User talk:Bobby57

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! David Ruben Talk 13:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

re Amniocentesis - assertions made need WP:Cite from WP:Reliable sources to WP:Verify, otherwise this may neem like a personal option (WP:No original research). For such reasons I blanked you additions. If you have reliable sources to cite from, please discuss at Talk:Amniocentesis and i'll be happy to help with any issue of wikimarkup to add suitable WP:Footnotes citations to re-inserted section. David Ruben Talk 13:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point made (re not always possible to do if placenta in the way), but is there not a similar risk that CVS can not be done (i.e. placenta is on farside of the fetus and inaccessable (I have no expertese in the field and so am merely free-thinking here). Also of course amniocentesis has a very small risk if fetus is female that the female karyotype (image of the chromosomes) seen might not be that of the female fetus itself but accidentally through sample contamination that of the (female) mother. If I recall this risk is extremely low. As for decission of whether to accept the higher risk of CVS vs the risk of not being able later to perform an amniocentesis, this is a vey dificult and personal decission to make. example : if the risk is thought after bloods/ultrasound to be 1 in 200 for a problem, then amniocentesis is likely to pickup up as many cases of Downs as normal fetus are miscarried as a result of the proceedure, whilst CVS will approximately result in twice as many normal fetuses being miscarried as affected fetuses identified. If ones personal assessment is to do all possible to exclude an affected baby, then such risk/benefit is seen as worthwhile (and I have certainly seen couples whose assessment has been that even tiny risks of Downs are worth screening & preventing). Equally others may only choose to CVS/Amnioocentesis if the risk of an abnormality is thought to be greater than the risk of the relevant proceedure.


 * What is needed here are some values (my understanding was that amniocentesis can usually be done in the majority of cases - but how much is "majority" vs CVS additional 1-in-200 miscarriage rate ? - I just don't know; it needs a source to help identify the relative numbers. Perhaps the article needs specify both rates for amniocentesis - ie rate of identification if proceedure carried out and the low rate for a couple entereing screening (vs having had screening already undertaken) which includes cases where the proceedure can not be performed ? David Ruben Talk 00:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)