Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Today's ruling re Down's Syndrome

693 replies

Shirazboobaloo · 23/09/2021 21:09

Sorry to hijack AIBU for this but can someone explain this ruling to me please?

What I can't understand (from press reports) is how this has "come to this".

Who is Heidi Crowther and who are those supporting her?

I am genuinely confused but don't know where to ask

OP posts:
BogRollBOGOF · 24/09/2021 10:47

Flowers to all those who've had incredibly difficult, life-long decisions to make and live with.

I had a relative who lived in a home for people with severe learning difficulties, a significant proportion of which have DS. His cohort were born in the 1960s. These people tended to remain in their families and then move into care in young adulthood when the strain of caring for a physically adult child with the capacity of a young child became too much for aging parents whose children would be flying the nest at that age. Add in that DS tends to be more common in older parents, so you're talking full care burdens of 60yos caring for 20yos.

When that cohort were in their 20s and early 30s it was a lovely, youthful atmosphere, but old age and dementia set in quickly. The staff do their best to keep them in their home with their friends as long as they can resource it, but it was never intended to be a nursing home.

My own relative died some years ago, but we've kept visiting his best friend who has no family. He was an only child to older parents. There are few parents alive to visit now, it's mainly the middle-aged siblings to those that had some.

These residents are pretty lucky. If they'd been born more recently, some at the more able, supported living end could have accessed a more mainstream education and found employment. But most couldn't. These are people born physically healthy enough to have lived to middle-age. Who weren't abandoned to institutions in infancy so their families could move on as it was phrased in my family at the point of diagnisis.

I've known several families where parents have clung on to keeping their child at home, but as the parent became in need of care themselves and generally at crisis point, the child had to move into care anyway.

I have a child with "high functioning" autism and I'm barely scratching the surface of the SNs world. Our world is very different to the demands on families facing more acute needs within the same condition. But where there are SNs, it consumes more emotional and financial resource. It changes family decisions and opportunities. Any additional support has to be fought for, now more so than in recent decades. Nothing is freely given. If the state can dump it all on a quiet parent, it will.

All lives have value and meaning, but disabilities have wider costs too. Parents need the time and choice to make those decisions that have life-long consequences. The law as it stands works effectively. Unfortunately the social care and education system do not.

It's great that we are seeing more diversity of people with disabilities and additional needs being active in society and reaching their potential, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this is a feasible opportunity for all people with similar conditions.

Sirzy · 24/09/2021 10:51

I read everydayimhuffling post to mean that if the 24 week limit had been in place even more medical abortion she would have been forced to make a decision whether to carry on with the pregnancy (which at that point had a bleak looking outcome) without having had the time needed for the full diagnostic process to be completed for her to make a fully informed decision on all the available information.

Lockdownbear · 24/09/2021 10:52

@BoredZelda, listen to what the poster is saying. At 21 weeks, her scan indicated her baby had a life limiting condition.
If she was against the clock needing to abort before 24 weeks she would have done so before the results of tests were available.

That is the biggest argument against having a time limit, scans only show so much, often people need more time to get further tests, a chance to speak with consultants and make a fully informed decision.

It would be cruel to have women getting told your baby has an issue and you've only got 2.5 weeks to make a decision, the test results will take 10 days, and the best person to speak to is on holiday. A wee bit of compassion says let the women take all the time they need to make that decision.

Whinge · 24/09/2021 10:52

@Sirzy

I read everydayimhuffling post to mean that if the 24 week limit had been in place even more medical abortion she would have been forced to make a decision whether to carry on with the pregnancy (which at that point had a bleak looking outcome) without having had the time needed for the full diagnostic process to be completed for her to make a fully informed decision on all the available information.
Same here.
BoredZelda · 24/09/2021 11:00

listen to what the poster is saying. At 21 weeks, her scan indicated her baby had a life limiting condition. If she was against the clock needing to abort before 24 weeks she would have done so before the results of tests were available.

I agree the time limit should not be in place. I listened when she said she would have been forced to have an abortion. That would not be the case. What would have happened is, she would have been given some options, which would still be heartbreaking, but nobody would force her to do anything.

Teapiggies · 24/09/2021 11:11

I follow a few SEN mums on Instagram who have become increasingly anti-NIPT and anti-choice, riling their followers up with very emotive language lacking in real-life context or facts. They bizarrely claim to be ‘pro choice’ and just wanting pregnant women to be given ‘balanced information’, but then go on to use words like ‘exterminate’ and ‘eugenics’, making their true feelings quite clear.

I get particularly frustrated with posts from parents who received a postnatal diagnosis after a low-chance screening, because despite not making an active choice to continue with a DS pregnancy, they now expect others to do so.

I also wonder how much of their views are truly coming from a place of believing pregnant women are being needlessly scaremongered about DS, and how much are about encouraging others to continue their pregnancies so their own children feel less unusual and more normalised. Which is totally understandable - don’t we all want our children to feel like they fit into society? - but it is not for other women to make choices to affirm their own child.

