Y2K Bug Blamed For Miscalculated Down Syndrome Risk

Albanach writes: "The BBC are reporting in this story that the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield, England is blaming the Millennium Bug for getting wrong 150 tests for Down Syndrome with four mothers going on to give birth to affected children." The article actually idicates that four women were pregnant with Down Syndrome babies, and that two of them brought the pregnancies to term.

hmmm...

[teknopurge]

so because the age of the mother was calculated incorrectly, it fucked up the results? i find it hard to belive the doctors wouldn't notice a mistake such as that....

-teknopurge

I am not pro-life or anything

[The Slashdolt]

but should this be "y2k bug saves two lives"? It seems that (according to the article) the two mothers would have aborted their babies had they known they were going to have downs syndrom. I do consider myself pro-choice, but I don't think that aborting a baby just because it has downs syndrome is the right thing to do. I know many people with downs syndrome, including some family members, and there is no reason they can't live a happy life with parents that love them.

It's not about saving babies or not

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

It's about how such an important piece of code passed dec. 31 1999 without beeing tested against Y2k, specially when everybody involved with the code knew it uses dates to give the result.

I wonder how many lines of code are still there, untested, waiting for someone to run them and screw things up big time...

Re:I am not pro-life or anything

[The Slashdolt]

But what about people who were considered to be "slow" or even "retarded" who went on to become incredible geniuses. People like Einstein. Could you imagine if Einsteins parents would have found out that young Albert was gonna be slow, so you might as well abort him. We all would have lost something. People who are considered slow or retarded can go on to do GREAT things. Look at Stephen Hawking! Don't underestimate the power of the human spirt!

Sanity Checks

[_flan]

This is a good example of how software is not tested. According to the article the problem was due to the mother's age not being correctly calculated. My question is, were there any sanity checks on the mother's age in the first place? Probably not.

It seems logical that for a critical application you would try to have as much sanity-checking code as possible. It should be plainly obvious that no one should have a negative age or be giving birth if they are over 100 years old. And sanity checking code is easy.

The common excuse, though, is the ol' "garbage in, garbage out". Which is fine -- but what if you don't know you have garbage? The software -- if it can -- should at least give a warning.

This gets down to one of the basic questions for software testing: What inputs can you rely on?

Software engineers know by now (at least mostly) that all user input has to be checked and validated. But what about system data, especially something as basic as the date?

The only way to protect against unexpected bad data is to do sanity checking at all steps in the process. If you know even a little bit about the domain, you can usually set reasonable bounds.

Software isn't really engineered unless it makes these kinds of checks.

You suck

[nanojath]

I can't get over how many people are either not reading or paying no attention to the article. There is NO reason to believe these mothers would have aborted these pregnancies. The point of these tests is to give the mothers the best understanding of their situation and to promote the use of more accurate and complete tests at the earliest stages. The problem, as clearly stated in the article, is that these mothers had an assurance that wasn't justified - and so were not prepared, as they could have been, to deal with the reality of their situations.

This story is providing a nice little showcase of how pro-lifers are so fixated on a single topic that they are incapable of grasping a reality with a broader context. Thanks, I've never been more confidently pro-choice.

Has anyone noted the article explicitely states that 2 pregnancies were terminated despite the false negatives?

Re:The Calendar says 2001--but it seems to be 1984

[nanojath]

I'm mystified as to where you are finding the message in this article that suggests in any way that the author's issue is with terminating pregnancies. The article explicitly states that the issue is the mothers not getting the best information for her range of options - termination not even being mentioned - of as you note, choosing to have amniocentesis at the safest time. There is a clear benefit to knowing in advance if your child is going to have a serious medical concern of any time - it allows proper prenatal care and both practical and emotional preparation. The point, as the article states, is that they should have known they were high risk but were misinformed they were low risk.

Re:The Calendar says 2001--but it seems to be 1984

[geekoid]

Would you and you're wife had child #3 if you knew she would have down syndrom before you got pregnant?

As a parent I know how hard it can be to be impartial to that question when you see your beautifull child every day.

this is a serious question, and I am really curious.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: You suck (OFFTOPIC POST)

[mjh]

WARNING: THIS POST OFF TOPIC

This story is providing a nice little showcase of how pro-lifers are so fixated on a single topic that they are incapable of grasping a reality with a broader context. Thanks, I've never been more confidently pro-choice.

If you believed that abortion was murder, how would you react to it?

Let me put it another way. The story is about mothers who want additional information about their babies prior to birth. Some of those mothers will use this information to prepare as much as possible for the fact that they're going to have a baby with special needs. Others will decide other options, possibly to abort the baby. Let's suppose that it's a different set of tests. It's a set of tests that you do after the baby is born to determine whether or not that child is going to be autistic. (To my knowledge no such test exists - this is hypothetical.) Wouldn't you be offended at the idea that some are running these tests for the purposes of trying to determine whether or not to kill their children?

