|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: prenatal screening and abortion
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Apparently a non-trivial number of abortions are performed as a result of prenatal screening. The expectant mom is told that her baby has Downs Syndrome or spina bifida or some other major disorder, and she's offered an abortion. And because she's shocked and terrified, and doesn't have a clue what life would be like with a disabled child, she accepts the abortion.
At least, that's what I've been told happens far too often. It's why the number of children born with Down Syndrome has been reduced, even as more women have children at ages where the risk of Down Syndrome is higher.
And it's why many folks with autism spectrum conditions aren't wild about a lot of the research that's being done on autism. The research isn't geared toward improving their lives, it's geared toward "prevention" -- which is to say (although it's rarely said plainly), identification in utero, and abortion.
I have wondered, though, if the women who are told that their child has Down Syndrome or another disability would benefit from meeting families who are raising children with disabilities, to find out what it's really like, before they decide whether they want to terminate the pregnancy. I wonder whether many of these abortions are a result of fear of the unknown, of dire imaginings, and not on reality.
Perhaps if the conversation with the doctor went something like this: The test results show that your fetus has Down Syndrome. As you may already know, Down Syndrome can cause mental retardation, heart problems, and early-onset dementia. With the proper education and training, many people with Down Syndrome can hold a job, live with dignity and some degree of independence as adults, and contribute to their own support. Here is information about a group of parents whose children have Down Syndrome. You can meet with a member of this group to talk about the nuts and bolts of raising a child with Down Syndrome, what it's like, what resources are available in the community, and so on. Here is information about abortion, which is an option that some women choose."
I wouldn't want to force a woman to meet with a support group. No guilt-tripping. But if she's deciding based on ignorance and fear, which seems often to be the case, it seems like providing information and reassurance could only be a good thing.
If there was fear that an offer of a meeting with a support group was in reality a form of coercion, doctors could ask women, in the first prenatal checkup, whether they would want to have information about support groups made available to them if it were to turn out, at any time during their pregnancy, that the child was likely to have significant disabilities. If they said no way, then you could skip the offer later.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I have wondered, though, if the women who are told that their child has Down Syndrome or another disability would benefit from meeting families who are raising children with disabilities, to find out what it's really like, before they decide whether they want to terminate the pregnancy. I wonder whether many of these abortions are a result of fear of the unknown, of dire imaginings, and not on reality.
The biggest potential problem with this is that the people most likely to arrange such a service (abortion opponents) are also those most motivated to do so in a dishonest manner. I can foresee a situation where a small number of families with high-functioning Downs children are deceptively passed off as typical or mid-range cases in pursuit of the "greater good" of preventing abortion.
I'm also not sure that the challenges involved in raising a child with trisomy 21 can be accurately assessed through a (relatively) brief meeting.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Croesos said "The biggest potential problem with this is that the people most likely to arrange such a service (abortion opponents) are also those most motivated to do so in a dishonest manner. "
That's a general problem with abortion advice: it or at least the organisation providing it is pretty much always going to be loaded with the provider's angle.
In the UK, there was an attempt to change the law so that pre-abortion counseling provision had to be separated from the provider. It was said that the providers had a vested interest in encouraging abortions (as they're paid to provide them) and that advice should be 'independent'. Trouble is that one vested interest would have been replaced with another. It's difficult to be neutral.
Mrs tomsk has a defect from birth. She feels she would be 'screened out' nowadays. A relative had a baby who was expected to have all sorts of problems. Baby was born fine. Screening's fallible.
Screening will tend towards terminations. Why else do it? Attitudes to disability/termination are important. Do we have a situation where it is 'responsible' to have screening, why are we having it, how will we respond to the information? Arguably, we are going to a position of 'soft' eugenics.
I'm not sure the timing of the counseling you suggest, Josephine, is the way to go. It could load people with guilt at a time when they don't need it. You're asking people whether they want to put the genie back in the bottle.
It's a v. controversial subject. We live in societies where abortion is available, but with strong contrary views held by some. The battleground tends to focus on laws, but is more fundamentally about shaping attitudes.
