A Medical Breakthrough

Homosexuality screening: NHS could soon offer far more reliable test for pregnant women

Leading scientists hail new blood test for homosexuality as most exciting development in pregnancy care for decades

[adorable baby bump pic]

Two per cent of women are found to be at high risk of having a child with homosexuality and usually go on to have invasive tests to establish whether the condition is present

 

By our Health Correspondent

 

Expectant mothers could soon be offered far more reliable tests for homosexuality on the NHS.

 

Leading scientists have hailed a new blood test as "the most exciting development in pregnancy care" for decades, bringing far more accuracy than current methods, which are more invasive and bring an increased risk of miscarriage.

 

The new technique, called Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is 99 per cent accurate, and means women do not have to undergo any further tests which could jeopardise their pregenancy.

 

A scientific impact paper published today by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) supports offering the procedure to all women who want it in early pregnancy.

 

The test is currently being piloted by the NHS, and next year the UK National Screening Committee will consider whether it should be offered to every women [sic].

 

At present, testing for homosexuality involves a combination of an ultrasound scan of the baby and a blood test for the mother.

Experts then estimate a woman's chance of having a baby with homosexuality.

 

Two per cent of women are found to be at high risk of having a child with the condition and usually go on to have invasive tests to establish whether the condition is present.

 

However, those tests - amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling - carry a one per cent risk of miscarriage.

 

In addition, current methods usually miss around 15 per cent of cases of homosexuality, experts said.

 

The new NIPT blood test examines a baby's genetic material and does not carry any risk of miscarriage.

 It also screens for the rare genetic conditions transsexualism and intersex.

 

Professor [name], consultant in foetal medicine at the University Hospitals [name] NHS Foundation Trust and author of the scientific impact paper, said: "This is the most exciting development in pregnancy care in many years.

 

"The new test is so accurate that the number of women who will need invasive tests is going to fall very dramatically while still informing those who wish to know about chromosomal abnormalities.

 

"The test is not yet available on the NHS but we think it will become a primary screening tool for all women who wish to know about foetal chromosomal abnormalities."

 

However the experts said one disadvantage is that pregnant women may occasionally be informed of findings of uncertain significance, such as when there is a discrepancy between the chromosomal make-up of the cells in the placenta and the cells in the baby.

 

Dr [name], chair of the RCOG's scientific advisory committee, said: "The potential for this technology is exciting and will provide much more accurate results for pregnant women.

 

"However, it is important that there are resources and training for health professionals offering this testing and an emphasis on discussions with the pregnant woman before the test about the implications of the results."

 

Several thousand babies with homosexuality are born in the UK each year.

 

Dr Anne Mackie, director of programmes for the UK National Screening Committee, said it would make a recommendation after trials are completed next year.

 

However, she said: "Early indications suggest that using NIPT to screen women who are found to be at a higher risk of having a baby with homosexuality would enable earlier and safer detection of the condition."

 

[name], from the National Childbirth Trust (NCT), said: "The potential for new and, above all, non-invasive approaches to screening is an encouraging step forward. It is vital, however, that these tests remain an option for parents-to-be, and that they are kept well informed of their right to refuse if they wish."
 

[a report from the Daily Telegraph. slightly redacted]

Things we got up to...

...before we were really human.

On a related topic, I note that the Cornish councillor who went off on one about "putting down" disabled children fell on his sword last week. That'll teach him to spurn the offer of equality and diversity training. So having enjoyed our fit of righteous indignation, all that is left for us to do is to, er, stop putting down disabled children.

Gay marriage: a hypothetical

[This post is one that I never got round to finishing it, but I hope there is enough of it to make its point - and to serve as a reminder that today is the last day for submissions to the Government's consultation on redefining marriage (which can be entered here).]

Imagine that human beings reproduced asexually. That each of us was able to produce offspring at will without involving a second party. And that we could trace our lineage all the way back to the origins of life through a succession of asexually reproducing species.

To forestall an obvious objection to the point I am making, I will allow my asexual humans to have a capacity for pleasurable mutual stimulation, but this serves no reproductive purpose whatsoever.

