 |
| Photo credit: Grandma Julia and David - 4 days old, by Jessica Merz |
Although it is a fact that as women get older, they are more likely to have a child with Down Syndrome, other factors also play a role.
According to Markus Neuhäuser and Sven Krackow, from the Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology at University Hospital Essen, in Germany, the risk of a child being born with Down Syndrome is also dependent on how many existing siblings the child has and how big the gap is between the child and his immediate preceding sibling.
The research is published in Springer's journal Naturwissenschaften this week.
Neuhäuser and Krackow reviewed and analysed data from 1953 and 1972 (before abortion was widespread). They found that other factors, besides the mother's increasing age, were linked to the number of Down Syndrome cases.
Down Syndrome rates were significantly higher in older mothers in their first pregnancy than in older mothers who had already had children. Only late first pregnancies were more likely to produce a Down Syndrome baby, not late second or third pregnancies. In addition, the larger the gap between pregnancies, the higher the rates of Down Syndrome.
Down Syndrome is the result of the genetic abnormality Trisomy 21. Trisomy has been the focus of extensive medical research but the exact mechanism is still not understood. One feature common to most trisomies is an increase in frequency of trisomic pregnancies with increasing maternal age.
There is strong evidence for uterine selection against genetically disadvantaged embryos. However, as women approach the menopause and the risk of future infertility increases, this selection, or filtering stringency, is expected to relax.
Neuhäuser and Krackow's paper provides evidence that older mothers, who give birth to children with Down Syndrome, have a relaxed stringency of quality control of embryos (or relaxed filtering stringency), which increases the probability these women will bring children with developmental defects to full term.
They believe that this relaxed filtering stringency is an adaptive maternal response and it might explain why the rate of Down Syndrome accelerates with increasing maternal age.
These findings have important implications for the prevention of abnormal fetal development. The authors conclude that
clearly, identification of the relaxation control mechanisms and therapeutic restoration of a stringent screen holds promise not only for Down Syndrome.
1. Neuhäuser M & Krackow S (2006). Adaptive-filtering of trisomy 21: risk of Down Syndrome depends on family size and age of previous child. (Naturwissenschaften, DOI 10.1007/s00114-006-0165-3)
Read more
TODAY'S BOOK SUGGESTION:
Gifts: Mothers Reflect on How Children with Down Syndrome Enrich Their Lives
by Kathryn Lynard Soper (Author), Martha Sears (Foreword)
-- Having a baby with Down syndrome is not something most parents would willingly choose. Yet many who travel this path discover rich, unexpected rewards along the way.
In this candid and poignant collection of personal stories, sixty-three mothers describe the gifts of respect, strength, delight, perspective, and love, which their child with Down syndrome has brought into their lives.
The contributors to this collection have diverse personalities and perspectives, and draw from a wide spectrum of ethnicity, world views, and religious beliefs. Some are parenting within a traditional family structure; some are not.
Some never considered terminating their pregnancy; some struggled with the decision. Some were calm at the time of diagnosis; some were traumatized. Some write about their pregnancy and the months after giving birth; some reflect on years of experience with their child.
Their diverse experiences point to a common truth: The life of a child with Down syndrome is something to celebrate. These women have something to say--not just to other mothers but to all of us.
Paperback: 326 pages;Click to order/for more info: Gifts: Mothers Reflect on How Children with Down Syndrome Enrich Their Lives
For many women, the scan which shows their unborn squirming, kicking and sucking its thumb is one of the important milestones of pregnancy.
For the vast majority it provides reassurance that all is well, and it enables parents to prepare if all is not.
But an eminent ultrasound specialist is determined to kickstart a debate on the value of the scan within an NHS increasingly strapped for cash.
In a paper published in Ultrasounds this week, retired Dr Hylton Meire not only argues there is no scientific evidence to prove the 20-week scan is worthwhile, he also casts doubt on the reliability of the principal method of testing for Down's Syndrome - the nuchal fold measurement.
These tests do not give a yes or no answer to whether a baby has Down's, but an indication of risk. Those deemed to have a higher possibility are offered an amniocentesis, where a needle is inserted into the womb to give a much more accurate analysis.
Every amniocentesis carries a small risk of miscarriage, so women who are not carrying a disabled foetus in the first place can end up losing a perfectly healthy baby.
