Would you abort a child with Down Syndrome?

BostonB

I think people are assuming scan are fool proof. Whereas they are not. I know people in the same situation as harr described.

CathyMoran

DublinWriter wrote: »

It isn't an option in Ireland. The majority of hospitals wouldn't offer the prospective mother an elective amneocentisis in the first place.

I was advised not to have one as my risk after the nuchal scan was very low not because of any other reason.

BostonB

prinz wrote: »

Eh, what?..

Is there a difference between deliberately with holding treatment, leading to ending a life, and ending a life which has the same medical problems.

Mr. Presentable

In resp. of the OP, I hope I wouldn't, but one can't know until the decision is required how one will decide.

And, yes, scans are not foolproof, which opens the door to even worse possibilities.

BostonB

DublinWriter wrote: »

It isn't an option in Ireland. The majority of hospitals wouldn't offer the prospective mother an elective amneocentisis in the first place.

Its a risk in itself. Hence (I think) they would be reluctant unless they had some reason to suspect a problem.

prinz

BostonB wrote: »

Is there a difference between deliberately with holding treatment, leading to ending a life, and ending a life which has the same medical problems.

No... but there is a difference between withholding treatment which may improve a life, and withholding treatment which is at best not a treatment at all but merely prolonging the inevitable.

Tabnabs

A very controversial subject in the socially progressive and seemingly liberal Scandinavian countries where the rate of down syndrome born babies has dropped dramatically in recent years. In Denmark I understand the rate is extremely low and trending towards zero.

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

http://www.disaboom.com/parenting-and-family-general/abortion-rate-affected-by-down-syndrome-test



http://www.lifenews.com/2008/09/10/int-914/



http://mommyish.com/pregnancy-health/my-obgyn-wont-do-abortions-thats-why-i-chose-her-851/

Plus plenty of first hand anecdotal evidence from a pediatric home care nurse working in a country where abortion is encouraged.

No one is being forced to have abortions and your pro-life article suggestions seem to suggest the opposite in fact.

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the essential differences between performing a late term abortion, long past the stage of foetal viability, and killing the child outside of the womb? One is deemed ok, one isn't.

Maybe there is one maybe there isn't I don't know. I'm a physicalist when it comes to conciousness. When someone is in the late stages of Alzheimer's disease I would consider them dead for example. Is a baby concious does it suffer? I don't know the answer to this so I can't honestly answer you. However an embryo does not a person make, to ban abortion at that stage would be as pointless as banning condoms in my opinion.

seamus

BostonB wrote: »

Its a risk in itself. Hence (I think) they would be reluctant unless they had some reason to suspect a problem.

The risk is overstated about amniocentesis in this country. The risk is commonly quoted as being one in 200, but this figure is from the seventies. With modern techniques, the risk is about one-tenth of that. But yes, there is a risk.

Perhaps it's because of our frequent raging debates about the right to life of the unborn that we're very reluctant in this country to interfere with the gestational process, for better or worse.

The Down's debate is a tough one. No parent of a Down's child will tell you that it's easy, but equally none will tell you that they regret having the child.

As a supporter of the right to choose, I have no issue with someone choosing to abort on the basis of Down's. There is sound logic behind it; at the end of the day all non-essential abortions are carried out in order to avoid the parent(s) having the additional stress in their lives. Aborting because of Down's is being a little more selective, but the reasoning is the same - they don't want the additional stress in their lives. Selfish? Of course it is. All non-essential abortion is.

My primary concern would be that Down's would be seen as a bad word. We've been through that already. In good old Catholic Ireland, children with disabilities like Down's were locked in back rooms out of the sight of the rest of the town and treated like animals. We've finally gotten to a place where people with Down's are treated with dignity and humanity. I wouldn't like the world to become a place where people thought, "Ugh, Down's, abort it". Ideally the decision would be taken rationally and with full consideration of the reality of Down's.

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No one is being forced to have abortions... .

Encouraged, pressured etc..

CerebralCortex wrote: »

When someone is in the late stages of Alzheimer's disease I would consider them dead for example.

So in your world I could go on a killing spree of the late stage patients in my local Alzheimer's carehome and couldn't face any actual sanction because they'd be already dead? Nice.

seamus wrote: »

We've finally gotten to a place where people with Down's are treated with dignity and humanity..

We have, and it's fantastic.

seamus wrote: »

I wouldn't like the world to become a place where people thought, "Ugh, Down's, abort it"..

