Blood test for Downs creates ethical debate

[Skull Pilot]

Why is it unethical for people not to want to have a defective child?

Define 'defective'. I have two downs sydrome kids in my family. They are not 'defective', they are people - bright, funny, gentle, self sufficient, kind people. They are no more 'defective' than you or I.

They are Angels from God. Yes, I really believe that. Who wouldn't want an Angel?

So god intentionally made a person a simpleton who will never be able to tie his own shoes?

Yeah great god you have there.

 

[strollingbones]

any medical test that allows one to make future decisions about your medical care or the birth of your child is valid. the cost of having a so called 'normal' infant runs about 10 k for the first year, i have no idea what the cost of having a special needs child would run.

we have heard the anguish from one of the posters on here...in dealing with an adult child who has severe needs...it is hard on the family and as the parents or caregivers age it gets even harder...you have older parents trying to deal with an adult child who can many times be bigger and stronger.

family dynamics are different for everyone....can one really force a sibling to take over as caregiver?

but as far as the test...if it is valid and reliable then yes it should be available.

 

[manifold]

Let's not forget the fact that in many cases DS is the result of in-breeding. Sort of nature's way of saying this gene pool is tapped.

But whatcha gonna do?

Acutually DS is more the result of women having kids at an older age, with older ovum. As DS sufferers are usually sterile it is not a true hereditary disease. examples of diseases due to inbreeding is Hemophillia in the descendants on Queen Victoria, and "hapsburg jaw" in the hapsburgs.

Mental defects from inbreeding are usually far more rare genetic disorders.

My experience contradicts this supposition.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no gene that causes Downe's.

It is caused by an additional chromosome that can be inherited from either parent.

The mechanism is different from that of a recessive genetic diseases like hemophilia or Tay- Sachs which require that both parents carry the gene for the disease.

 

[manifold]

Are there other forms of mental retardation that might look like DS to the untrained eye?

 

[strollingbones]

yes manie ....one if fetal alcohol syndrome

 

[strollingbones]

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: MedlinePlus

 

[ABikerSailor]

any medical test that allows one to make future decisions about your medical care or the birth of your child is valid. the cost of having a so called 'normal' infant runs about 10 k for the first year, i have no idea what the cost of having a special needs child would run.

we have heard the anguish from one of the posters on here...in dealing with an adult child who has severe needs...it is hard on the family and as the parents or caregivers age it gets even harder...you have older parents trying to deal with an adult child who can many times be bigger and stronger.

family dynamics are different for everyone....can one really force a sibling to take over as caregiver?

but as far as the test...if it is valid and reliable then yes it should be available.

Yep. And considering that over 51 percent of people who get married, also get divorced, that right there points to less than half of the relationships being anywhere close to stable. Throw in a whole bunch of chaos in the form of a special needs child, and the chances of them getting divorced increase greatly.

And then.......there's the money issue. Special needs children need someone to watch over them all day, every day, as well as require special equipment to allow the child to function. Those things ain't cheap.

And finally......those couples who are stable enough to accept normal children usually plan for the child's future, as well as make lifestyle changes to themselves so that they are able to be decent parents.

I personally think that the test is a good thing, as it allows couples to prepare for a special needs child.

But, if they decide that they aren't equipped to handle it? Well......that's a personal decision between them and God. Nobody else. And since the test can detect the defect prior to the limit that abortion is currently LEGALLY AVAILABLE UNDER OUR CURRENT LAWS, I think that option should be open to them if they so decide.

But, what else can you expect from a bunch of idiot loons who think that women who have been raped by someone they don't even know should be forced to have the kid if pregnancy results. Know what should be a part of EVERY rape kit the police have? The morning after pill.

 

[Spoonman]

any medical test that allows one to make future decisions about your medical care or the birth of your child is valid. the cost of having a so called 'normal' infant runs about 10 k for the first year, i have no idea what the cost of having a special needs child would run.

we have heard the anguish from one of the posters on here...in dealing with an adult child who has severe needs...it is hard on the family and as the parents or caregivers age it gets even harder...you have older parents trying to deal with an adult child who can many times be bigger and stronger.

family dynamics are different for everyone....can one really force a sibling to take over as caregiver?

but as far as the test...if it is valid and reliable then yes it should be available.