Using various figures, Dr Meire, formerly of King's College Hospital, calculates that as many as 3,200 healthy babies are lost in this way each year.
For every 50 live births of children with Down's Syndrome prevented, he says 160 women miscarry non-affected babies.
'Muddled measurements'
Dr Meire has reservations about aborting babies with Down's Syndrome in the first place, and admits this forms part of his hostility to testing for the condition.
The nuchal fold test involves measuring the fluid at the back of the neck of an 11-13 week old foetus.
Babies with abnormalities tend to accumulate more fluid at the back of their neck during the first three months after conception, causing this clear space to be larger than average.
Age of the mother is one of the factors taken into account when risk is being calculated, and many hospitals also carry out blood tests to give an even more accurate picture.
Low risk is a result where the chances of having a baby with Down's syndrome is less than one in 800, while high risk is anything greater than one in 300.
Dr Meire argues that blood tests notwithstanding, the test is hugely problematic because of the difficulties of measuring anything accurately on a blurry ultrasound screen.
"Women are being referred on to amniocentesis on the basis of a very flimsy test," he says.
"And I think they need to understand just how inaccurate it can be."
Jane Fisher from Antenatal Results and Choices (ARC) says Dr Meire does have a point, but that most parents are all too aware the test is fallible.
Weighing up the various risks - a one in 200 chance of carrying a child with Down's syndrome against a one in 200 chance of miscarrying after an amniocentesis - is an immensely difficult decision.
"The problem is Dr Meire wants absolutes," she says.
"The technology isn't there to provide that yet, and in the absence of it, we have to make do with what there is. But of course counselling is important, and a proper discussion about what the risks are."
Spending money
In any event, ARC stresses that screening now means fewer older mothers have an amniocentesis as a matter of course, as was the case all the way up until 2001 when the scans became available nationally.
The test is offered in around three quarters of hospitals, but not necessarily to all women. Older women are at greater risk of having a child with Down's Syndrome, and some hospitals only screen those over the age of 35 or even 38.
But the vast majority of women in the UK - 95% - are offered the 20 week anomaly scans which Dr Meire also targets in his paper.
Costing between £25 and £50 a go, the specialist says there is no evidence to prove they are worth the money.
"There's no data that shows - in regard to children living or dying or succumbing to serious illness - that these scans have any effect in population terms. No-one has been able to prove otherwise," he says.
"We need to really think about why we do these, and the money we spend on them, and ask ourselves if it's really worthwhile."
Conditions detected at 20 weeks include serious problems such as heart defects, as well as more minor conditions like cleft palate.
Obstetrics consultant Patrick O'Brien says it is very important to know in advance if a child has heart defects, as it means preparations can be made for delivery in a specialist unit if need be.
But he concedes that viewed at the level of pure statistics, it is possible to argue that scans only benefit a small minority of people. Often parents learn information which they do not necessarily need to know before the birth.
But while finding out a child is to be born with a cleft palate may not be necessity, learning through a scan means parents can be prepared for what can be a huge shock at delivery.
"They are shown pictures of what can be done and understand how easy it is to treat," says Mr O'Brien.
"I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the pre-scan days when horrified parents simply shunned the child when it was born."
"But sometimes you've also got to look at things from an individual perspective, and what it means for the parents.
"Maybe the pure joy of parents seeing their unborn child is something that's worth paying for."
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6948015.stm
For the vast majority it provides reassurance that all is well, and it enables parents to prepare if all is not.
But an eminent ultrasound specialist is determined to kickstart a debate on the value of the scan within an NHS increasingly strapped for cash.
In a paper published in Ultrasounds this week, retired Dr Hylton Meire not only argues there is no scientific evidence to prove the 20-week scan is worthwhile, he also casts doubt on the reliability of the principal method of testing for Down's Syndrome - the nuchal fold measurement.
These tests do not give a yes or no answer to whether a baby has Down's, but an indication of risk. Those deemed to have a higher possibility are offered an amniocentesis, where a needle is inserted into the womb to give a much more accurate analysis.
Every amniocentesis carries a small risk of miscarriage, so women who are not carrying a disabled foetus in the first place can end up losing a perfectly healthy baby.
Using various figures, Dr Meire, formerly of King's College Hospital, calculates that as many as 3,200 healthy babies are lost in this way each year.