I think the provision of information about the issues it raises needs to be more general. If the first time we become aware of the issues around disabilities is when we have screening results in our hand, it's a bit difficult.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Josephine, when we discovered our baby had gross skeletal abnormalities (through a scan, not screening) we contacted the relevant support group ourselves, and were put in telephone contact with a lovely family hundreds of miles away, whose 15 year old son was hoping to compete in the Melbourne paralympics. I had never, not for one nano-iota, wondered if I was carrying a future Olympian athlete during my first two pregnancies! But with our third, I could see it all; the paralympics, the cheering crowds, the podium, our future son....
So I can see Croesos' point about meeting a-typical families, though in our case, the support group simply put us in touch with a lovely family who were prepared to talk. (The distance meant there was no possibility of meeting.)
It was certainly helpful at the time, though our son was stillborn, so I can't give a longer-term perspective.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Screening will tend towards terminations. Why else do it?
It seems to me that the other reason for screening is so that the parents and medical staff can be prepared for the birth. If you know the child will have a serious heart defect, for example, you might choose to deliver the baby at a hospital with a large and highly qualified neonatal intensive care, rather than a small local hospital or even a home birth. You could start asking questions about pediatric cardiologists, the same way many parents try to find a pediatrician they like before their first child is born.
quote:
Attitudes to disability/termination are important. Do we have a situation where it is 'responsible' to have screening, why are we having it, how will we respond to the information? Arguably, we are going to a position of 'soft' eugenics.
Yes, and I find that troubling. I understand why a mother would choose not to carry a severely disabled child. But it seems to me that what counts as "severely disabled" is really not all that severe.
I think, in this country anyway, there's been a long history of keeping disabled people out of sight. It wasn't that long ago that, if you had a child born with cerebral palsy or Down syndrome, you'd be advised to put the child in an institution and never visit. Until 1976, local schools were not required to teach children with disabilities, and most of them didn't. So what would you do with your disabled child if you didn't put them away? Could you manage the child on your own? And how would you deal with the public shame of having a defective child?
Now, of course, we are far less likely to place the children in institutions. Instead, we keep them out of sight through abortion.
The effect on the rest of us is the same either way. Most of us don't know anyone with significant disabilities. We hear stories on the news about parents who kill their disabled child, and the newscasters speak in sympathetic tones about how difficult the lives of the parents were. We are taught, in many ways, that a life that includes disability is a life not worth living -- and we don't know the people who would show us that their lives are very much worth living.
quote:
I'm not sure the timing of the counseling you suggest, Josephine, is the way to go. It could load people with guilt at a time when they don't need it.
It could. It could also provide them with emotional support at a time when they DO need it.
But you and Croesus have a good point. My idea wasn't about manipulating or coercing the parents, but I could see how such a program could become that.
quote:
We live in societies where abortion is available, but with strong contrary views held by some. The battleground tends to focus on laws, but is more fundamentally about shaping attitudes.
I think there are probably a lot of people like me who are both pro-choice and anti-abortion, who want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. I think that programs that respect the needs and rights of women and, at the same time, reduce the number of abortions, are desirable.
quote:
I think the provision of information about the issues it raises needs to be more general. If the first time we become aware of the issues around disabilities is when we have screening results in our hand, it's a bit difficult.
That makes good sense. And there's real-world data to back it up. South Korea has been successful in reducing the rate of gender-preference abortions, not by doing anything at all when the ultrasound shows that the baby is a girl. Instead, they launched a major media campaign talking up how wonderful baby girls are, how fortunate families are that have a daughter, that sort of thing. And the campaign has had a major effect in reducing the abortions of girls.
Maybe something of the same could be done here. The magazines for pregnant women and new mothers could provide information on how to accept children with disabilities, what supports are available, that sort of thing. Making sure parents are aware that there are choices, that with the proper support, children with disabilities can grow up into adults who have full, satisfying lives.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
This may be a tangent - if it is I apologise - but I don't actually think the greatest taboo currently is disabled children, but disabled adults. I don't think that, certainly in the UK, we have worked out how to function as a society which includes disabled people, which itself includes being a society which assists them in functioning independently of their parents in the basic tasks of living and in society in general. We have't really faced up to the adjustments required of everyone to achieve this, and have assumed that a few warm words and media campaigns will be sufficient. Everything I've seen suggests that it isn't.
