We have bee sent a copy of an official National Screening Unit (NSU) Report from 2007 (obtained under the Official Information Act).
The report is titled: Summary of Key Informant Interviews Antenatal Down syndrome Screening, Final Report, and in a section titled “Cost Effectiveness”, it clearly outlines the case for why aborting Down syndrome babies is more cost effective than allowing them to live.
What is rather interesting about this document is that it doesn’t use the word ‘abortion’, instead it uses sanitized euphemisms like ‘avoiding the birth of a baby’.
Here’s what that section says (emphasis added):
2.3.2 Cost Effectiveness
A further assumption regarding the establishment of formal screening programmes is that the programme will be cost beneficial for the population and the health system.
The scan highlighted literature that supported the premise that the economic costs of screening outweigh the high costs associated with the long term care needs of an individual with Down syndrome. For example Wald and colleagues assessed the implementation of antenatal screening for Down syndrome in practice using individual risk estimates based on maternal age and three serum markers. This study assessed the uptake of screening, detection rates, false positive rate, probability of Down syndrome relative to the positive result, the uptake of amniocentesis in women with a positive result together with the costs of the screening programme. The findings concluded that antenatal maternal serum screening for Down syndrome is effective practice and can be readily integrated into routine antenatal care. It is cost effective as the estimated cost of avoiding the birth of a baby with Down syndrome (about 38,000 pounds) is substantially less than the lifetime costs of care.
Further support for this view also suggested that while screening costs will vary depending on the testing format, and while some may feel that the cost of about 40,000 pounds sterling to prevent the birth of a baby with Down syndrome to a woman under 30 may be expensive, it is low compared with the costs of caring for someone with Down syndrome.
A Health Technology report, “First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down syndrome: the results of the serum, urine and Ultrasound Screening Study”, (known as the SURUSS report), contains detailed cost analyses of the screening test options. This study concluded that on the basis of efficacy, safety and cost, an integrated screening test format was the test of choice.
Other literature emphasis that the implementation of new strategies for the detection of Down syndrome all have economic implications, these are unique to antenatal diagnoses, and must be considered prior to implementation. Indirect and intangible costs must be included in the analysis, not just direct medical costs.
The report is dated March 2007, and it states the following statement about the NSU in its Executive Summary:
“The National Screen Unit (NSU), a business unit of the Ministry of Health (the Ministry) has responsibility for the strategic management, operation and oversight of three screening programmes, and is conducting preliminary work on other strategic screening programmes.”
The Executive Summary then goes on to state the purpose of the report:
“The intention of this report is to provide the National Screening Unit of the Ministry of Health information to inform its decision as to whether a national antenatal screening programme for Down syndrome should be established in New Zealand.”
Make no mistake about it, the brutal and inhuman practice of eugenics is alive and well in NZ.
Latest posts by Staff (see all)
- FRIDAY LIFE: Is it morally permissible to support a parental notification law? - May 3, 2013
- Statement of Clarification - July 25, 2012
- Parliament to debate Abortion Supervisory Committee appointments today - April 7, 2011