Yep. And considering that over 51 percent of people who get married, also get divorced, that right there points to less than half of the relationships being anywhere close to stable. Throw in a whole bunch of chaos in the form of a special needs child, and the chances of them getting divorced increase greatly.

And then.......there's the money issue. Special needs children need someone to watch over them all day, every day, as well as require special equipment to allow the child to function. Those things ain't cheap.

And finally......those couples who are stable enough to accept normal children usually plan for the child's future, as well as make lifestyle changes to themselves so that they are able to be decent parents.

I personally think that the test is a good thing, as it allows couples to prepare for a special needs child.

But, if they decide that they aren't equipped to handle it? Well......that's a personal decision between them and God. Nobody else. And since the test can detect the defect prior to the limit that abortion is currently LEGALLY AVAILABLE UNDER OUR CURRENT LAWS, I think that option should be open to them if they so decide.

But, what else can you expect from a bunch of idiot loons who think that women who have been raped by someone they don't even know should be forced to have the kid if pregnancy results. Know what should be a part of EVERY rape kit the police have? The morning after pill.

Now if your ex wife had had you take a blood test before you got married, could she have avoided that disaster too?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So modern medicine in America is going to make it ok to kill people they think are less than perfect.

Wow, this is awesome.

So when do we go to the mental wards and start "helping" those people "move on"?
There's a lot of people in nersing homes to that aren't perfect anymore, I'm sure many families would be happy to cover the cost of a single shot to end the medical condition of old age.

How very Spartan of us.

It already has. Something like 90% of women who know their unborn child has or likely has Down's Syndrome abort. Almost the only reason that Down's Syndrome babies continue to be born is because THEIR mothers didn't know ahead of time that they had it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One of my sisters has a child with Down Syndrome. She elected not to have the Amniocentesis test because of the small risk in a miscarriage. When she found out just after birth, she wished she'd had the test. Not because she would've considered abortion, but because she would have been prepared for the emotional trauma she endured.

I chose to have amnio with my last child because I was 40 when he was born, and I knew the odds of him having a genetic problem of some sort. No one could understand why I bothered, since I had no intention of having an abortion. As if relief of stress and worrying during a high-risk pregnancy, and having time to prepare ourselves if the worst happened, were not good reasons.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is an unsettling tone about "making it easier" for women to get an abortion....a sense of excitement that women would have this information before they could bond with the baby. Then it took on a manipulative twist with the comment that women could have this information before they've even told their husband they're pregnant.

Yes, it's a very unsettling tone about this idea, Sherry. This is the sort of thing I would expect to be met with excitement in places like China, Afghanistan, and the Third Reich (where certain types of children are/were considered less acceptable than others); not here in the United States.

The idea that ANY married woman would even consider entering into such a decision without consulting her husband and getting his input is quite disgusting and disheartening in my mind.

It certainly says a lot about the life expectancy of that marriage, anyway. I'd say you could probably measure it in months.

 

[NYcarbineer]

WOW. A-FRIGGIN-MAZING.

The very idea that an individual would terminate a less-than-perfect pregnancy is abhorant to me; as it should be to everyone. I say that as someone whose parents had it suggested to them that they might want to put ME up for adoption (or terminate the pregnancy) because I happen to have a significant birth defect that could have been life-altering. It's a CHILD, not a CHOICE, people. What's next?.... designer babies?.... Oh, this one didn't have blue eyes so we aborted it. This one was going to be blonde and we want a brunette.

WHEN THE HELL DID WE BECOME GODS, TO MAKE DECISIONS LIKE THAT?!?!?!?!

What's the greater good in restricting reproductive choices to the minimum possible?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This appears to fall in the first trimester window, so it's nobody's business but the woman's.

 

[Shadow]

Found this article while reading news sites this morning...decided to post it here. The mother made an interesting quote. One that was brought up in this thread...

"This is 2011. Most of the world has moved on in terms of their treatment of people with learning disabilities. People with Down syndrome go to mainstream school, college, they live independently, they hold down jobs, but, it would seem, cannot travel independently with British Airways."

I think the mother is correct. Our society has not learned or progressed much at all when it comes to disabilities. Now we just want to end them in the womb apparently...rather than be faced with trying to deal or learn from them in every day life. Is this because we are becoming more lazy and selfish as a society?