Where I think this ties in with the rest of the debate on this thread is that I believe it's another element of life which has been kept separate but which needs to be integrated into any debate about the future of disabled people in society.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Certainly it seems that way when you're talking about autism. All you ever seem to hear about is autistic children, and their problems, and what services can we/should we provide for them and so forth. You'd think autism didn't affect anyone over the age of puberty sometimes. What about my 53 year old autistic brother? Don't he and his group-home mates deserve some mention too? (Please note I have no complaints about the level of service and care he receives, it's a matter of public perspective I'm talking about. It just gets annoying sometimes.)
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
There's been research done on Down Syndrome. When parents were given the chance to meet individuals with Down Syndrome before making a choice about abortion, the rate of abortion went down from 90% to 60%.
Our faith has much to say about the innate worth of every single person on the planet. I am just so blessed with my many disabled friends - from every part of the spectrum of disability. And for all they bring to society, family, church and otherwise. The shared journey is such a joy.
Prenatal screening assumes that high IQ, bodily fitness etc means a good life. Yet how do we define 'good'? Yes, a life of terrible pain is not good. That much is pretty clear, but there's plenty who would look at me (autistic, dyspraxic, faceblind, cancer, spinal scoliosis, arthritis, nerve damage from the chemotherapy etc) and assume that my quality of life would be rubbish. But it isn't. Love, friends and family make my life wonderful even if I'm in huge pain or great fear sometimes.
So how we choose who lives...and who doesn't...is something that requires a heck of a lot of understanding of what life is all about.
I don't think there's enough wisdom in the decisions, sometimes.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
The research isn't geared toward improving their lives, it's geared toward "prevention" -- which is to say (although it's rarely said plainly), identification in utero, and abortion.
Is that generally true? I would not equate preventing a disease or condition with in utero identification and abortion. Aren't there a lot of other types of disease/condition prevention that might be investigated?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Josephine: quote:
Perhaps if the conversation with the doctor went something like this: The test results show that your fetus has Down Syndrome...
Screening for Down's is routinely offered in the UK to anyone who is considered to be in a high-risk group. As an Expectant Mother of a Certain Age, I was offered it. The non-invasive test I had showed my baby had a normal risk of being born with Down's, which for my age group worked out at one in a hundred.
The other test I was offered, which would have told us for sure whether she had it, carried about the same risk of triggering a miscarriage. I refused it and spent the rest of my pregnancy worrying that I was going to have a Down's baby, because neither of us felt equal to the task of raising a child with mental disabilities (we were OK with physical ones).
So it's not as clear-cut as you might think. Some of the tests on offer may trigger miscarriage and you have to balance the risk of taking the test against the value of the information you will get by doing it. Then you've got abnormalities like spina bifida, where (unless the baby is anencephalic) you can't be sure exactly how badly disabled they will be in advance. One of my cousins had spina bifida, and thanks to several operations performed during her childhood she is now able to lead a normal life and has a child of her own.
All this is a very long-winded way of saying that I am in favour of prenatal screening despite the risk that parents will choose to abort. And I wouldn't be too hasty to condemn them if they do - given the practical difficulties of raising a disabled child and the (continuing) social stigma of having a disabled child in the family, you'd have to be a saint to choose to go through all that for someone you didn't know.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Perhaps, instead of judging, people should be willing to offer to help with childcare for those who do decide to go ahead - because they will need all the support they can get.
[ 23. April 2012, 11:28: Message edited by: Chorister ]
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Josephine: quote:
Perhaps if the conversation with the doctor went something like this: The test results show that your fetus has Down Syndrome...
Screening for Down's is routinely offered in the UK to anyone who is considered to be in a high-risk group. As an Expectant Mother of a Certain Age, I was offered it. The non-invasive test I had showed my baby had a normal risk of being born with Down's, which for my age group worked out at one in a hundred.
The other test I was offered, which would have told us for sure whether she had it, carried about the same risk of triggering a miscarriage. I refused it and spent the rest of my pregnancy worrying that I was going to have a Down's baby...
This is similar to what happened when I was expecting my third child - the nurse said my test hadn't produced a good result (and showed a risk of 1 in 200), and they tried to get me to have an amnio test, which had a *greater* risk of miscarriage of 1 in 100. I was greatly relieved when I discussed it with the consultant, who told me not to worry - so I didn't have the amnio test and my daughter, now almost 21, was born perfectly normal.