For every 50 live births of children with Down's Syndrome prevented, he says 160 women miscarry non-affected babies.
'Muddled measurements'
Dr Meire has reservations about aborting babies with Down's Syndrome in the first place, and admits this forms part of his hostility to testing for the condition.
The nuchal fold test involves measuring the fluid at the back of the neck of an 11-13 week old foetus.
Babies with abnormalities tend to accumulate more fluid at the back of their neck during the first three months after conception, causing this clear space to be larger than average.
Age of the mother is one of the factors taken into account when risk is being calculated, and many hospitals also carry out blood tests to give an even more accurate picture.
Low risk is a result where the chances of having a baby with Down's syndrome is less than one in 800, while high risk is anything greater than one in 300.
Dr Meire argues that blood tests notwithstanding, the test is hugely problematic because of the difficulties of measuring anything accurately on a blurry ultrasound screen.
"Women are being referred on to amniocentesis on the basis of a very flimsy test," he says.
"And I think they need to understand just how inaccurate it can be."
Jane Fisher from Antenatal Results and Choices (ARC) says Dr Meire does have a point, but that most parents are all too aware the test is fallible.
Weighing up the various risks - a one in 200 chance of carrying a child with Down's syndrome against a one in 200 chance of miscarrying after an amniocentesis - is an immensely difficult decision.
"The problem is Dr Meire wants absolutes," she says.
"The technology isn't there to provide that yet, and in the absence of it, we have to make do with what there is. But of course counselling is important, and a proper discussion about what the risks are."
Spending money
In any event, ARC stresses that screening now means fewer older mothers have an amniocentesis as a matter of course, as was the case all the way up until 2001 when the scans became available nationally.
The test is offered in around three quarters of hospitals, but not necessarily to all women. Older women are at greater risk of having a child with Down's Syndrome, and some hospitals only screen those over the age of 35 or even 38.
But the vast majority of women in the UK - 95% - are offered the 20 week anomaly scans which Dr Meire also targets in his paper.
Costing between £25 and £50 a go, the specialist says there is no evidence to prove they are worth the money.
"There's no data that shows - in regard to children living or dying or succumbing to serious illness - that these scans have any effect in population terms. No-one has been able to prove otherwise," he says.
"We need to really think about why we do these, and the money we spend on them, and ask ourselves if it's really worthwhile."
Conditions detected at 20 weeks include serious problems such as heart defects, as well as more minor conditions like cleft palate.
Obstetrics consultant Patrick O'Brien says it is very important to know in advance if a child has heart defects, as it means preparations can be made for delivery in a specialist unit if need be.
But he concedes that viewed at the level of pure statistics, it is possible to argue that scans only benefit a small minority of people. Often parents learn information which they do not necessarily need to know before the birth.
But while finding out a child is to be born with a cleft palate may not be necessity, learning through a scan means parents can be prepared for what can be a huge shock at delivery.
"They are shown pictures of what can be done and understand how easy it is to treat," says Mr O'Brien.
"I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the pre-scan days when horrified parents simply shunned the child when it was born."
"But sometimes you've also got to look at things from an individual perspective, and what it means for the parents.
"Maybe the pure joy of parents seeing their unborn child is something that's worth paying for."
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6948015.stm
For many women, the scan which shows their unborn squirming, kicking and sucking its thumb is one of the important milestones of pregnancy.
For the vast majority it provides reassurance that all is well, and it enables parents to prepare if all is not.
But an eminent ultrasound specialist is determined to kickstart a debate on the value of the scan within an NHS increasingly strapped for cash.
In a paper published in Ultrasounds this week, retired Dr Hylton Meire not only argues there is no scientific evidence to prove the 20-week scan is worthwhile, he also casts doubt on the reliability of the principal method of testing for Down's Syndrome - the nuchal fold measurement.
These tests do not give a yes or no answer to whether a baby has Down's, but an indication of risk. Those deemed to have a higher possibility are offered an amniocentesis, where a needle is inserted into the womb to give a much more accurate analysis.
Every amniocentesis carries a small risk of miscarriage, so women who are not carrying a disabled foetus in the first place can end up losing a perfectly healthy baby.
Using various figures, Dr Meire, formerly of King's College Hospital, calculates that as many as 3,200 healthy babies are lost in this way each year.
For every 50 live births of children with Down's Syndrome prevented, he says 160 women miscarry non-affected babies.