The point is that you shouldn't jump down the pro-lifers throats because they think that a murder might be committed. That's what they think, trying to protect the person being murdered is a more than reasonable reaction. If you disagree with them, disuss why you think that it's not a murder. Discuss why you think it is a legitmate choice.

Can't we once and for all, address what the real issue is in abortion: Is a fetus a life? Every thing else depends on how you answer that question. So let's talk about that question.

Re:The Calendar says 2001--but it seems to be 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll give you my view. My wife and I have a three-year old son with Down Syndrome.

If I had known before the pregnancy that our youngest would have Down Syndrome, I doubt we would have gone ahead with the attempt. If I had known before or during the pregnancy, I would have been filled with doubt and fear, because I would not have known what to expect. We made the decision not to have an amniocentesis performed because we would not have elected to have an abortion.

Doubt and fear are natural when faced with the unknown. Most people have some idea what it is like to raise children that are born without handicaps. Most of us do not have any idea what it is like to raise a child with handicaps before we are thrust into the situation.

I am glad I did not know that our son would be born with Down Syndrome, because if I had, I might have let my doubts and fears make me miss one of the most wonderful, rewarding, and fulfulling experiences of my life. Sometimes, too much knowledge is a bad thing.

Disability is not death

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up!!

This is a very immature attitude on your part. I was 16 once too, and thought "No way _I'd_ ever want to live if ____". You fill in the blank.

Now I'm 35, and on dialysis. I have a little more perspective. And I'm not ready to die, even though my life isn't perfect. Even though it is downright miserable and painful at times! Even with severe diet restrictions, and being tethered to a dialysis center (can't miss those treatments).

It turns out that being alive is pretty enjoyable - even with disabilities! Try talking to some people who actually suffer from those things you fear most - people who live in a wheelchair, or various other disablities. I, and all these other people have things to do still, and people to see.

Now you may be saying "Well, that's your choice, but I would choose differently". I don't think so. You will be old and feeble one day, odds are. You will get a chance to live with no bladder control, arthritis, impotence, failing vision, dependence on others, and whatever other things come your way. They will come, you know. And when they do, you'll adapt, and keep on going, doing the best you can, just like the rest of the human race has for thousands of years. And, you'll find it isn't so bad. You still talk to family members, watch the kids grow, and look forward to new releases of software...

I get pretty tired of the life-wouldn't-be-worth-living-without _____ crowd. It just isn't true. Life _is_ worth living, even then. Saying otherwise devalues the people who are living those lives. Aborting them before they have the chance to live their live, on the grounds that it isn't worth it is appallingly evil.

I *AM* pro-life.

[Anonymous Coward]

My fiance's family adopted a child who is autistic, mildly...Sure, he has happy days. There are some things he enjoys doing, but overall, he's the least happy of the children, by FAR. Combine this with someone a bit less retarded, who can tell how far behind everyone else they are, and I think that they'd be profoundly unhappy, despite happy instances in their life.

Now, wait a minute... I am autistic (albiet "high functioning"). I am also far from being mentally retarded - in fact, I have an IQ of 150. I think that puts me in exactly the category you were "considering" above.

I have no problem seeing how far behind others I am in some areas. It's highly unlikely I would ever be able to marry. I have tremendous problems speaking when I'm confused or in a noisy room (sometimes I can't speak at all for even a few days). I'm barely able to work, but somehow manage to make it through a workplace designed for non-autistics. (computer programming is a blessing for people like me)

Should have I been aborted? I don't think so. Was I a lot of work for my parents? Yes - I was a very difficult child to raise (I didn't speak much of my childhood; I bit other kids and I banged my head against the wall at times). Was I a happy kid? Sometimes - it depended on if I was being abused by the other kids or not. Autism wasn't hell - the way I was sometimes treated was.

I am very happy now. I love life. The sensory "issues" that I have sometimes make life difficult, but being able to see the mountains the way I can - getting lost in the sensations - makes up for it. Enjoying rocking back and forth or simply humming to myself brings me a lot of joy - and I won't let anyone take this away from me, even if they think I'm "less human" then they are.

Please don't assume anyone with a disability is unhappy. We might actually enjoy life. Some of us don't, and I realize that, but many so-called normal people commit suicide - surely they weren't happy either. From someone who has lived with prejudice my whole life: Don't you dare judge the value of someone else based on what you think you see.

I will also say that it is very possible for a mentally retarded child or "severely" autistic one to be happy and enjoy thier life. Who are you to take that away from him, simply because it would take "work?" Who are you to judge who is valuable to society and who isn't? I wonder how many slashdotters who, although very intelligent, did very poorly in sports and PE. Are they all less human because of this? Are they more expendable? Wouldn't it be horrible to know you were bad at sports? How is this any different then being "slow" intellectually?

I will also mention that the Nazis, through euthenasia, killed first the mentally and physically handicapped. I fear I would have been one of the ones killed if I lived then. They did this before they started killing the Jews.