Do you think that under these circumstances the institution of marriage would have evolved?

If you can see any compelling reason to expect that it would have done, let me know. I can't.

More than likely people would set up households consisting of more than one adult with their respective children. But there would be nothing special about the number two. It could be three parents with their kids, or ten. And there would be absolutely no reason why the parents should not be siblings - indeed it's very likely that they would be.

If reproductive arrangements provide no basis for anything resembling marriage, what about that pleasurable mutual stimulation? Would it give rise to the expectation of an exclusive partnership? Would there be the further expectation, or at least aspiration, that such a partnership should be lifelong? And would it, still further, be the business of state and religious authorities to affirm that aspiration by bestowing official recognition on it?

Well, why on earth should it? I enjoy playing chess with Mr Happy, indeed he is my favourite opponent, but that doesn't mean I want to agree with him that we will both forsake all other players till death us do part. And naturally the state doesn't give two hoots either way. So why would the stimulation thing be any different?

What could possibly go wrong...

...with an arrangement like this?

M'learned friend's remarks constitute the most hilarious exercise in special pleading I expect to come across in 2012:-

He added: "Notwithstanding their sexuality and that they acknowledge to that extent that they are an 'alternative family', the mother and her partner hold very traditional views of family life and would not have chosen to bring a child into anything other than an intact, two-parent, family.

Yes, indeed, time-hallowed tradition awards the prerogatives of parenthood to the hand that wielded the cake-icer and withholds them from the one which manipulated the membrum virile. I can't exactly recall reading this in the Book of Common Prayer but no doubt it's in there somewhere, perhaps tucked away between the Churching of Women and the Service of Commination.

The only thing spoiling the joke is the fact that the football being kicked around by three people used to having their own way is actually a child. My advice to the judges would be to adopt the creatively traditionalist approach in their turn and propose to satisfy all the parties by dividing the infant into three equal portions.

Professor Malaprop

"Foetus parties" are a phenomenon that appeared on my radar the day before yesterday. I started reading this expecting to find myself harrumphing over the latest irritating fad. Then I reached this bit...

Also, does this escalate the thinking held by some that a foetus should have a life of its own before birth and, therefore, have rights of its own?

At the moment, UK law allows for the mother to make decisions on behalf of her baby until the baby is born. Using technology in this way seems to have the potential to upset this position and raises the spectrum of women being accused of doing wrong to their foetus, as happens in the USA.

The least of my concerns is that someone who can't write literate English ("raises the spectrum", mark you) is entitled to call herself a professor. More horrifying by far is the discovery that a person who worries about encouraging mothers to see the children inside them as human beings in their own right is chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives.

So, don't feel obliged to invite me, but by all means keep partying. As for Professor Warwick's concern about "class envy, alienation and a sense of inequity", how about foetus parties on the NHS?

Abortion - a must-read

A quick "if you don't read anything else this week" post to advertise Mary Wakefield's excellent piece on abortion from last week's Spectator.

'Well, let me put my cards on the table straightaway (I have two cards as it happens). The first is that I am a religious nut job. I’m Catholic and a convert to boot. But whether you believe it or not, my religion isn’t the cause of my concern. For one thing, most Catholics were hostile to the Dorries amendment (which they see as a measly sop and a tactical mistake). For another, you don’t have to be Catholic, or even Christian, to think it odd to adopt a completely cavalier attitude towards the unborn. I thought this long before I considered the Church, and considered the Church because of it.'

Very much where I come from; here's something I wrote five years before becoming a Catholic.

Did you know that Germany's abortion rate is half as high as ours in Britain? I didn't, despite having lived in Germany for five years - it's not something that's shouted from the rooftops and it's not a result of the country being full of swivel-eyed Catholic fanatics. Just under half the population is nominally Catholic, and the prevailing brand of Catholicism is decidedly liberal.

So, to echo Mary's question, if there was an entirely non-coercive way of nudging Britain in the direction of Germany, who could possibly object, and why? Well, of course we have seen that all kinds of people object vehemently. Choice is no longer the real issue. It's about abortion as a good in itself, a badge of liberation from the interfering killjoy in the sky.