Latest News

They trusted their prenatal test. They didn’t know the industry is an unregulated ‘Wild West.’


 

‘The margin of error is a human life’

On a warm and cloudy day this past June, on what would have been their daughter’s first birthday, Amanda and her husband visited her grave. They brought a unicorn balloon and vanilla cake, which they ate nearby on the grass. Her husband read a poem.

To them, their baby had been perfect. She had fingers and toes. A thatch of dark hair. While in intensive care, peering up at her parents, she grabbed for her mother’s hand.

Had her condition been known, they would’ve spared her futile medical interventions, as doctors tried to save her life. Their family priest would have been able to baptize her. As it was, they never got to hold their child while she was alive.

These days, when Amanda and her husband say grace before dinner, they give thanks for the 28 hours of their daughter’s life.

They’re also thinking about making comfort boxes the hospital could give to other parents who lose a child. It might include books on grief. Softer tissues. Something that says, as Amanda puts it, “This is to help you get through.”

Amid their grief, they had a prayer answered: Amanda is pregnant again.

It’s frightening to go through this again. She barely sleeps the night before visiting the doctor. It feels like she never stopped being pregnant. It will feel that way, she said, until she brings a baby home – one who lives past the first 2 nights.

Amanda planned to get another genetic screening test. At first she couldn’t bear it, wasn’t sure she could trust it. “The margin of error is a human life,” Amanda said.

The 10-week appointment passed. Then the 12-week appointment. After her 13th week, she took the plunge. The test she was given was from Labcorp.

Around this time, more than a year after Amanda had desperately tried to alert the company about what had happened to her and her first baby, she finally heard back. Labcorp’s vice president of genetic counseling and services reached out – after ProPublica contacted the company and shared Amanda’s story.

The executive would only speak to Amanda without a reporter present.

Amanda said that during the call, the executive told her that prenatal genetic tests are evolving, and doctors should be clear about what the screenings can and cannot do. By the end of the conversation, the executive offered Amanda her cell number.

Amanda said she appreciated the call. “I feel better. I feel like I got something.”

The same day, her screening results came back. They were negative.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Prenatal DNA tests lead to false alarms, FDA warns
MDedge ObGyn
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: Prenatal Testing, May 2022
MDedge ObGyn
Race difference seen in prenatal pot screens
MDedge ObGyn
Fertility doctors, IVF families, post Roe: ‘We’re anxious’
MDedge ObGyn
Prenatal test can cut time, cost of finding chromosomal abnormalities
MDedge ObGyn
Dolutegravir in pregnant patients with HIV showed more viral suppression at delivery vs. other treatments
MDedge ObGyn
Fish in pregnancy not dangerous after all, says new study
MDedge ObGyn
Congenital cytomegalovirus declined in wake of COVID-19
MDedge ObGyn
Lasker awardee pioneered prenatal DNA testing
MDedge ObGyn
Pregnant, postpartum women with disabilities at higher risk for violence
MDedge ObGyn