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

Hey blicky - that sums up what I was thinking as well

Exept for part of the last paragraph. We don't know what the reasons for the abortion were. If the only reason was a cleft palate I can't imagine 2 certifying doctors agreeing to a 3rd trimester abortion.

One thing that interests me is that I find myself thinking that a woman shouldn't be allowed to choose a 3rd trimester abortion on the basis of an (uncomplicated) cleft palate with no other reasons. Which raises the issue again of when a women should be able to choose this.

Personally I think that disability is a normal part of the human condition, and I think routine screening for foetal abnormality in pregnancy raises a number of ethical issues itself. This is going to become more so as science develops more sophisticated ways of screening. I'd like to see some kind of limit placed on this, but am not sure how.

I agree that there may be precedents set by this case. I think the law can only give guidelines, and that late stage abortions have to be decided on a case by case basis by the woman and the consultants. Medicine at that level isn't an exact science, and there are always many things to take into account.


I wondered too about the politics involved, although the curate doesn't come across as anti-abortion necessarily. It'd be interesting to know her views on abortion in general.


I'm interested in your comment about "how society it self comes to view diversity of ability". Do you think we are becoming more accepting of diversity or less?

I think there is a concious effort to de-marginalise those who were simply labelled as "the disabled".

There is an amorphous group who identify themselves by saying "its political correctness gone mad" at regular intervals who hate the changes that have taken place and drag their heels when more change is needed.

Sometimes I think when one prejudice lessens it simply shifted to a new target. There is still the perception that superficial differences are a big deal. People may not go around moaning about "darkies" and saying "poor little cripple", but there is still the same lack of understanding and thought in the way that asylum seekers and single mothers are perceived. I can only speak about the UK on this one though.

"I think that disability is a normal part of the human condition"

That's all very well and good for you, and to a certain extent I agree with you.

To be specific, I agree with you as long as the people who actually have disabilities are OTHER people, and not me or my children.

I'm more than happy for *you* to have to spend your time and money looking after a child who is unable to look after itself.

I'm more than happy for *your* children to have no realistic chance of ever walking fifty yards unaided, and for *you* to have to go to their funerals before they're thirty.

And I'm more than happy for there to be legislation which means there's always a free parking space next to the cash machine at Sainsbury's and my employer has to put a ramp in which coincidentally makes it easier to get my new filing cabinets in. All of these things are fine.

It's just that I have what you might paradoxically call an old-fashioned idea of medical scientific progress - by which I mean that it's there to be used. If one can identify disabilities in a partially-developed fetus, and prevent the birth of a severely disabled child, then I believe that option should be open.

Of course, there are selfless individuals like yourself who would be happy to raise a child no matter how disabled they may be - and that remains a choice open to you. I just think it's paradoxically selfish of you to expect the rest of us to be like you.

I think that made sense...

Member,

It made sense to some extent, but not sure if it actually applied to what kea was saying.

az

It makes sense if you have a handy severly disabled-ometer.

blicky,

Did my previous bottom-of-the-page posting go unread?

az

<>

And that is an easy thing, perhaps, to say until it happens in your life. In extreme cases, where a foetus is shown to have severe problems that will mean it cannot live without 24-hour care then, if this only shows up in late term testing, and if giving birth to this child will not cause a serious health risk to the mother, then *maybe* the best option is to go through with the birth and give the child up afterwards. Of course, this means it will have to be taken in by the state and cared for in an institution as most people would not want to adopt a baby like this. Though perhaps some would.

I understand Member's very pragmatic viewpoint, which does make sense on one level.

When testing for Down's Syndrome became a matter-of-course test for pregnant women 'of a certain age' I did have a moral issue problem with this. As I said before, when I was pregnant, I couldn't see making a choice to terminate a foetus that showed symptoms of Down's. But that was me. It isn't how all people feel about it and I am not sure enough about this concept to make any sort of general statement about what could be considered 'right or wrong' in this circumstance.

I know a few people who have Down's kids and they are very happy with these children and love them very much. But I can understand if someone thought they wouldn't be able to cope. Especially in the case of single mothers. In any case I think I would say that going through with the pregnancy and then giving the child to those who could care for it properly would probably be the most humane thing to do, rather than terminate. But that is only my opinion. I cannot speak for others.

az

(blicky's last post). Thanks blicky I couldn't have put it better myself.

And no, it didn't apply to what I said Az

re blicky's earlier post 1602, it is fairly similar here, although the immigration/asylum issues are mixed up with the indigenous issues. Single mothers still get a hard time

I'm interested in the juxtaposition of our cultures on the one hand becoming more intelligent about disability (and thus being willing to acknowledge and accomodate), and on the other hand wanting to go to extreme ends to avoid it (which isn't really possible).