'Muddled measurements'
Dr Meire has reservations about aborting babies with Down's Syndrome in the first place, and admits this forms part of his hostility to testing for the condition.
The nuchal fold test involves measuring the fluid at the back of the neck of an 11-13 week old foetus.
Babies with abnormalities tend to accumulate more fluid at the back of their neck during the first three months after conception, causing this clear space to be larger than average.
Age of the mother is one of the factors taken into account when risk is being calculated, and many hospitals also carry out blood tests to give an even more accurate picture.
Low risk is a result where the chances of having a baby with Down's syndrome is less than one in 800, while high risk is anything greater than one in 300.
Dr Meire argues that blood tests notwithstanding, the test is hugely problematic because of the difficulties of measuring anything accurately on a blurry ultrasound screen.
"Women are being referred on to amniocentesis on the basis of a very flimsy test," he says.
"And I think they need to understand just how inaccurate it can be."
Jane Fisher from Antenatal Results and Choices (ARC) says Dr Meire does have a point, but that most parents are all too aware the test is fallible.
Weighing up the various risks - a one in 200 chance of carrying a child with Down's syndrome against a one in 200 chance of miscarrying after an amniocentesis - is an immensely difficult decision.
"The problem is Dr Meire wants absolutes," she says.
"The technology isn't there to provide that yet, and in the absence of it, we have to make do with what there is. But of course counselling is important, and a proper discussion about what the risks are."
Spending money
In any event, ARC stresses that screening now means fewer older mothers have an amniocentesis as a matter of course, as was the case all the way up until 2001 when the scans became available nationally.
The test is offered in around three quarters of hospitals, but not necessarily to all women. Older women are at greater risk of having a child with Down's Syndrome, and some hospitals only screen those over the age of 35 or even 38.
But the vast majority of women in the UK - 95% - are offered the 20 week anomaly scans which Dr Meire also targets in his paper.
Costing between £25 and £50 a go, the specialist says there is no evidence to prove they are worth the money.
"There's no data that shows - in regard to children living or dying or succumbing to serious illness - that these scans have any effect in population terms. No-one has been able to prove otherwise," he says.
"We need to really think about why we do these, and the money we spend on them, and ask ourselves if it's really worthwhile."
Conditions detected at 20 weeks include serious problems such as heart defects, as well as more minor conditions like cleft palate.
Sometimes you've also got to look at things from an individual perspective, and what it means for the parents - maybe the pure joy of parents seeing their unborn child is something that's worth paying for
Obstetrics consultant Patrick O'Brien says it is very important to know in advance if a child has heart defects, as it means preparations can be made for delivery in a specialist unit if need be.
But he concedes that viewed at the level of pure statistics, it is possible to argue that scans only benefit a small minority of people. Often parents learn information which they do not necessarily need to know before the birth.
But while finding out a child is to be born with a cleft palate may not be necessity, learning through a scan means parents can be prepared for what can be a huge shock at delivery.
"They are shown pictures of what can be done and understand how easy it is to treat," says Mr O'Brien.
"I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the pre-scan days when horrified parents simply shunned the child when it was born."
"But sometimes you've also got to look at things from an individual perspective, and what it means for the parents.
"Maybe the pure joy of parents seeing their unborn child is something that's worth paying for."
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6948015.stm
For the vast majority it provides reassurance that all is well, and it enables parents to prepare if all is not.
But an eminent ultrasound specialist is determined to kickstart a debate on the value of the scan within an NHS increasingly strapped for cash.
In a paper published in Ultrasounds this week, retired Dr Hylton Meire not only argues there is no scientific evidence to prove the 20-week scan is worthwhile, he also casts doubt on the reliability of the principal method of testing for Down's Syndrome - the nuchal fold measurement.
These tests do not give a yes or no answer to whether a baby has Down's, but an indication of risk. Those deemed to have a higher possibility are offered an amniocentesis, where a needle is inserted into the womb to give a much more accurate analysis.
Every amniocentesis carries a small risk of miscarriage, so women who are not carrying a disabled foetus in the first place can end up losing a perfectly healthy baby.
Using various figures, Dr Meire, formerly of King's College Hospital, calculates that as many as 3,200 healthy babies are lost in this way each year.
For every 50 live births of children with Down's Syndrome prevented, he says 160 women miscarry non-affected babies.
'Muddled measurements'
Dr Meire has reservations about aborting babies with Down's Syndrome in the first place, and admits this forms part of his hostility to testing for the condition.
The nuchal fold test involves measuring the fluid at the back of the neck of an 11-13 week old foetus.
Babies with abnormalities tend to accumulate more fluid at the back of their neck during the first three months after conception, causing this clear space to be larger than average.
Age of the mother is one of the factors taken into account when risk is being calculated, and many hospitals also carry out blood tests to give an even more accurate picture.
Low risk is a result where the chances of having a baby with Down's syndrome is less than one in 800, while high risk is anything greater than one in 300.
Dr Meire argues that blood tests notwithstanding, the test is hugely problematic because of the difficulties of measuring anything accurately on a blurry ultrasound screen.
"Women are being referred on to amniocentesis on the basis of a very flimsy test," he says.
"And I think they need to understand just how inaccurate it can be."
Jane Fisher from Antenatal Results and Choices (ARC) says Dr Meire does have a point, but that most parents are all too aware the test is fallible.
Weighing up the various risks - a one in 200 chance of carrying a child with Down's syndrome against a one in 200 chance of miscarrying after an amniocentesis - is an immensely difficult decision.
"The problem is Dr Meire wants absolutes," she says.
"The technology isn't there to provide that yet, and in the absence of it, we have to make do with what there is. But of course counselling is important, and a proper discussion about what the risks are."
Spending money
In any event, ARC stresses that screening now means fewer older mothers have an amniocentesis as a matter of course, as was the case all the way up until 2001 when the scans became available nationally.
The test is offered in around three quarters of hospitals, but not necessarily to all women. Older women are at greater risk of having a child with Down's Syndrome, and some hospitals only screen those over the age of 35 or even 38.
But the vast majority of women in the UK - 95% - are offered the 20 week anomaly scans which Dr Meire also targets in his paper.
Costing between £25 and £50 a go, the specialist says there is no evidence to prove they are worth the money.
"There's no data that shows - in regard to children living or dying or succumbing to serious illness - that these scans have any effect in population terms. No-one has been able to prove otherwise," he says.
"We need to really think about why we do these, and the money we spend on them, and ask ourselves if it's really worthwhile."
Conditions detected at 20 weeks include serious problems such as heart defects, as well as more minor conditions like cleft palate.
Sometimes you've also got to look at things from an individual perspective, and what it means for the parents - maybe the pure joy of parents seeing their unborn child is something that's worth paying for
Obstetrics consultant Patrick O'Brien says it is very important to know in advance if a child has heart defects, as it means preparations can be made for delivery in a specialist unit if need be.
But he concedes that viewed at the level of pure statistics, it is possible to argue that scans only benefit a small minority of people. Often parents learn information which they do not necessarily need to know before the birth.
But while finding out a child is to be born with a cleft palate may not be necessity, learning through a scan means parents can be prepared for what can be a huge shock at delivery.
"They are shown pictures of what can be done and understand how easy it is to treat," says Mr O'Brien.
"I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the pre-scan days when horrified parents simply shunned the child when it was born."
"But sometimes you've also got to look at things from an individual perspective, and what it means for the parents.
"Maybe the pure joy of parents seeing their unborn child is something that's worth paying for."
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6948015.stm
LONDON, August 20, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The risks of amniocentesis to the unborn child have long been known but now a new analysis by a British doctor has shown that using the tests in seek-and-destroy missions for Downs syndrome and other genetic abnormalities results in the deaths of hundreds of healthy babies every year in Britain.
Dr. Hylton Meire, the retired physician and author of texts on ultrasound, calculates that for every 50 children with Down's Syndrome successfully identified and killed by abortion, 160 non-affected babies are lost by miscarriage after the test. His paper, published in the Journal of the British Medical Ultrasound Society, mainly emphasizes that the non-invasive test, called the foetal 'nuchal thickness' measurement, is not as useful as is widely thought because of the high incidents of false positives it gives.
In obstetrics, it is now standard practice to offer pregnant women the non-invasive test that measures the fluid at the back of the child's neck. Combined with the age of the mother the test results in a number taken to indicate the possibility that the child has Down's. If the number is high enough, the mother is offered an amniocentesis, a test in which a needle is inserted into the abdomen and a sample of amniotic fluid is drawn off and analyzed.
