h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2087-1892696%2C00.html

Comments, please, especially about this.
"The number of terminations carried out in the 18th week of pregnancy or later has risen from 5,166 in 1994 to 7,432 last year. Prenatal diagnosis for conditions such as Down’s syndrome is increasing and foetuses with the condition are routinely aborted, even though many might be capable of leading fulfilling lives. In the past decade, doctors’ skill in saving the lives of premature babies has improved radically: at least 70%-80% of babies in their 23rd or 24th week of gestation now survive long-term.

Abortion on demand is allowed in Britain up to 24 weeks — more than halfway through a normal pregnancy and the highest legal limit for such terminations in Europe. France and Germany permit “social” abortions only up to the 10th and 12th weeks respectively."

seems like the abortion industry is sending its bought politicians out to prove that claim wrong.

I'm guessing people who abort Downs' children have never actually me tone - if they had, they would realise that Downs children are much nicer than normal kids.

I agree, Apollyon. Downs' syndrome kids range widely in ability, but most are what would be described as 'high-functioning'. Many have been main-streamed at my son's former high-school, and he's currently working as a reader-writer for the junior exams. One of the Downs boys I worked with at a tertiary institution had been to Jim's school.

I recently read in Time that they have come up with a test that can detect Down's in a foetus in the first trimester. This could lead to pretty much eridicating the syndrome through abortion. This has uncovered a huge ethical dilemma.

Would I want to abort a Down's foetus at a very early stage of development? I have no idea.

Ste

More to the point, do you want the right to make that awful choice?

You'd have to abort carriers of Downs Syndrome too to eradicate it surely? Not a good plan.

Would that not be for the best in the long term?

I work mostly as a prosthetist. But two days a week I do Orthotic clinics. One of these is a paedeatric clinic. Myself and the physio work with a wide range of kids, Downs, SB, CP, etc. It's fantastic fun, it's not actually like proper working. For the most part were giving splints or corrective footwear to a wonderfull group of children. The Downs kids are the best to work with. One little guy just never stops cuddling. Me, Kate the physio, his mum.
Anyhoo me and wife had a chat recently about when were gonna have kids. I asked her the question, would she wish abort a Downs child (my wife is also a prosthetist/orthotist).

We discussed it. And basing it on our own experiences. More importantly basing it on the experiences of the patients parents. She said yes. And I have to say I agree with her. I appreciate the lives led by many of my patients. But the choice, for us, was made 'because' we work with these kids and not out of ignorance.

I don't wasnt to get into a big arguement about the rights and wrongs of abortion. It doesn't achieve anything. I'm just giving my opinion.

"I'm guessing people who abort Downs' children have never actually met one - if they had, they would realise that Downs children are much nicer than normal kids."

It's important to be careful of rushing to judgement. My understanding is that whether or not children with Downs' syndrome are "nicer", they still require a lot more care and attention than "normal kids", and for a *lot longer*. I think that it would be perfectly legitimate for a couple (or a single parent) to think very carefully about the impact that having a disabled child would have on themselves and on their current children.

<< This could lead to pretty much eridicating the syndrome through abortion. This has uncovered a huge ethical dilemma.>>

The problem is, that aborting every baby with Downs', will never eliminate it, or any other intellectual or physical disability. There will always be spontaneous mutations, and while parents exist who will *not* make that choice, and not abort their DS child, there will always those who 'slip through'. The problem could become that parents who have a child with a disability, will be denied Health or Education department assistance on the grounds that they "chose" to have a child with a disability.

As Apollyon said, people who want to abort a child with DS, probably don't know any DS people. These people don't hate their lives, they love them, and are (all those I've met anyway, and they number at least 50, over 31 years) have been contented people, mot as I said "high-functioning"...

Tredgold, who wrote the book on Downs Syndrome (literally) had Downs Syndrome himself, and was a doctor. He was one of the 1/1000 people with DS who have no intellectual handicap! (That piece of information came from my nursing tutor in 1974, when I was training to be a psychopaedic nurse.)

Bouncy, no, Down's is a chromosomal aberation that can happen to anyone's offspring. The older the parents the more likely they are to have a Down's child.

Yes, I would want that right. I am leaning towards "yes, I would" too. I've experienced how full of love Down's kids can be, and they seem very happy. Watching my child only growing (personally, developmentally, cognitively speaking) to a certain child-like level then stay there, only to die early would destroy me I think. I too think it is legitimate, just a very tough choice ethically.

I have met many Down's people and a lot of them seem barely human. It makes me sad and very guilty saying that but I think it's true. Would we be better off without Down's syndrome? [nod to Roymondo]

If we could see deafness in an early foetus, would we abort? We want to get rid of disease right? What about blindness? What about genetic screening of foetuses for all congenital disease?

