Panel to Advise Testing Babies for 29 Diseases (pros and cons debate)

[rodeodance]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/health/21baby.html?th

February 21, 2005

Panel to Advise Testing Babies for 29 Diseases
By GINA KOLATA

An influential federal advisory group plans to recommend in the next few weeks that all newborns be screened for 29 rare medical conditions, from the well known, like sickle cell anemia, to diseases so obscure that they are known to just a handful of medical specialists and a few dozen devastated families.

But while no one argues with the idea of saving babies, the proposed screening is generating fierce debate.

The dispute centers on how useful the test findings would be. Would going ahead with the full list of tests result in more good than harm, physically and emotionally? Or would it be better to forgo most of them?

Proponents say that the diseases are terrible and that an early diagnosis can be lifesaving. When testing is not done, parents often end up in a medical odyssey to find out what is wrong with their child. By the time the answer is in, it may be too late for treatment to do much good......

[patricia92243]

1. If blood is drawn for one test, why not go ahead and do as many tests on

it as are needed? I can't think of even one good reason not to test a babies blood or urine for diseases.

[bleedingheart]

2. my kids were tested for a litany of diseases..,.small heel prick

and it's over.

There are some diseases like PKU that if untreated will result in retardation of the child...I know a fellow who was not diagnosed early enough and was left mentally retarded as a result....

http://www.pkunetwork.org/PKU.html

"Without treatment, most infants with PKU develop mental retardation. Those with untreated PKU may also develop additional neurologic symptoms. "