To think a test for downs that is nearly 100% accurate will not result in more terminations

[PlayOnWurtz]

I'm getting increasingly annoyed with Sally Philips at the moment and her insistence testing for downs syndrome is a negative thing and that living with someone with downs syndrome is a wholly positive experience.

Whatever happened to choice? Who is she to lay the guilt trip on people? Why is it seen as shameful to say "I would not be able to raise a person with significant health and learning disabilities" and seen as a negative decision made on a whim rather than a decision made with consideration and thought and heartache?

I really really can't see the problem with this test. I, personally, wouldn't abort a Down's baby but as a pp said it would be good to know in advance for a variety of reasons. And it is a lower risk procedure than amniocentresis.
Whether a woman chooses to have an abortion, for whatever reason, is only her business. What is the harm in having more information?

Well in part of the UK it won't make a blind bit of fucking difference as Northern Irish women are still unable to access the full range of NHS services as women in England, Scotland and Wales

I think a lot of people won't necessarily get the tests- anecdotally, the parents I know have all been quite "rather not know" about these things.

If a woman decades to abort because of Downs then that is her choice. Downs is so complex and varied, everyone just assumes that every Downs child is happy and cuddly all the time, and the reality is often more complicated and difficult

No NIPT is a screening test. This is abundantly clear (with the exception of NIPT for certain conditions but I assume we're talking about t21,18 and 13 here). If you have a high risk combined screening then you can have NIPT if that is positive, CVS or amnio to confirm. NIPT is presently a screening g test. The NHS documents on this are well worth a read to explain why NIPT is diagnostic for some conditions but not t21,18 or 13.

If you say "I'm pro-choice BUT" - you're not fucking pro-choice. You're setting your specifications on someone else's choice. That's not pro-choice.

Everyone should be supported in their choice to access an abortion, regardless of their reasons. Equally, no one should be made to feel guilty for needing to know if their child will be ill for the rest of their lives, so they can make preperations, regardless of what decision that leads them to.

I totally agree that women should have the choice- to have the test or not and the choice as to whether they have an abortion or not. I would support this regardless of whether the number of abortions goes up, stays the same or drops. It tests for other trisomies too and may prevent the number of miscarriages from amniocentesis.

After all, women can have abortions for personal reasons. So I don't see how someone could be ok with abortion of a fetus (with or without a genetic condition or congenital abnormality) because of the woman's personal reasons- such as "I can't cope with a baby at this point in my life" but yet say that is isn't ok for a woman to have an abortion when she is carrying a fetus with down syndrome because she feels unable to cope with the implications of that. It makes no sense.

She's not exactly an impartial documentation...13mins in and I'm muttering to myself

I have had a CVS for high risk and would have terminated. I wouldn't have been able to cope and selfishly didn't want to have to cope. I also had to think about DC1 and the impact on their life and the possibility of having a sibling to look after when parents are gone. These decisions are more that ooh can't abort a DS baby and should be the womans (parents) choice.

CoteDAzur, we can discuss semantics, but if, like me, you think life starts at conception, what I said is totally reasonable. It is my opinion, and I stand by what I wrote.

SanityAssian - I think you've made a good point on how siblings would be affected.

I have no idea what we would have done if our baby was at high risk of down's syndrome - surely you don't really know until you're in that situation but I'd want to be fully informed before making a choice.

It's astounding the number of people on this thread who clearly consider those with Down's Syndrome to have less right to life than other people.

This is doing my head in. She's so subjective that it's not fair on her to do this and it's not fair to anybody watching this programme. All the people with DS featured are quite high functioning and that is not the case. You cannot compare living children and adults with a foetus either.

My ex sister in law has DS. She is relatively independent but still requires significant support in her 40s. Her father has been diagnosed with bowel cancer.

Sally Philips is way too emotionally invested in the subject to be impartial. She's coming across as really wet.

A baby with Down's syndrome is much like any other baby. A child with Down's syndrome is manageable. An adult with Down's syndrome is another matter altogether.

