to think that if those care workers had done what they did to NT kids rather than learning disabled adults the sentences would have been more severe?

[Greensleeves]

I watched the documentary about Winterbourne View and it was one of the saddest things I have ever seen. I think the sentences are a joke. Wayne Rogers in particular delighted in torturing powerless people who couldn't defend themselves.

I can't help wondering whether the sense of public outrage, and the severity of the sentences, would have been greater if the victims had not been SN adults?

and

Why should the state offer screening in all areas?

I think something is getting lost in this discussion about state intervention vs individual choice.

And my own experience I never tested for DS as I wouldn't have aborted, my MW asked, I said no, she wrote it down, it was never mentioned again

Softly - surely if the testing is based on money then it is a judgement on their value - their monetary value? I'm not sure how it's better that they want you to abort a child in order to save money.

What's wrong with offering? I am against forcing or asking repeatedly or pressure. There's no arguing that doing that would be wrong.

The problem is with what is being offered crashdoll. If it was an offer of testing so that you could receive a bucketload of help to deal with a disabled child, great, that's very useful and commendable. But the assumption is that if you test and find a positive, then you will abort. So what is being offered is the opportunity to rid yourself of an imperfect child. If you decide to keep the child you're very much on your own.

That's actually quite correct Callina.

My son is autistic and thus cannot be predicted prenatally I am relieved to say. Had someone told me in pregnancy that DS would be autistic I would have pictured an non affectionate and possibly non verbal child, yet this is the polar opposite of DS.

I think when parents test in pregnancy and choose to terminate if they get a diagnosis of say DS it's because they cannot picture or imagine what life might be like with that child. Or maybe they CAN picture it and are aware of how scarce resources are.

I would not be without my DS, he is without doubt my greatest achievement. Before he was born I thought my greatest achievement was a degree...what did I know?

Having been a midwife and having been involved in prenatal testing it seemed there was vey little info about living life with a child who had x,ynor z diagnosis. It seemed all about handing the diagnosis to the parents and saying "do you still want to continue with this pregnancy"? It's a horrible situation for parents to be in and with the lack of information and support it's not surprising many go ahead with a termination

I'm not saying its nice, nor right it takes no account of the joy they can bring but it is even ground and non discrimitory. Every person has a monetary value places upon them by the state, they decide to go to war not on the drive to save human life but on if it financially works for or against us.

Like I say Group b strep causes far more illness and death each year than spinabifida and that is a risk for all babies but they don't screen because the value on those babies is worked out to be worth the risk of a few deaths, sad but true.

So yes there is a monetary value placed but it's on all of us therefore doesn't support your theory of a statewide conspiracy to say disabled people aren't worth anything post birth. Human worth and financial value are two different things.

I didn't suggest that there was a statewide conspiracy Softly, I said that the fact that the NHS offers screening and abortion gives people the impression that the life of a child with disabilities is not worth living. Whether the offer is made due to a moral or monetary judgement is neither here not there, it still happens. The idea that the NHS is in favour of aborting a child due to cost is not a comfort to me. It disgusts me to be honest and I'm not proud of living in a society that judges the worth of children according to how much they will cost.

A strong link has been demonstrated between the criminal behaviour of parents and the likelihood of their children ending up in prison at some point. People who end up in prison cost the state huge amounts of money as well as causing suffering through their crimes. So should people who themselves have a criminal background, or who have partners or family members who do be encouraged to abort?

I am actually quite cross really. This is about how the sentences were lenient for those people. It may be related to screening but it a distant way. The sentences were lenient, if you want to start a thread about screening do it. There could be much stronger voices about those sentences but this has just derailed the whole thing. Cailin and others, you may be well - intentioned but it's highly counter productive.

There is a thread on chat and special needs children but not many comments.....

What more could be said about the sentences Brycie? All that has been said so far as is that they're too low, which I think is hard to disagree with. There was one post about the technicalities of sentencing which was largely ignored. I'm not stopping anyone from posting, so I don't see why people are trying to stop me.

The premise of the thread was that if the people who had been abused had been NT then the sentences would have been longer. We don't know if that's true or not. What is true is that society views people with disabilities as lesser than people without disabilities. What I was arguing is that this tendency for people with disabilities to be seen as being of lesser value begins before the child is even born, which I feel is relevant to the premise of the thread.

I honestly don't understand where anyone gets the idea that they can instruct others on whether to post or not. If MN tells me to stop posting, I will do so. Otherwise I intend to continue with the discussion.

Super cross

More people could say it but might be put off by the thought it means they are associating themselves in some people's eyes with termination at 39 weeks.

I'm not telling you you can't post I'm expressing my crossness about it. Slight difference.

Ok Brycie. While we're talking about being cross, it annoys me intensely when a discussion gets difficult and rather than addressing it people just throw their hands up and bail out. I won't be posting on the other thread but I'll be interested to see what comes up on it.

Nothing, probably, not even people care. I have addressed it and if you started a thread I'd probably go on there too. That;'s a bit straw man.