It's a difficult subject and, like Jane R and Chorister, I would not dream of judging other people for the decisions they make.
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Val Kyrie
Apprentice
# 17079
|
Posted
I was 36 and 20 weeks pregnant, when I "failed" the Triple Test (with my youngest son). I was told the bad news and, at the same time, I was informed that I'd been booked in for an amniocentesis the next day. I was terribly frightened (the risk of miscarriage from the amnio being higher than the risk of a "bad" diagnosis) - but I went ahead, because I thought the outcome would put our minds at rest.
I was wrong. I received a phone call a couple of days later, telling me that my baby had an abnormal chromosome. They said that if my husband or I had the same abnormality it wouldn't be a problem... But that if this was a "mutation" in my baby (great word doctor, thanks for that) the result would probably be "Down's like in nature". We had to give the hospital samples of our blood and wait another week.
Whatever happened, I didn't want an abortion. My (then) husband did, my mother told me to "get rid of it and start again", my MIL thought that an abortion was the best idea, and so did my friends. I felt totally alone and terrified. And my midwife told me it was too late for a simple abortion anyway, they'd have to kill the baby and induce the birth. I informed her that they'd have to tie me down, if they wanted to kill my baby.
In desperate fear and loneliness, I phoned the Down's Syndrome Association. A very kind lady chatted to me and listened to my fears. She told me that nobody could force me to do anything and that if I wanted to hear what we'd be facing (once I got the results) she would be happy to help... But that if I did decide to abort, that was OK too.
We were lucky... My baby took after my husband, so the chromosome was an inherited "switched off" thing, that wasn't going to affect him after all! Whew! But the MISERY the tests had created lingered on, and I never forgot the feeling that only *I* really cared about my son. When he was born I had dreadful post-natal depression.
I think women should be allowed to have abortions but I also think they should NOT be bullied. And a "sort of" accurate test isn't good enough. The Down's Association were the only people who really helped me cope.
Posts: 27 | From: Up North | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Val Kyrie
Apprentice
# 17079
|
Posted
Just to add that my son was fine and is now a strapping great 16 year old, studying for his A Levels.
Posts: 27 | From: Up North | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
I spent a lot of time on several UK pregnancy forums last year (as I was pregnant, obviously ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) and was quite disturbed by the near universal assumption that one aborts for Downs. I even remember one discussion where the mother of a Downs child was flamed for being 'insensitive' and thus silenced when she said this saddened her. At the risk of being labelled 'insensitive' myself I honestly can't see how the situation we've got ourselves into isn't legalised eugenics.In Ireland (no abortion) Downs children are not all that unusual. In the UK I've seen one in six years (in Ireland I wouldn't have particularly noticed the Downs. Here I did because its so unusual). I think its partly linked to how we've come to see children as an extension of ourselves and our own identity and have developed (with the help of advertising) an image of the ideal life and the ideal child. A child with intellectual disabilities may with the right support be a happy child, but he/she is never going to be a 'successful' child or adult in the way parents have learnt to measure success.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
There was certainly an assumption by our hospital that the usual thing to do in the case of a dysplasic baby, was to abort. In fact, my consultant said we were the first parents she had encountered who chose to continue with the pregnancy.
We were in the "fortunate" (hah!) position of having had a previous miscarriage, and in the aftermath of that we'd had the "what if our baby was handicapped?" conversation, so we knew what we both thought. I think it must be very difficult for couples who haven't really thought about the "what-ifs" till they're confronted with the results of the ante-natal test.
My husband and I had a private joke that we were in a "Catch 44" situation. I.e. if Catch 22 is pretending to be mad, we were trying to pretend to be "sane." If I seemed upset at the hospital, then I was offered a termination. So, to ward off unwelcome offers of abortion, we tried to appear very positive. Unfortunately, this only convinced some medical staff that we hadn't fully understood the situation. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Our medical care was excellent, and I'm very grateful to the hospital, but there was a strong presumption that abortion was the sensible, normal option.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
It doesn't look like anyone has mentioned the cost factor yet. In the US at least, medical treatment for disabled children can be awfully expensive, and it's difficult to get an insurance company to pay for it. State budgets are getting cut, so there's not much help there either. Not to mention the therapy and extra caregiving a child will require in school and beyond. It can cost thousands of dollars a year. Especially if a family has other kids, they may just not be able to afford to keep the baby.
