Congenital anomalies — why bother?

R Brian Lowry
Med J Aust 2010; 193 (7): . || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03982.x
Published online: 4 October 2010

To the Editor: In their recent editorial, Bower and colleagues effectively summarised the problem of apparent governmental indifference to congenital anomalies.1 This is not unique to Australia and probably exists worldwide.

  • Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

  • 1. Bower CI, Lester-Smith D, Elliott EJ. Congenital anomalies — why bother [editorial]? Med J Aust 2010; 192: 300-301. <MJA full text>
  • 2. Misra T, Dattani N, Majeed A. Evaluation of the National Congenital Anomaly System in England and Wales. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2005; 90: F368-F373.
  • 3. Boyd PA, Armstrong B, Dolk H, et al. Congenital anomaly surveillance in England — ascertainment deficiencies in the national system. BMJ 2005; 330: 27-31.
  • 4. Lowry RB. Congenital anomalies surveillance in Canada. Can J Public Health 2008; 99: 483-485.
  • 5. Public Health Agency of Canada. Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance Network recommendations and guidelines. (accessed Aug 2010).


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.