Unfortunately that is exactly the place the world is becoming...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html

seamus

prinz wrote: »

Unfortunately that is exactly the place the world is becoming...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html

That's a nice article actually, but it does point out that this is not a legislative issue, it's a social one.
The attitudes of the doctors, for example; "I'm sorry, but...", or "I have some bad news", as well as the attitudes of the community are far more important than the availability of genetic testing or abortions.

There was a post recently on After Hours where an older woman expressed her sympathies to the local doctor in the waiting room of his surgery, because he had a child born with Down's. When the doctor remarked that it's not like his child is dead, she responded, "Well, as good as".

Unfortunately this attitude is still prevalent in Ireland, especially among older generations, and unless the attitude itself is turned on its head, then it's going to become a bigger problem as medical science marches on.

There will always be a negative view of Down's to some degree because of some procreational imperatives. Everyone has kids for their own reasons, but behind it is a primal drive to carry on your bloodline. A Down's child will not carry on your bloodline and will put proportionally more pressure on resources which are shared with your "normal" children. That's a cold way of looking at it, but it's what the base primal mind thinks. It's why the parents of Down's children need all the state support that we can offer, both for their and the childrens' sakes.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

The attitudes of the doctors, for example; "I'm sorry, but...", or "I have some bad news", as well as the attitudes of the community are far more important than the availability of genetic testing or abortions..

However those attitudes in society is going to lead to more abortions, which leads to less people born with Down's and in turn less and less Down's people will result in even harsher attitudes towards those who choose not to abort. So it's a downward spiral.

seamus wrote: »

When the doctor remarked that it's not like his child is dead, she responded, "Well, as good as". ..

There has been similar opinions expressed on this thread.

seamus wrote: »

It's why the parents of Down's children need all the state support that we can offer, both for their and the childrens' sakes.

True, but once again the perceived drain on resources is seen by some as a reason to abort, and so those who choose not to abort will be resented as taking unnecessary state support, which in turn will lead to resentment against those living with Down's, which will lead to more aborting, which will lead to more of the 'ugh Down's' attitudes.

gbee

My view is it would be best for the child, I believe in multiple lives, not exactly reincarnation but other lives for sure.

To stack the odds in favour of not having a child like this, have children early in life.

the_syco

prinz wrote: »

decided that an unborn child with DS was less worthy of life than an unborn child without it

Maybe, though it'd be less to do with them being worthy of life, and more to do with them being able to enjoy life. Most DS children that I've seen are happy. Really happy. Have not seen a DS adult, so unsure how they cope in adulthood, but my only gripe about DS is if they'd be looked after/able to look after themselves when I go onto the next life.

Tabnabs wrote: »

A very controversial subject in the socially progressive and seemingly liberal Scandinavian countries where the rate of down syndrome born babies has dropped dramatically in recent years. In Denmark I understand the rate is extremely low and trending towards zero.

I don't know the cause of DS, but hopefully the decrease is natural, as opposed to forced decrease.

From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html

A dwindling Down syndrome population, which now stands at about 350,000, could mean less institutional support and reduced funds for medical research. It could also mean a lonelier world for those who remain.

This seems a fairly selfish reason: allow DS kids to be born to make life for current DS people less lonely.

BostonB

seamus wrote: »

....
The Down's debate is a tough one. No parent of a Down's child will tell you that it's easy, but equally none will tell you that they regret having the child.

As a supporter of the right to choose, I have no issue with someone choosing to abort on the basis of Down's. There is sound logic behind it; at the end of the day all non-essential abortions are carried out in order to avoid the parent(s) having the additional stress in their lives. Aborting because of Down's is being a little more selective, but the reasoning is the same - they don't want the additional stress in their lives. Selfish? Of course it is. All non-essential abortion is.....

Thats overly simplistic. If you ask the question if you'd have the choice what to choose, vs do you regret is a very different question. A sweeping generalisation that all parents think the same cannot possible be true.

BostonB

prinz wrote: »

....but once again the perceived drain on resources is seen by some as a reason to abort,...

That considerably understating the impact especially where a child has poor communication and remains at a pre school level etc. It has a very real impact on everyone.

prinz

the_syco wrote: »

I don't know the cause of DS, but hopefully the decrease is natural, as opposed to forced decrease..