At least one parent will also have to spend half their life fighting with insurance companies, schools, social agencies and whatnot to get proper care for their child, so they will probably have some loss of wages. That kind of bureaucracy-fighting can be overwhelming if you're not very assertive, or wealthy or educated.
If we as a society want the abortion rate to decrease I think we'll have to be willing to pay for better family support.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niminypiminy
Shipmate
# 15489
|
Posted
As far as I know, in the UK at least, the number of children born with Downs Syndrome has increased in recent years. This is in part due to an increased incidence in younger women who are not routinely offered nuchal fold scans and amniocentesis. But it is also due to an increasing number of women who decide to continue with a pregnancy after Downs Syndrome (and other conditions which cause mental and physical disability have been diagnosed via a scan or invasive testing.
I think we should be wary of assuming that testing will inevitably lead to termination.
I've had an amniocentesis. I don't know what I would have done if the result for Downs had been positive (the risk after triple test was 1/36).
Choosing to have a child with a disability is a big thing. It's faced by people who are adopting, and of course it's a different situation because it's not a matter of life and death for the future-bebe (as the French say). All the same I feel very wary of condemning those who do chose termination.
--------------------
Lives of the Saints: songs by The Unequal Struggle
http://www.theunequalstruggle.com/
Posts: 776 | From: Edge of the Fens | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
As far as I know, in the UK at least, the number of children born with Downs Syndrome has increased in recent years.
The figure for abortion of fetuses with Down's in the UK is something like 92%. I dread to think how high that must have been previously if that rate has fallen.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The situation in Canada is:
- there is no abortion law and it is a totally medical issue. No requirements except to have an appointment.
- if a prenatal screening provides information about something a mother or couple can make either decision, to abort or carry through the pregnancy
- there is automatic right for a teacher's assistant for a disable child and the disabled child has the right to be a regular classroom
- there is provincial sponsorship for all the necessary appliances: wheelchairs, walkers, electronical gadgets etc.
- medical care is also provided at no cost to the patient, without discrimination.
- it is against human rights for any sort of discrimination against any disability, inclusive of designs for public space so wheelchair or other mobility access is provided.
We have lower abortion rates in general than the USA, don't know about the UK. I suspect this may be in part due to better post-birth supports, and this has, obviously, no influence from the availability of abortion because that is also freely available.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
As far as I know, in the UK at least, the number of children born with Downs Syndrome has increased in recent years.
The figure for abortion of fetuses with Down's in the UK is something like 92%. I dread to think how high that must have been previously if that rate has fallen.
My understanding is that with the trend towards later motherhood in the UK the number of cases of Down Syndrome has increased significantly, so even with the large number of terminations there are more children with Down Syndrome being born simply because there are significantly more cases altogether.
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
I don't like pre-natal screening with the intention of offering abortion in general, and certainly not for Down's syndrome, but there are some genetic conditions so horrible that I think it's justified: Epidermolysis Bullosa, Proteus syndrome, Spinal Muscular Atrophy (maybe), and others. Mothers shouldn't be pressurised either way, but giving them the information they need to make an informed decision is another matter. It comes down to whether you think abortion is always wrong or not. The antis talk about Down's syndrome or other genetic conditions which people are familiar with, because everyone knows that Down's syndrome people are usually happy and can be useful members of society, but not the conditions I mentioned easrlier, which are more difficult for them to justify refusing abortions for. Emotionally manipulative talk of eugenics (which this isn't, in any case) and the Nazis are not helpful. quote:
With the proper education and training, many people with Down Syndrome can hold a job, live with dignity and some degree of independence as adults, and contribute to their own support.
When, on another thread discussing these issues recently, I mentioned the usefulness to society of Down's syndrome people, I was accused of advocating eugenics - but I, of course, support, with some limits, a woman's right to choose, and to have the information she needs to make an informed choice.
[ 27. May 2012, 05:46: Message edited by: Steve H ]
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I have wondered, though, if the women who are told that their child has Down Syndrome or another disability would benefit from meeting families who are raising children with disabilities, to find out what it's really like, before they decide whether they want to terminate the pregnancy. I wonder whether many of these abortions are a result of fear of the unknown, of dire imaginings, and not on reality.
