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

I was wondering which of these diseases would be serious enough to make you consider terminating a pregnancy if your baby had them?

One where the baby will die a few days after birth? (Such as Edwards Syndrome)

One where the child will have serious learning difficulties and not be able to live independently (Such as Down's Syndrome)

One where the child wil have major heart surgery a few days after birth, there's a serious risk of death from the surgery, but if they survive they'll be able to live a healthy life until at least their 40s (Say transposition of the Great Arteries)

One where the child will need physiotherapy every day, regular hospital admissions, get lots of infections, not be able to keep up with their friends. But they'll be mentally normal and probably live until their 30s (such as Cystic Fibrosis)

One where they'll have a facial dysfigurement but will otherwise be normal.

One where they'll be short say about three foot tall, but otherwise normal (such as Achonrdoplasia)

I'm sticking my neck out, and saying, IMO, none of them! I have worked with people with disabilities for decades, and I know that people with medical problems, intellectual and/or physical, are capable of living lives that have worth for them. This applies especially to Downs symdrome, which is very variable, but usually people with Downs Syndrome are perfectly self-aware and capable of striving to achieve, and in my experience, no more frustrated by inability than any given 'normal' person is by an inability to say, play sport, carry a tune or climb mountains! (Or whatever).

I too would probably say none. With the exception possibly of the first one listed where there is certanty that the child will die withing a few days of birth.

I'm inclined the say certainly the first, the third requires thought, and in the others cases not.

I agree with Kerr's answer.


az

I'd say the first one, especially if those few days would be filled with pain.

Or more like, *if* those first days were filled with pain.

*few*, that is.

Interesting.

I'm not going to say my opinions on it, I'm more interested in what people think. Oddly enough most women who are pregnant with a child with Down's syndrome end up having a termination.

What if you already had four children and had got pregnant accidently, you could manage to look after a fifth if they were healthy, but you couldn't manage to look after a disabled child?

Well, hypothetically speaking, I cannot see myself opting for an elective termination in this case, but perhaps that is easier to say not being in that situation.

az

Since the question asks which would make me *consider* a termination I'd say the first four.

I don't meant that all of those conditions mean I would terminate a pregnancy, just that if the doctor told me about it I would consider it. The result of the consideration would depend on many things - the ability of our family to cope, the risk to the baby, the long-term health/quality of life of the baby and no doubt dozens more things would need to be taken into account.

For example, I hesitated over the downs baby, but I would have to consider the lives of other members of the family (eg are there already a number of children in the family - would they be disadvantaged if their parents had to devote a far greater than envisaged amount of time to caring for the new child) and whether we are in a position to ensure the lifelong care of that baby beyond the deaths of his/her parents.

I can't predict the outcome of those deliberations now though.

k

The first one seems the oddest to me. If the baby will die within a few days, why not let it live for that time, allow yourself to get to know her, grieve her and say good bye? Pain can be controlled... now that medical science has finally got around to acknowledging that babies feel pain, that is...

Once upon a time, when it was a matter of having to, extended family, and friends would help... Now that there are options people feel free to say "it's your problem"

Apple, I can only speak for myself, but one of the considerations in the first case would be whether or not I felt I could cope with carrying a child to term knowing I would have to watch them die.

Well, if the woman found out early on in the pregnancy, it would be a horrible experience to be pregnant but not be able to plan for the child's future. All those folks saying 'oh, congratulations, when's it due? Is it a boy or a girl, you must be so happy' and all that crap.

<> (Apple)

This sounds to me like you are projecting your own opinions onto the reasons other people you don't know make decisions. Quite unfair, imo.


az

Simupost, Kelli.

That's a valid point, Kelli... I am reminded of a woman I saw on NZ TV a few years ago, whose conjoined twins died a few months after birth.
(Their condition was known before they were born, and the whole population of NZ it seemed, joined in, in urging her to abort them. She refused, and she grieved, but was dignified and quite inspiring.)

In the case of a permanently and seriously dependent child, I suppose the age of the parents might have added bearing if they thought the child might well outlive them, or become impossible for them to care for as they aged, especially if living in a country with dubious state care facilities.

<> (Apple)

What an odd thing to say. When was this ever not acknowledged?

Question for Z. Don't most pain control medications leave the patient in a state of reduced awareness?

I personally cannot see the value of giving birth to a baby that is only going to suffer for a few days and then die. Since new born babies are very limited in what they can experience I would say that a mother doing as you say, Apple, would be doing this more for herself (chance to 'get to know' the baby, say goodbye, grieve, etc). I can't see how this would benefit the child.


az