It does feel like you're pushing your own biased agenda and already admitted that you're unsure you are pro-choice about abortion or not. People do not terminate pregnancies willy nilly especially not where disability is concerned. I'm sure some people do as there are always exceptions to the rule. It's hugely emotive and unfair to make assumptions based on your view of abortion.

A subject being emotive does not make it off limits for discussion crashdoll, and not being entirely pro-choice does not preclude me from having an opinion. I'm not pushing a biased agenda, I'm expressing an opinion. Only someone who has a position of power can push an agenda, not an anonymous poster on the internet. I have engaged with what others have said to me. Despite being called plenty of names and despite plenty of people not accurately reflecting what I've said, I have debated in a logical manner. I don't expect people to agree with me. But I do expect them to actually address the points I've made. I have never said people have abortions willy nilly.

Could you point out the assumptions I've made based on my view of abortion?

I disagree with Callie's viewpoint. I HAVE been in several positions around these horrible decisions also so speak from experience rather than from the luxury of never having been faced with horrors of ante natal testing. The point is that not everybody choose antenatal tests to seek out abnormalities. Many people find out at the scan for example. In addition, some people HAVE to have an amnio. I was in that position. The only hope of our babies survival was by having an amnio and they would only treat in utero (which would be lifesaving) IF the baby had normal chromosomes-so we were forced to have one. If it wasn't normal they considered it fatal and so wouldn't treat.We never set out to have tests, we 'disagreed' with testing and termination. How easy it was when you think it never will actually happen to you!

Another improtant point is that some people may do things differently in each pregnancy. Eg a friend with a child who has Trisomy 21 (Downs) did not have tests with her first child. But with her second she DID have tests and would have considered termination. Are you telling me she didn't value her older child's life?

An individual family making the private decision to abort a fatally sick baby is not in any way making a statement about those with disabilities in society.

Cailin's viewpoint, not Callies-sorry.

'So you are rejecting the child, not because you don't want a child, but because you don't want a child with a disability. '

I know a lot of parents who have had terminations through bereavement groups. None of them simply 'didn't want' the child. They all felt it was unfair to bring a sick baby into the world, were worried about the effects on existing born children etc etc. All of them were deeply sad and bereaved and felt they had to make the best of two awful decisions. You shouldn't speak so judgingly about something you have no idea about.

I did not say it shouldn't be discussed. Nor did I deny you the right to express yourself. I have not called you names and I wouldn't do that. I am happy to debate. I do find it hypocritical that you say people don't reply to your points but you do not address other people's points either.

I believe that you cannot judge someone in such a difficult situation and by suggesting that offering screening/abortion is discriminating against 24 week old foetuses, you are making a judgement. You also keep focusing on Down's Syndrome when that is just one of many disabilities a scan/test may discover. If we're making this a wide open debate, we need to look at the bigger picture.

I'm not entirely sure why expert reviews have recommended a risk-factor approach to Group B Strep rather than screening but this pressure group's report estimates that it would actually save the NHS money (by avoiding life-long disability and the consequent healthcare costs, as far as I can see - dunno if they've also factored in other costs such as education or the potential economic impact on the family from parents having to give up work to become carers and so on).

I'd love to see the expert review's work so far and find out why screening was rejected in the past but there's something up with their PDF - I get virus warnings about it and when I breezily decided to ignore them, it didn't open anyway.

Maybe they were concerned about over-use/inappropriate use of antibiotics?

I agree crashdoll. I think pro choice people focus on Downs as it is the 'milder' in general. There are hundreds of chromosome disorders-the vast majority of which are fatal. Trisomy 18 & 13 are quite common and also tested for at the same time as Downs. There are also conditions such as Harlequin ichthyosis and anencephaly which are extremely severe and fatal in almost every case. Some people may want to go ahead no matter what, others would see it as selfish to carry on. There is often no 'right' answer in these terrible situations. Only someone cold hearted would judge a person making such a horrible decision.

above should say pro life not pro choice!

I'm focusing on DS because it's the one disability that is specifically tested for in a targeted manner, beyond examining the baby at a scan. It's also a disability that I know a lot about. It isn't generally fatal and people with DS can often live a long and happy life (though I am aware this isn't always the case, the same as with any child). So the general arguments about the abortion being for the good of the child don't really apply.

Out of interest crashdoll - do you agree with the law that a child with disabilities can be aborted up to term whereas a child without disabilities can't?

Jellybeans - having testing in order to save a child's life is not the same as having testing in order to decide whether to abort the child. That's pretty obvious I think.

Yes I think your friend did make a value judgement on her child's life - the same way a mother who already had a girl and then aborted a second child because it was a girl would be indicating that she didn't think it was worth having a girl. She might have her reasons for that, but the abortion would indicate that there was something about having a child with Down syndrome that made her believe that it was better for that child not to live. What else would it mean?

Crashdoll I am keen for you to make it a wide open debate, go ahead, I'm interested.