No it isn't. The number of Down's Syndrome pregnancies is growing year on year. The number of those pregnancies being taken to birth is falling. More and more abortions are occurring.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8327228.stm

BostonB wrote: »

That considerably understating the impact especially where a child has poor communication and remains at a pre school level etc. It has a very real impact on everyone.

The same could be said for any number of conditions, illnesses, disabilities, lifestyle choices...

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

However those attitudes in society is going to lead to more abortions, which leads to less people born with Down's and in turn less and less Down's people will result in even harsher attitudes towards those who choose not to abort. So it's a downward spiral.



There has been similar opinions expressed on this thread.



True, but once again the perceived drain on resources is seen by some as a reason to abort, and so those who choose not to abort will be resented as taking unnecessary state support, which in turn will lead to resentment against those living with Down's, which will lead to more aborting, which will lead to more of the 'ugh Down's' attitudes.

Do you actually know what you're saying? We should have more Down's syndrome kids so that Down's syndrome sufferers will have a bigger club?
Absolute nonsense.

strobe

prinz wrote: »

However those attitudes in society is going to lead to more abortions, which leads to less people born with Down's and in turn less and less Down's people will result in even harsher attitudes towards those who choose not to abort. So it's a downward spiral.

Is that not a bit presumptuous Prinz? The predominant attitude I've heard from the majority of people towards the parents of those with Down's has been one of admiration rather than anything for the sacrifice they make and the work they put in to make their child's life as good as possible. That with the fact that in most cases the parents didn't have any option of abortion or foreknowledge of the condition. I find it hard to credit that you seem to be taking it for granted that less Down's children (or any children with disabilities) being born would lead these people into a shift from sympathy and admiration to resentment and ridicule.

BostonB

prinz wrote: »

...The same could be said for any number of conditions, illnesses, disabilities, lifestyle choices...

Well you can't have it both ways, either its a "perceived drain" (horrible terminology) or it has real impact as do other conditions. I'm completely baffled how you'er so dismissive of it.

CerebralCortex

BostonB wrote: »

prinz wrote: »

...The same could be said for any number of conditions, illnesses, disabilities, lifestyle choices...

Well you can't have it both ways, either its a "perceived drain" (horrible terminology) or it has real impact as do other conditions. I'm completely baffled how you'er so dismissive of it.

Isn't it obvious?

prinz

strobe wrote: »

Is that not a bit presumptuous Prinz? The predominant attitude I've heard from the majority of people towards the parents of those with Down's has been one of admiration rather than anything for the sacrifice they make and the work they put in to make their child's life as good as possible. That with the fact that in most cases the parents didn't have any option of abortion or foreknowledge of the condition.I find it hard to credit that you seem to be taking it for granted that less Down's children (or any children with disabilities) being born would lead these people into a shift from sympathy and admiration to resentment and ridicule.

Presumptuous? No I don't think so. I'll refer back to the links I supplied already in the thread of prospective parents feeling pushed into an abortion because of DS. Is that an attitude of admiration and acceptance? On the issue of societal acceptance seamus' post a page or two back was fairly accurate.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Do you actually know what you're saying? We should have more Down's syndrome kids so that Down's syndrome sufferers will have a bigger club?
Absolute nonsense.

No, that's not what I am saying. Saying we shouldn't be deliberately killing those with DS for no other reason than they have DS is a concept that turns my stomache in the same way as if the argument was killing all red heads for being redheads or killing all Poles, or killing all people with a clubfoot or killing all Hindus. Of course when your ethnic cleansing comes in a nice sanitary clinic with names to desensitise it doesn't seem so bad anymore. If you can't tell the difference between saying 'we shouldn't be killing an entire group of people for the crime of being different' and 'we should enlarge their 'club'' then that's not my problem.

BostonB wrote: »

Well you can't have it both ways, either its a "perceived drain" (horrible terminology) or it has real impact as do other conditions. I'm completely baffled how you'er so dismissive of it.

Horrible terminology? Why, does it upset you that I am able to express what others tip-toe around to make things more palatable for themselves? I'm 'dismissive' of it in the same way I'd be dismissive of an idea to save on the costs of Special Needs Assistants by going classroom to classroom and killing those schoolchildren who needed them. I find it abhorrent to put a price tag on a human life - and saying you have to weigh up the future costs of caring for someone against their right to life is doing exactly that. By the by it has an impact. That doesn't make it the 'drain' that others have alluded to. So yes, you can it have it both ways, admitting something has an impact is neither a positive nor a negative assessment. It wasn't me who turned it into a negative, hence my comment.