I think this is a very important aspect to remember. It's all very well saying, "they're just like any other child, diversity, etc" but that's not the hard bit. The hard bit is getting older and not being able to cope with their behaviour any more, worrying what's going to happen to them after you die, trying to fund additional therapy/services on a reduced income, continuously fighting for your child to get access to care or respite for you, feeling guilty about potentially passing their care onto any other children you might have. And that's if they make it to adulthood. That is the reality for most families. I hold my hands up and say, "I couldn't do that".

There was a story in the DM (sorry!) yesterday about two young people with Downs in Oz who want to marry and have a family, but their families both agree that they couldn't cope with their own child. One mother said that they've brought their son up to believe he could do anything, and that's coming back to haunt them as he can't accept there's just some things he can't do. And those kids are in the minority- not every child with Downs is able to function that highly, and not every family have the resources, personality or knowledge to get that child to their full potential.

It's astounding the number of people on this thread who clearly consider those with Down's Syndrome to have less right to life than other people

No one has said they don't have a right to life. People are allowed to choose what they want in life too

Sorry posted too soon. Her father has bowel cancet and her mother has had a series of strokes. They cannot continue for much longer and then it was fall to one of her brothers and their wives to do it. ExSiL has a very limited sense of danger, she has a very part time job and has heart and sight problems. She's lovely but her life and caring for her is not easy.

It's astounding the number of people on this thread who clearly consider those with Down's Syndrome to have less right to life than other people.

I don't consider them to have less right to life than other people. I am pro choice. My perception of right to life is equal due all reasons at all points.

It's doing my head in too. She's fortunate to have a high functioning son. The reality of downs is it results in learning disabilities and they can be significant and profound without even looking at the physical health issues.

It's not choosing who should live and die it's not eugenics. It's parents making painful choices for their families. Many simply realise they cannot raise a child with these disabilities and not just raise a child but have them with them for life and have to actively parent for their whole lives. Who are we and who is she to decide whether parents should or should not make that decision?

Who is she to say women should not be able to make the decision earlier when it is less traumatic than it is at the moment? Has she ever had a late loss? Let alone a late loss you have to decide to lose.

She makes it all sound so flippant. I can't stand her

She's dodging the fact people with ld/downs have higher instances of dementia and not only that but early onset dementia to boot.

It's astounding the number of people on this thread who clearly consider those with Down's Syndrome to have less right to life than other people.
I consider any fetus to have less right to life than the mother carrying it.

"It's astounding the number of people on this thread who clearly consider those with Down's Syndrome to have less right to life than other people."

Every person has full right to life.

No fetus has right to life.

It's astounding that some people don't understand the difference.

I find the furore around NIPT weird. We have tests which are currently used. This is a better test than existing tests. Why wouldn't you use the better test?

I get the idea of people not agreeing with screening for DS or agreeing with screening. But to be ok with the existing testing regime because it is flawed, but not with a better testing regime because it is a better test - that's just illogical.

I had NIPT privately with my second pregnancy. It was done at about 10 weeks - with results given at the 12 week nuchal scan. I find the plan of only offering NIPT to pregnant women being classed as high risk from the existing screening regime a bit odd because you would still have the fairly high rate of 'false negatives'. Therefore the NHS plan won't actually screen out DS even if that was the aim.

This is so narcissistic! A woman telling her ordeal of a medical termination and they focus on sally faking crying?!

There IS a difference between an abortion for personal/social reasons and an abortion because of Down's though. The first is because you don't want a baby (irrespective of its characteristics) and the second is because the baby you've got has characterised you don't want/don't feel you can cope with. I think this distinction is why you can be pro-choice but still fearful of the repercussions of this test: it is a step towards selection of the 'ideal' child, something which a normal (if I can use that term) abortion is not. MN would be up in arms about abortion based on any other characteristic (including some which are also very challenging for the parents): why is Down's different? I don't want to live in a society where only the healthy and whole are allowed to exist and this test seems to me to be saying that this is what we're aiming for.

MN would be up in arms about abortion based on any other characteristic (including some which are also very challenging for the parents)
Before you decide to speak for all of MN, can you elborate this point? What other very challenging characteristic are you talking about?