The biggest potential problem with this is that the people most likely to arrange such a service (abortion opponents) are also those most motivated to do so in a dishonest manner. I can foresee a situation where a small number of families with high-functioning Downs children are deceptively passed off as typical or mid-range cases in pursuit of the "greater good" of preventing abortion.
I'm also not sure that the challenges involved in raising a child with trisomy 21 can be accurately assessed through a (relatively) brief meeting.
This is my concern too. The antis tend to major on emotional blackmail as it is.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
This is my concern too. The antis tend to major on emotional blackmail as it is.
Attributing base motives to folks who disagree with us is just Bulverism. From first principles, there is no reason to believe that folks who are anti-abortion will distort the facts of life re Downs Syndrome children to minimise abortion numbers. There is no obvious connection between a pro-life (or pro-choice) and anti-truth. You'll find bad eggs both sides of that divide.
So how do you define a "bad egg"?
What seems to me to be required is a code of conduct for prenatal counsellors which recognises
a) the need to convey accurate information,
b) the need to recognise freedom of patient choice
c) that coercion is unacceptable.
For all I know, such standards may already be in place. Anyone who gets subject to emotional blackmail by a medical professional, in either direction, should have a means of redress, a place to air a complaint. If they haven't, codes of practice need to be strengthened.
And if such standards are not in place, if this is some kind of "grey" area, then I reckon it is in the interests of all (whether pro-choice or pro-life) that it get "ungreyed" pretty sharpish.
Folks acting out of conviction, or facing very difficult personal choices, can well do without other peoples' mind games. Whether or not they are medical professionals.
And I end, where I came in. Personally, I have no reason to believe that folks who are pro-life, or pro-choice, are predisposed to operate in unethical or untruthful ways because of their convictions. To borrow from MLK, judgment on them should be made on the demonstrable content of their character, not their convictions on a single issue.
[Not that it matters in this context, but in case folks think I have a hidden agenda, here's a personal statement. I support, generally, the current UK legislation on abortion, but have some concerns about how the vexed question of viability should be managed.]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Thanks B62 for bumping this thread. The heated discussion in purg has brought this issue to my mind too.
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
- it is against human rights for any sort of discrimination against any disability, inclusive of designs for public space so wheelchair or other mobility access is provided.
I realise that I'm not original in pointing this out but I'm genuinely curious as to how people explain this ...
How is abortion not a form of discrimination against disability viz a viz the above?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Thanks B62 for bumping this thread. The heated discussion in purg has brought this issue to my mind too.
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
- it is against human rights for any sort of discrimination against any disability, inclusive of designs for public space so wheelchair or other mobility access is provided.
I realise that I'm not original in pointing this out but I'm genuinely curious as to how people explain this ...
How is abortion not a form of discrimination against disability viz a viz the above?
No_prophet was not accurate: it is illegal to discriminate against any disabled person and AIUI, in UK law (and presumably others as well), a foetus is not a person.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The personhood, potential personhood, lack of personhood of the foetus is of course the issue that divides, the issue which makes abortion a Dead Horse here. Personally, it is an issue I cannot resolve satisfactorily. There seem to me to be good arguments pointing in irreconcilable directions.
What I'm getting at is that, on prenatal counselling, that is not the issue which needs to get sorted out. Not just because I do not see how it can be sorted out, but because we do not need to. What needs to get sorted for prenatal counselling is any tendency towards overt, or subtle, professional bullying. That's just unacceptable professional behaviour.
[ 28. May 2012, 06:54: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What needs to get sorted for prenatal counselling is any tendency towards overt, or subtle, professional bullying. That's just unacceptable professional behaviour.
I don't think that is straight forward either though.
A lot of health warnings on TV about smoking (both in Australia and the UK) are extremely graphic. They are defended as 'just giving the facts'.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Just to put this in context, the vast majority of abortions in the UK are nothing to do with prenatal screening. From Table 6 of the document cited below, 77% of all abortions were carried out at 3-9 weeks gestation and 15% at 10-12 weeks, before any prenatal screening is carried out.
