Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Sequenom Inc. Message Board

  • translationalguy translationalguy Jan 25, 2011 11:57 AM Flag

    Wrongful birth suits.????

    http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/newper61.shtml#Cover

    Excerpt from:"The Coming Revolution in Genetic Testing"

    If the technology becomes common, the law is likely to become involved, but how? Obstetricians could be affected by potential liability in “wrongful birth” suits brought by parents complaining about a failure to offer the test, which would probably increase use of the test.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • believemecause_im_an_imbecile believemecause_im_an_imbecile Jan 25, 2011 5:41 PM Flag

      Lying pile of garbage.

    • Almost 3% ???? You added .9% to make it 3%...LOL. If I deduct .9% it will be 1.2% Does that soud better sammy??? LMFAO You're too pathetic for your own good.

    • how does "97.9" = "almost 3%"

      If anything, an accurate liar like yourself would have said, almost 2% as 97.9 is 90% closer to 98.0 than it is to 97.0

      C'mon sammy, stop being a jackass for awhile.

    • No, I had it right. The test has false-positives. take a look at the best data Lo has.

      "With the 2-plex protocol, trisomy 21 fetuses were detected at 100% sensitivity and 97.9% specificity..."

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21224326

      That means that it has an almost 3% false-positive rate.

    • They were not talking specifically about the SQNM test.
      And you intentionally left out the rest of the paragraph you quoted from to intentionally mislead people.

      Here is the rest of that paragraph...

      "Whether the FDA will regulate the safety and efficacy of such tests is not at all clear. Neither is the possible role of the state or federal governments in restricting or promoting the availability or use of a test so closely tied to parental decisions about their children. The sheer volume of tests is likely to force us finally to face challenging questions we have been avoiding - whether a woman should be able to abort a fetus for any reason, no matter how trivial, or whether there are some genetic characteristics (sex, cosmetic traits, predispositions to certain conditions, etc.) for which no embryo should be terminated. A handful of states have already prohibited abortions performed on the basis of the fetus’s sex; others might attempt to restrict access to tests they consider inappropriate. The federal Constitution may limit such interventions – or it may not. And, of course, in a world of easy travel and “reproductive tourism,” we would need to think about what the law should or can do across national borders? "

      • 2 Replies to sammyjammin
      • after the still born sam is jam.

      • Why are you diluting and spinning that rather good post? Sammywhatever you seem to have nothing but hatred for SQNM which makes your comments predictable, biased in the extreme, and not worth reading. In this case I decided to read the previous post and your comment and again you've chosen to play a game of playing words instead of meaning.

        Its clear as day the article points out the fact that increased testing will open the possibility of wrongful birth suits. The poster "translation" adds that this is good for Sequenom. He's right, because the testing Sequenom is doing is key to a childs health, its not frivilous stuff like eye color and chin size. Downs will likely become mandatory as will other significant life altering genetic conditions. Failure to offer those tests, perhaps not failure to take them, will likely happen.

    • believemecause_im_an_imbecile believemecause_im_an_imbecile Jan 25, 2011 1:48 PM Flag

      Great reason to be "forced" to be tested or fend for yourself.

 
SQNM
3.48+0.01(+0.29%)May 27 4:00 PMEDT