I tend to take the view that everyone has varying degrees of ability, and that 'disability' is for the most part a social construct.

I like the idea that disability increases our social diversity and as such is an asset to our (hopefully) evolving intelligence. Like other marginalised groups people with disabilites often have creative capacities outside the 'normal' mainly because they have had to.

Regarding why the cleft palate is unlikely to be the sole reason in this case:

The UK is one of the world centres in cleft palate repair - I believe that Poole Hospital's plastic surgery team were the guys who pioneered it. It's a simple operation which leaves behind a scar so faint that it's barely visible.

For more information:
http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/cleft_lip.html

Stay ,
WD

<>

That statement is a general one about the condition known as 'disability'. I wasn't referring to foetuses necessarily.


In terms of the abortion debate, I do have some concerns about the idea of aborting a third trimester foetus on the basis of cleft palate only.

I also think that the idea that medical science is (a) value free and (b) risk free is problematic.

I'm intrigued by techniques like amniocentesis which are used to detect foetal abnormality but themselves carry a risk of damaging the foetus.

And I think we are going to see an increase in what is considered undesirable in a foetus. As with the ToP debate, the line between what is acceptable and not, or what is disability or not is not black and white. I do think that there should be guidelines on this in the same way that there are guidelines about abortion eg that one cannot terminate a pregnancy because it is the 'wrong' gender for instance.

I'm also not sure what happens as the cultural mores shift - who gets to decide where the boundaries are.



Az, I agree with alot of what you say about a Down's syndrome foetus, especially where a woman feels unable to cope. I don't know enough about when and how they test to comment further. Maybe we could look it up. I would have thought that those kinds of disabilities got picked up earlier in the pregnancy than later?

Well, it has been said (can't remember by who) that one can judge how advanced a culture is by noting how it treats those less fortunate - the mentally ill, the physically handicapped.

It used to be a totally 'survival of the fittest' concept before societies were constructed. And even then, even about a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago, the 'insane' were locked up in dark places and the physically handicapped were left to fend for themselves.

These days, if one lives in the UK or in Canada (to give two examples) one has access to general social medical facilities and help if one happens to have a child that is born with serious health problems. This does not exist in the USA, the most 'powerful' country in the world. They do not take care of their own.

I find it the height of hypocricy that someone like president Bush is saying women *must* give birth to potential basket-case babies who will need constant medical care for as long as they are able to live without offering state assistance to care for these poor children.

az

Az, I just found your post at the bottom of the previous page - I must have simulposted there too. Thanks for the pointer to it

WD, thanks for the Cleft Plate link. Have you got any links on testing for Downs Syndrome? Or foetal testing in general?


kea.

Kea:

This page gives a nice laypersons' overview of the antenatal tests done in the UK:

http://www.babyworld.co.uk/information/pregnancy/antenatal_testing/blood_tests.asp

Stay ,
WD

Yeah, the Bush hypocracy is very weird. The more I look at the whole thing there, the more I see it as being about controlling women (and anyone who doesn't want to be culturally white).


Some recent reading I did on the PBA ban in the US suggested that the legislation will be changed to allow abortion to save the woman. Something to do with how the bill reads now is going to contradict other legislation or the constitution or ?

I'll see if I can find what it was.

Excellent link, Witty!

I actually ended up with my adopted cat Lua because the woman who previously owned her, when she became pregnant, was quite hysterical about possibly developing toxoplasmosis. I knew it wasn't a serious concern as long as she had her husband change the cat litter box, but she was very worried about this. So I ended up with a weirdo cat!

az

or even

I love the fact that the Aztecs (priests ripping living hearts from sacrificial victims types) actually believed that those with 'disabilities' were sacrosanct. Oh, and they were really keen on flowers too.

Which was great for those with different abilities - so long as their lifecyle didn't coincide with an eclipse.

Weird but true.

hi gadarene,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have read that the Aztec people who were sacrificed mostly saw this as some sort of priviledge?

I wonder why they saw people with disablities as sacrosanct.

az

Interesting information about cleft palate, especially the possible links to drug use.

Thanks for the antenatal testing link. Here's a related one which shows some of the 'greyness' of the issue (read the midwife's comments):

http://www.babyworld.co.uk/news/archive/Oct99/051099downs_test.asp#hannah



kea.

Yaay for weirdo


Hi gardarene, I don't think we've met before

That is interesting about the Aztecs. I'd love to know more.