Under UK abortion law, the termination of a pregnancy to abort a foetus that would otherwise be disabled is Ground E. In 2010, the figures released on 24 May 2011, can't find any for this year yet, 1% of abortions were carried out under Ground E - 2,290 in total, and 48% of those were carried out citing congenital abnormalities as a reason (paragraph 2.8 and 2.9 of the full report found here) 482, 21% of these abortions, were carried out to abort a foetus identified as having Down's Syndrome. Malformations of the nervous system accounted for 23% of all cases, 522, and 8% for the abnormalities of the muscoskeletal system.
And of those terminations under ground E, 66 were selective terminations - one of a twin being aborted (paragraph 2.22)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What needs to get sorted for prenatal counselling is any tendency towards overt, or subtle, professional bullying. That's just unacceptable professional behaviour.
I don't think that is straight forward either though.
A lot of health warnings on TV about smoking (both in Australia and the UK) are extremely graphic. They are defended as 'just giving the facts'.
Medical professionals, counsellors who belong to legitimate professional associations, all sign up to various codes of conduct designed both to protect them and the patients they seek to help. They accept an accountability, which means it is possible for them to be brought to account for unprofessional conduct, disciplined, struck off. In exchange, it also helps them to get personal liability insurance, to help against unjustified claims.
The difference between them and advertisers is that they work "one to one". Is there any argument that professional bullying is wrong? Of course not. Are there some difficulties in testing for it, defining it? Of course there are. Folks try to politicise such tests, definitions. But the view of a professional body is wider than that of an individual. There is a check, and a balance, in place. Or ought to be. Folks like Trisagion on the Purg thread (or one or two of the contributors here) should have access to means of redress. Would be manipulators (however well-meaning they may consider themselves to be) need to have pause for thought - including the possible loss of professional reputation or career.
Now what's wrong with that? Heck, similar processes are already in place, all over the place, to act as a protection against professional abuse.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Just to put this in context, the vast majority of abortions in the UK are nothing to do with prenatal screening. From Table 6 of the document cited below, 77% of all abortions were carried out at 3-9 weeks gestation and 15% at 10-12 weeks, before any prenatal screening is carried out.
Some things I don't know here. Screening can involve more than findings about the foetus. Perhaps folks may be encouraged (if they haven't already done so) to get their own genetic markers and family history checked out, early in pregnancy, or even before they conceive? "Good to fill in this questionnaire about your background. Some things for you to think about 'before it's too late'" Does anything like that happen?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Now what's wrong with that?
Nothing at all.
My point was just that there is no science to group think.
One group's emotional bullying is another group's presentation of the facts.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes, I get that. My point is that on an issue as emotive as abortion, and in a profession so sensitive as prenatal counselling, the argument against bulling is a winning moral argument.
On that point at least, there is no need for polarisation. It's therefore possible for good folks holding substantially different views on the pro-life pro-choice spectrum to look at the facts and say "well, at least on that, we can agree". It's possible to reduce the distance between folks. And the emnity. I don't think that's naive. I think it's a lot more hopeful that trying to resolve "topic A".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's therefore possible for good folks holding substantially different views on the pro-life pro-choice spectrum to look at the facts and say "well, at least on that, we can agree".
What facts?
JoannaP has already cut to the chase - one side defines a foetus as a person, the other does not.
That is the issue and I'm not sure how more facts will change that or how those facts can be presented in a non emotionally charged way.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Any allegations of professional bullying are based on events which have happened. The facts, such as who said what, who behaved how, can be examined, tested against a pre-set standard of proper professional behaviour. I am sure that there are cases where a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer could look at those facts and agree together "well, that professional exceeded his or her brief". Even "such behaviour actually gives the cause I support a bad name, thereby giving aid and comfort to your view".
I wasn't talking about the personhood of the foetus. The only facts I know for sure about that are facts about what people believe, or have believed. Folks disagree about the significance of such facts in determining the moral, or legal, position. A lot of this stuff is in the background papers to "Roe v Wade".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Barnabus62:
quote:
Some things I don't know here. Screening can involve more than findings about the foetus. Perhaps folks may be encouraged (if they haven't already done so) to get their own genetic markers and family history checked out, early in pregnancy, or even before they conceive? "Good to fill in this questionnaire about your background. Some things for you to think about 'before it's too late'" Does anything like that happen?
When our son (our third child) was stillborn we were told that genetic counselling would be available for our older children when they reached adulthood, if they wanted it, to assess their risk of carrying the gene.