Ste

Apollyon said:
"I'm guessing people who abort Downs' children have never actually me tone - if they had, they would realise that Downs children are much nicer than normal kids."

And perhaps they have a much more realistic idea than you do of quite how demanding a Downs teenager can be...

When I was growing up there were quite a few families around with Downs children (no abortion and practically no contraception in Ireland at the time, so a lot more older mothers). Sure, some Downs children are very sweet-natured, but a couple of the ones I remember from my teens were quite aggressive and tricky to deal with. I have the deepest admiration for their mothers, who basically at the age of 40 or so had to face up to the fact that the rest of their life was going to be spent looking after this child. I know of at least one case where the other children in the family had quite a hard time as a result of the amount of attention the Downs child needed.

So I certainly wouldn't presume to judge a woman who deicdes to abort a Downs syndrome foetus.

Boucybleep said:
"You'd have to abort carriers of Downs Syndrome too to eradicate it surely? Not a good plan."
It's actually quite rare for Down's syndrome to be the result of an inherited problem--usually it's a fault in cell division of the egg, which becomes increasingly likely as a woman gets older. Which is why it's particularly older women who are advised to test for it.

Azara

<<. My understanding is that whether or not children with Downs' syndrome are "nicer", they still require a lot more care and attention than "normal kids", and for a *lot longer*.>>

True, but many Downs kids are capable of living independently. (Maybe they won't move out into a flat at 18, but at 25, but that's true of many 'normal' kids as well.

Your normal child can be hit by a truck, and go from being an independent and highly intelligent 13 year old, to being a dependent man, who at 35 still lives in sheltered accomodation. (This happened, as you can guess, to someone I know, a guy I supported in his learning.) Paul was headed towards Dux and University, when he crossed a road outside the very tertiary institution where I met him 24 years later. A moron who just had to get where he was going five minutes earlier than if he hadn't done this, ran straight through the pedestrian crossing. Paul woke up in hospital with a massive scar on his head, and sadly able to remember what he used to be able to do, but not able to remember *how* to do it. He was inordinately proud of being able to add up 3 digit numbers - at 35 years old! Before the accident, he had been doing calculus.

This can happen to any kid. Your Downs' kid leaves home, your kid who was the victim of a hit and run, is still at home when s/he's 40.

The debate seems to have become specific to Downs children.

I think the lateness of voluntary terminations allowed in the UK is wrong, and given that we also have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe would suggest the failing is in the education and parenting systems.

Ste, Downs children don't always die early, in fact, the reason why they used to, is that heart problems (can be) part of the Syndrome. There are variously supposed to be from 40 to 300 different characteristics of Downs. The heart problems were routinely fixed, in the 1970s, and the 1980s, although I get the impression that this is not done so often now, because people think that DS means a life not worth extending.

The degree of intellectual handicap varies from one Downs kid to another. I saw two Downs teenagers in the supermarket today, going around with their mother (school holidays and exam time here). They illustrated what I am trying to say perfectly. They were probably 14-16 years old, and one, the seemingly brighter of the two, was as sullen and peeved as you'd expect any other teen being dragged around while Mum shopped, to be. The other one didn't seem too fussed.

In Christopher House, an Anthroposophist human service where my friend Annie worked, I met two sisters, Kay and Katrina. Kay, who has Downs Syndrome, is very high functioning indeed. Her sister Katrina, with autism, is years behind her. If it wasn't for Kay's characteristic facial appearance, you'd never know Kay was Downs, from the way she talks. Katrina, who looks perfectly 'normal', isn't, you can tell after two minutes conversing with her.

<>

Absolutely not! Deafness seems like a fate worse than death to me, but I know (as I am sure we all do) deaf people who live perfectly happy and fulfilled lives. Same with blindness.
Genetic screening would be a disaster. Can you imagine the fiendish delight health insurance companies would have in declining claims, if they could get their grubby mitts on the results?

<< Sure, some Downs children are very sweet-natured, but a couple of the ones I remember from my teens were quite aggressive and tricky to deal with.>>

Downs kids are individuals. While 90% of them are particularly sweet-natured, there's always the 10% who are as aggro as they would have , n been if they didn't have Downs, no more no less.

<>

That being said, there are 20 year olds who've had Downs children, and unless amnio becomes routine, that's one reason why no amount of screening will ever eliminate Downs Syndrome. Twenty-something year olds won't screen for it, cos they'll not expect it.

Regarding screening and insurance companies, the best defence seems to be legislation.
There's no reason why prenatal tests are any more likley to end up in the hands of insurance companies than any other tests.

Quoet " and unless amnio becomes routine," Which it hopefully won't. This is not a risk free procedure and can lead to the damaging of a healthy foetus.

Why should we have the right to 'perfect' children ? Life is a lottery, if you can't cope with that - don't have kids.