British Airways apologizes for turning away girl with Down syndrome

British Airways has apologized for refusing to issue a plane ticket to a girl who has Down syndrome.

Alice Saunders, 12, had planned to fly from London's Gatwick Airport to Glasgow, Scotland, to visit her aunt, the Daily Mail reports. Her mother, Heather Saunders, 49, called the airline to book a ticket and told the agent that her daughter has Down syndrome but is very independent and that she wanted her to travel as an unaccompanied minor.

Sauders said she was told by the customer service agent that "we don't take children with Down syndrome." When Saunders asked why, the agent responded: "Because we've had problems in the past."

Alice lives with her parents and three siblings in Littlehampton, West Sussex, and attends a mainstream school, reads at grade level and regularly travels with her church group.

Her mother told the newspaper that "I was very cross after speaking with British Airways.

Overhead Bin - British Airways apologizes for turning away girl with Down syndrome

 

[Anachronism]

It certainly says a lot about the life expectancy of that marriage, anyway. I'd say you could probably measure it in months.

Definitely. My brother's first wife had a miscarriage while they were married. It's probably what destroyed their marriage, because neither one of them would talk (even to each other) about it.

What's the greater good in restricting reproductive choices to the minimum possible?

In my mind the "choice" to become a parent or not is made not at the moment one realizes that a pregnancy has occured but at the moment the two individuals CHOOSE to engage in a sexual behavior that could lead to pregnancy. That is why one of my two main exceptions in regards to abortion is in the case of Rape. In that case the woman did not CHOOSE to engage in the activity that has led to the pregnancy. Outside of that, it is my belief that consenting to sexual activity is akin to consenting to parenthood.

This goes back to my beliefs about something Americans don't like to think about these days.... PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY; that is taking responsibility for one's own choices and actions. It's also partially a matter of the fact that I am a believer in FATE, and the idea that everything happens to us for a specific reason. We may not know, agree with, or like it; but that is the way I believe the Universe works and we have to accept that most of the time.

Maybe, just maybe, if we stop allowing people to use the cosmic "reset button" of abortion on demand we can start to get people to think about their decisions a little bit more. "Do I REALLY want to risk having this guy/gal in my life for the next 18 years and 9 months while we deal with raising a child either together or as a broken family?"

 

[waltky]

Ban Ki-moon says those with Down syndrome are entitled to the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms...

Ban underlines rights of persons with Down syndrome
Thursday 22nd March, 2012 : Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today urged the world to reaffirm that persons with Down Syndrome are entitled to the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, deploring the stigma and discrimination they continue to face.

"For too long, persons with Down Syndrome, including children, have been left on the margins of society," said the Secretary-General, in a message delivered on his behalf by Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro at an event at UN Headquarters to mark World Down Syndrome Day the first time it is being observed by the United Nations. "In many countries, they continue to face stigma and discrimination as well as legal, attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their participation in their communities."

Down Syndrome is a type of mental retardation caused by extra genetic material in chromosome 21. Some of its physical characteristics in infants are decreased muscle tone, a flat face, eyes slanting up, the ability to extend joints beyond the usual and a large tongue relative to the mouth. Its patients can also be afflicted with other conditions, including heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and leukaemia.

In the remarks, Mr. Ban noted that discrimination can be as invidious as forced sterilization, and as subtle as segregation and isolation through both physical and social barriers; and, that persons with Down Syndrome are often denied the right to equal recognition before the law, as well as the right to vote or be elected. "Intellectual impairments have also been seen as legitimate grounds for depriving persons with Down Syndrome of their liberty, and for holding them in specialized institutions, sometimes for their entire lives," Mr. Ban said.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the estimated incidence of Down Syndrome is between 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 1,100 live births worldwide; and, each year approximately 3,000 to 5,000 children are born with this chromosome disorder. The Secretary-General said that the prejudice that children with Down Syndrome obstruct the education of others has led some parents of children with intellectual disabilities to put their children in special schools or keep them at home. "Yet research shows and more people are coming to understand that diversity in the classroom leads to learning and understanding that benefit all children," Mr. Ban said.

MORE

 

[manifold]

That's nice.

But this thread was about the ethics surrounding testing for DS during pregnancy and aborting a fetus that tests positive.