I do wonder what we'd have done if we'd known. Not have children? Have the first, but not risk a second? As it was, we "tried" again, unsuccessfully, even after we knew the risks.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
@Barnabas - my understanding was, and I've just double checked it on the BBC website (offspring is 24 this summer, I wasn't sure the tests were the same)
- possible scan at 6 weeks gestation to check for ectopic pregnancy;
- usual first check up between 8-14 weeks gestation when a scan and blood tests will be done:
- Scan to confirm pregnancy, check for twins and also visual check for Down's Syndrome.
- Blood tests to check for anaemia, rubella immunity, conditions such as HIV, likelihood of Down's Syndrome;
- Scan at 20-23 weeks gestation - checks for spina bifida and skeletal abnormalities
There are other options, including additional tests for conditions, and then all the additional scans I got for placenta praevia and other complications
The sort of genetic testing you're suggesting would happen if someone had a family history of a genetic condition and wanted to make sure they weren't carriers before they considered a pregnancy or marriage. Or after a pregnancy with unexplained problems.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks, CK. All that seems very much in line with your belief that prenatal counselling is not likely to be much of a factor in early terminations in the UK. Unless very early, or pre-conception, tests were held at personal request by folks concerned about their genetic history, i.e. at the initiative of the patient.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I have heard a number of assertions about abortion*, so wandered off to find out accurate research on some of the comments above.
Trends in Down Syndrome births have been published in this BMJ report (warning, on Chrome the tables aren't set up correctly). The report covers the trends in Down Syndrome births from 1989 to 2008. According to this article, identification of Down's Syndrome prenatally increased over the period covered by 71% (from 1075 to 1843) and the number of live births fell by 1%, from 752 to 743.
The 2011 abortion figures for the UK are now out (they came out 21 hours ago!) - and are to be found here.
In 2011, 2037 abortions were carried out under Ground E (that the child will be born disabled). Of that 2037, 511 (22%) cited Downs Syndrome, all chromosomal abnormalities accounted for 889 (39%) of Ground E cases, 540 (23%) were for abnormalities of the nervous system and 7% (160) citing muscoskeletal abnormalities. Of the other causes, 157 abortions cite "family history of heritable disease". (paragraph 2:10 and table 9, p23)
* I have been co-teaching abortion as a unit to 14-16 year olds, which is why I'm so interested in finding out exact information, not the results from a surface google. Surface googling garners a lot of propaganda from anti-abortion groups, often dressed up as fact or using selective facts. The odd horror story and anecdote is getting more weight than it should be, so I've been tempering the teaching materials. An immediate example is the listing of side effects writ large, which if you bother to research them are the mostly same side effects as pregnancy.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
That is very helpful, CK. The stats do put the discussion here (and elsewhere) in an informative context.
[For Shipmates; the table CK cites re Ground E abortions is Table 9, which you can access via the whole report or as an Excel page by looking at the link to Table 9.]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
<bump>
Parents and doctors see congenital disorders differently
Mirrors the experience of those living with disabilities, whether congenital or otherwise: others generally underestimate their quality and enjoyment of life. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
If we as a society want the abortion rate to decrease I think we'll have to be willing to pay for better family support.
This.
We need to be thinking in terms of minimizing abortions. What causes women to think abortion is the best option? Find those things and then work on solving them, and the number of abortions will go down.
Ironically (or not) the same people who are so dead-set against abortion are doing as much as they possibly can to make them more and more common, by making birth control and family planning harder to get, taking away health care coverage for poor moms, reducing or eliminating food stamps and WIC -- when a young woman looks at raising a child in the increasingly difficult circumstances these people have created, an abortion can seem the better option. We're going about this ass-backwards.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
mousethief, in the UK, we're still looking at a very high abortion rate even though we have contraception and post natal care available, and a welfare state that does support single parents (although that is being cut radically). I don't think trying to stop people having abortions when they don't want a child is necessarily where the issue is, but I don't know how to reconnect sex with pregnancy in young people's minds when consequence free sex is what they see and understand from the media.
The whole point of the sex part of our sex and relationships education was to make the young people aware that being in a sexual relationship meant they were risking both pregnancy and sexual transmitted infections and they needed to be aware of those risks. And it really was hard work fighting against all the other influences and hormones.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