Fuinseog

mydearwatson wrote: »

I'm very much open to correction on this, but I've heard that if scans show up the possibility of Down Syndrome in an unborn child, the parent has the option to abort.

Is this true?

And would you do it? As far as I know, the scan shows up your chances of having a DS child in terms of percentages. Would you continue with the pregnancy if there was a 1% chance? 5%? 50%? 99%?

Assume that the legalities and the stage of pregnancy is irrelevant (i.e. assume that you could legally and easily abort up to birth.)

Personally ... I couldn't ever imagine myself making the decision to abort but I could absolutely understand and respect the decisions of others.

it is not very PC to say so, but I would abort it, perhaps thinking along the lines that you have to be cruel to be kind.

The problem is there are lots of LD people with DS are unfortunate because it can possible be detected in the womb and they have features that can identify them as DS, so society is more aware of them.

There are LD syndromes that a child can have that would have a much worse effect on the lives of the parents.

In all honestly if you have a child with MILD DS it wouldn't have a huge devastating impact on your life.

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

No, that's not what I am saying.

It's exactly what you said.

prinz wrote: »

Saying we shouldn't be deliberately killing those with DS for no other reason than they have DS is a concept that turns my stomache in the same way as if the argument was killing all red heads for being redheads or killing all Poles, or killing all people with a clubfoot or killing all Hindus. Of course when your ethnic cleansing comes in a nice sanitary clinic with names to desensitise it doesn't seem so bad anymore.

Aborting cells/embryo that would result in a child with DS is not ethnic cleansing, to paint it as such is dishonest.

prinz wrote: »

If you can't tell the difference between saying 'we shouldn't be killing an entire group of people for the crime of being different' and 'we should enlarge their 'club'' then that's not my problem.

I'm not suggesting that, seriously this is extremely childish. Why do you insist on demonising choice? I think personally that you have trouble accepting the reality that people want to have healthy children. This is obvious when a person chooses a partner to have kids with they look for the strengths that will lead to numerous and strong kids, it's the nature of our evolved biological imperatives.

BostonB

mariaalice wrote: »

....In all honestly if you have a child with MILD DS it wouldn't have a huge devastating impact on your life.

Good points. I think that's part of the issue with this discussion. A family with a child with very mild DS vs severe DS may have very different experience. So sweeping generalisations are not useful. I find when people talk about parenting in general they talk from their narrow range of experience, and simply are oblivious to much beyond that.

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Aborting cells/embryo that would result in a child with DS is not ethnic cleansing, to paint it as such is dishonest.

Cells/embryo/foetus/viable foetus/up to nine months gone in the pregnancy. Result is the same. It's only a matter of timing and making it seem more acceptable. It's not so bad as long as we get rid of them in the womb.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that...

But you suggested exactly that when you tried to build a strawman..

Do you actually know what you're saying? We should have more Down's syndrome kids so that Down's syndrome sufferers will have a bigger club?
Absolute nonsense.

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I think personally that you have trouble accepting the reality that people want to have healthy children. This is obvious when a person chooses a partner to have kids with they look for the strengths that will lead to numerous and strong kids, it's the nature of our evolved biological imperatives.

Wanting to have healthy children, and making those deemed unfit/unhealthy/unwanted conveniently 'disappear' are two very different things.

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

Cells/embryo/foetus/viable foetus/up to nine months gone in the pregnancy. Result is the same. It's only a matter of timing and making it seem more acceptable. It's not so bad as long as we get rid of them in the womb.

Well of course you're misrepresenting what I consider acceptable for abortion.
Nowhere, nohow am I saying "KILL WEAK PEOPLE!".

prinz wrote: »

But you suggested exactly that when you tried to build a strawman..

No I'm saying that abortion is okay in regulated circumstances. You believe on extremely poor/non-existent evidence and personal faith that a brainless conciousness-less pile of cells is the same as a person with feeling and capacity for suffering which includes DS suffers, nonDS people, dolphins, great apes, dogs etc. It just isn't the case no matter how much you want it to be true. Essentially when a woman conceives a person doesn't suddenly appear, it takes years for that person to grow. What straw-man am I or have I built in that?

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

Wanting to have healthy children, and making those deemed unfit/unhealthy/unwanted conveniently 'disappear' are two very different things.

No one is suggesting making children disappear, just you in all your wisdom :rolleyes: