allay that fear, putting the observed risk factors (a grandparents' battle with cancer, for example) above test results in making parents fret.

Personally, I think forewarned is forearmed. When my father-in-law learned a medical condition he was suffering from could be inherited, I confess my first thoughts were of my daughter. I pushed my husband to get tested - so we'd be able to act if he had inherited the condition and keep him around to one day walk her down the aisle. We also needed to know for her sake - to see if she'd need a test and then treatment as well. The threat of the family history had me sweating bullets until my husband's test came back negative. The genetic line had stopped with my father-in-law. Phewwww.

What's scarier? The possible or the absolutely positive?

Image: LA Times

Father Can't See His Little Boy, But Can He Give Him His Organs?

Do You Have a Drinking Problem? Talk To the Kids' Doc.

Child Safety, Child Schmafety

They Say: Our Kids Are Developing a (Legal) Drug Habit

Should Kids Be Tested For The Breast Cancer Gene?

Amy S.F. Lutz — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Last year, about 100,000 women were tested for the BRCA gene mutation that causes a significantly increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer in women, and of prostate and pancreatic cancer in men. And that number is expected to keep growing, since more and more insurance companies are covering the test.

The question many mothers are now asking - especially those who test positive for the mutation - is, when should our daughters be tested?

Medical experts recommend waiting until a child is at least 25 years old before testing. The mutation doesn't increase the risk of any childhood cancers, and there isn't any way of preventing or screening for breast or ovarian cancer until then anyway.

But other families are finding out early - and, as grim as it might be to find out you have the BRCA mutation at 13 or even younger - reporting positive outcomes. Some teens have stopped smoking after discovering their genetic propensity towards cancer. Other girls learned that, because of the mutation, they shouldn't take birth control pills, which can increase the risk of breast cancer.

I have three daughters, and my oldest, at 7, is older than some of the children that have already been tested. Breast cancer doesn't run in my family, but I don't know what I would do if it did - I think I'd get them tested sooner rather than later, because I'm the kind of person that would obsess over the probabilities until I knew for certain. When do you think is the right age?