With about one in every 1000 children conceived having Down’s syndrome, and with amniocentesis carrying a one in 200 risk of miscarriage, Dr. Meire, wrote in the journal Ultrasound that if all pregnant women took the amniocentesis test as many as 3,200 healthy babies could die by miscarriage every year.
There are about 30,000 amniocentesis tests done every year in the UK.
In North America, earlier this year, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) have recommended that all pregnant women, not just those over 35, should be screened, including with amniocentesis.
Source: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07082102.html
Dr. Hylton Meire, the retired physician and author of texts on ultrasound, calculates that for every 50 children with Down's Syndrome successfully identified and killed by abortion, 160 non-affected babies are lost by miscarriage after the test. His paper, published in the Journal of the British Medical Ultrasound Society, mainly emphasizes that the non-invasive test, called the foetal 'nuchal thickness' measurement, is not as useful as is widely thought because of the high incidents of false positives it gives.
In obstetrics, it is now standard practice to offer pregnant women the non-invasive test that measures the fluid at the back of the child's neck. Combined with the age of the mother the test results in a number taken to indicate the possibility that the child has Down's. If the number is high enough, the mother is offered an amniocentesis, a test in which a needle is inserted into the abdomen and a sample of amniotic fluid is drawn off and analyzed.
With about one in every 1000 children conceived having Down’s syndrome, and with amniocentesis carrying a one in 200 risk of miscarriage, Dr. Meire, wrote in the journal Ultrasound that if all pregnant women took the amniocentesis test as many as 3,200 healthy babies could die by miscarriage every year.
There are about 30,000 amniocentesis tests done every year in the UK.
In North America, earlier this year, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) have recommended that all pregnant women, not just those over 35, should be screened, including with amniocentesis.
Source: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07082102.html
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Among pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis, women over the age of 40 have the greatest risk of miscarriage, according to the results of a new study.
In the study, Dr. Nikolaos E. Papantoniou of the University of Athens, Greece, and colleagues looked back on the medical records of 1,006 women pregnant with a single fetus. Most had bleeding during pregnancy, while about 300 had a history of previous abortions or miscarriage. A second group of more than 4,000 women with no pregnancy risk factors were used as a comparison group. All of the women in both groups underwent amniocentesis.
All of the study participants were divided into three groups by age, which included both the women with miscarriage risk factors and those who had no such risk factors. Among women aged 20 to 34, 2.5% had miscarriages following amniocentesis. In the 35 to 39 age group, 3.4% had miscarriages, while women 40 and older had the highest rate of miscarriage after amniocentesis, at 5.1%.
Full story: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011128/hl/amnio_1.html
In the study, Dr. Nikolaos E. Papantoniou of the University of Athens, Greece, and colleagues looked back on the medical records of 1,006 women pregnant with a single fetus. Most had bleeding during pregnancy, while about 300 had a history of previous abortions or miscarriage. A second group of more than 4,000 women with no pregnancy risk factors were used as a comparison group. All of the women in both groups underwent amniocentesis.
All of the study participants were divided into three groups by age, which included both the women with miscarriage risk factors and those who had no such risk factors. Among women aged 20 to 34, 2.5% had miscarriages following amniocentesis. In the 35 to 39 age group, 3.4% had miscarriages, while women 40 and older had the highest rate of miscarriage after amniocentesis, at 5.1%.
Full story: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011128/hl/amnio_1.html
Popular Posts
-
Menopause is the time in a woman's life when her reproductive system shuts down and her reproducing days are over... or are they? For s... -
Photo Credit: Amanda Morgan and Caitlin by news.bbc.co.uk A 40-year-old woman told by a doctor she was starting menopause gave birth to a... -
Nov. 3, 2004 -- Late pregnancy is an option, but after age 40, you'll need both health and luck. And after 45, you'll need wealth, t... -
A Zen thought ... A true expert is not the one with the most knowledge, but one who causes the most others to have knowledge. Questions, ... -
Photo credit: FertileCM.com - All Rights Reserved Cervical Mucus as a Natural Fertility Sign One of the purposes of cervical mucus is t... -
Trying to Get Pregnant Naturally? You’re Not Alone. If you’ve been hoping, praying, and timing everything just right —and it still hasn’t h...
Recent Comments