OTTAWA — A Canadian medical group has set off a firestorm of protest after recommending “prenatal genetic screening” for all pregnant women.

Pro-life groups and Catholic organizations have joined people with Down syndrome and their families in criticizing the recommendation. They say it is hostile to people with Down in particular and physically or mentally challenged persons generally.

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada is trying to avoid the debate about consequences. Media Officer Michael Haynes told the Register none of the organization’s spokespeople “will talk to you because they don’t want to get drawn into the abortion debate.”

It’s just about screening, according to the society. Prenatal genetic testing of the mother’s blood (which contains distinguishable components of the unborn child’s blood) can reveal the likelihood of “chromosomal anomalies” in a non-invasive way and the absence of these. That means far fewer of the more definitive, but also more invasive tests using amniocentesis need be done.

“Having the option to access this information early in pregnancy means that women and their families have time to prepare, to collect information, and to receive balanced health counseling prior to delivery,” stated Dr. Jo-Ann Johnson, a member of the committee that made the recommendation, in a Feb. 5 news release.

The prenatal screening was already recommended for women over 35 (because their risk of bearing a child with Down is higher) as a means of reducing the number of amniocentesis tests done.

The Canadian Down Syndrome Society, however, launched a pre-emptive strike against the recommendations on Feb. 1 that may have caused the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada to include in its recommendations the language about “balanced health counseling.”

The recommendations were expected because the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists made a nearly identical announcement in early January. The American doctors, however, made it clear that Down syndrome was the target of the screening. The Canadian Down Syndrome Society’s early counterattack may also have led the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada to blur the intent of its screening by using the term “chromosomal abnormality.”

In response to the American College’s recommendation, Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life, noted that Catholics could not condone testing that had the purpose of identifying prospects for abortion.

“Let’s stand both for the advancement of the treatment of the unborn, and against the deadly mentality that pushes to kill the less than perfect,” he said in a statement.

Toward Eugenics?

The Canadian Down Syndrome Society was clearly concerned over the use of the expanded tests. Said its executive director, Krista Flint at a Calgary press conference: “My children’s children may inherit a world without Canadians with Down syndrome — and that’s not a good world.”

In a subsequent interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Flint even rejected the characterization of Down syndrome as “anomalous.” Down syndrome is “a naturally occurring chromosomal arrangement that has always been part of the human family.”

Dale Froese, an adult with Down syndrome, told the Calgary press conference, “It hurts to think that one day any group of people might be eliminated from the human race. People with Down syndrome are doing great things today. Some of us are married, go to university, have important jobs and have family and friends who depend on us.”

The Canadian Down Syndrome Society’s concern is that positive test results will be delivered with a negative spin by doctors. The concern is based on hard experience, according to Flint.

“Our constituents tell us that still many families are told, ‘Don’t have this baby. It will ruin your life,’ or, ‘it will never be toilet-trained,’” she said. “That’s not information, that’s a bias.”

The Catholic Organization for Life and Family called the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada recommendations “a disturbing step towards eugenics.” The organization’s chairman, Bishop Ronald Fabbro of London, Ontario, told the Register that it doesn’t doubt that “the main purpose of the prenatal testing was to give an option of abortion to the parents.”

Bishop Fabbro noted that the Church in Canada had opposed eugenics during its heyday when, influenced by early feminist groups and the medical profession, several provincial governments instituted sterilization of those classed as mentally defective. Forced sterilizations continued until the early 1970s.

Dr. Will Johnston, head of Physicians for Life, said that “eugenics is not officially approved because of the disasters of the last 100 years,” but also sees the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations as a move in that direction. It is ironic, he told the Register, that in Canada it is not yet acceptable to call explicitly for the abortion of babies because they are defective, “while we give official approval for aborting babies for no reason at all.” Johnston is referring to the de facto Canadian legal position on abortion: that it is strictly a matter of the pregnant woman’s choice.

Social Disapproval

Johnston said that as prenatal testing becomes more sophisticated, the “choice” will broaden. “People will ask, ‘Do you really want a child who is not quite as bright as you would like?’“

He said the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is “insincere when it says it has no position on abortion. Prenatal testing is a way to mark the child for destruction.”

Moreover, he said, such testing will not only increase pressure on parents to abort Down syndrome children and other children, it will encourage social disapproval of parents who decide to have such children, since, after all, they were given the option to abort and chose to ignore it, thus adding to the burden on them and society.

Johnston also noted the medical flaw in prenatal genetic screening: It produces “false positives” in 8% to 10% of the results. These in turn lead to amniocentesis, which leads to miscarriages in one in 175 cases.

“This testing is supposed to provide peace of mind,” he said. “But imagine the misery of the women who lose healthy babies because of the tests themselves.”

Steve Weatherbe is based in

Victoria, British Columbia.