I’ve also noticed most of the SEN instamums are mums of very young children - generally babies and toddlers. You don’t see many mums of teen and adult SEN people in this sphere (bar of course Heidi and her mum). Most of them are only a few years into the game, and in my opinion, really not in a place of great experience to reassure pregnant women that having a child with special needs will be a good choice for them in the long run. I do wonder how much we will be hearing from them in 20 or 30 years’ time.

So I am relieved at the ruling, I don’t think letting small groups of people with heightened emotional investment make decisions for the entire population is ever a good thing.

ManifestDestinee · 24/09/2021 11:11

You're still not gettiing it Zelda. Don't be so obtuse.

FailingMotherhood · 24/09/2021 11:14

I'm not wanting to get into an abortion debate myself, but I've seen alot of outrage and confusion which seems to be attributed to some people thinking that this case was about a blanket ban on the termination of DS pregnancies, rather than an attempt to make the 24 week policy for healthy foetuses apply to DS and non life threatening disability pregnancies

But that's the campaigners' ultimate goal. They literally hold up signs saying, "Don't screen us out", which was a campaign against additional, early stage non-invasive screening.

They don't want women to be informed earlier about if their fetus has Downs Syndrome, and they don't want women to be able to abort on those grounds.

goawaystormy · 24/09/2021 11:16

.I agree the time limit should not be in place. I listened when she said she would have been forced to have an abortion. That would not be the case. What would have happened is, she would have been given some options, which would still be heartbreaking, but nobody would force her to do anything.

I don't understand how you can be so obtuse @BoredZelda Hmm. Of course no individual would force her to do anything (I.e. no one would physically hold her down and perform and abortion against her will). But the situation would have forced her to have an abortion for a medical condition, which turned out to be negligible, because the risk of having the baby if the condition wasn't negligible with a cap on all abortions (medical condition or not) would have been too high. You can be forced or coerced by a situation as well as by people.

Itsanewdah · 24/09/2021 11:16

I just hope everyone calling out “murder” and “i would NEVER do that” has adopted at least one severely disabled child. if not, please be silent.

Jonad · 24/09/2021 11:22

Great post teapiggies.

Staffy1 · 24/09/2021 11:23

It doesn't matter if it's not actually her body. It's dependent on her body, and therefore, by her own bodily autonomy, she has the right to stop anyone or anything (foetus/baby or otherwise) using her body. It's not her fault something relies on her, is essentially leeching off her. Why do her rights to bodily autonomy suddenly not matter? FGS we can't even take the organs from dead people to save others lives without the permission of the DEAD person because they have a right to bodily autonomy. Why are the rights of dead people more sacred than the rights of women

I don’t think you can compare a body organ to a foetus/unborn child. The organ is part of the dead persons body. The foetus/unborn child is not. It’s got organs of its own and is a being, so has some rights of its own (or should do).

Pitapotamus · 24/09/2021 11:27

There seems to be a misconception about Down’s syndrome, as if it is some kind of terrible thing whereas in reality it’s fine. People who happen to have Down’s syndrome are usually capable of living full and happy lives (just like people who happen to not have Down’s syndrome are ‘usually’ capable of living full and happy lives.

The ruling is discrimination, plain and simple. There is a different rule for babies with Down’s syndrome and babies without. How can that not be discrimination.

ManifestDestinee · 24/09/2021 11:27

I don’t think you can compare a body organ to a foetus/unborn child. The organ is part of the dead persons body. The foetus/unborn child is not. It’s got organs of its own and is a being, so has some rights of its own (or should do)

It's not a seperate being and it doesn't have any rights of its own. Which you should be very very glad about.

Lockdownbear · 24/09/2021 11:28

I’ve also noticed most of the SEN instamums are mums of very young children - generally babies and toddlers. You don’t see many mums of teen and adult SEN people in this sphere (bar of course Heidi and her mum). Most of them are only a few years into the game, and in my opinion, really not in a place of great experience to reassure pregnant women that having a child with special needs will be a good choice for them in the long run.

Yip I remember it really hitting a friend hard when she could no longer lift her DS and then a few years later when Dad couldn't lift him either.
They struggled on without much help for years then crunch came they needed help urgently and had a fight to get it.

Seeingadistance · 24/09/2021 11:28

Also there's a lot of people mentioning babies born at 24 weeks being able to "survive on their own". They cannot. The medical intervention required for babies born below 32 weeks to survive is immense and overwhelming. The cut off for actually being able to survive in their own is much, much closer to 37 weeks. I say this as the mother of a preemie born at 26 weeks.

This is a very good point, and one which isn’t made often enough.

My son was born at 36 weeks, and spent his three weeks in an incubator, and first month in hospital, followed by many visits and short stays in hospital thereafter, including surgery at 6 weeks old. Without that access to healthcare he would have died shortly after birth.

ManifestDestinee · 24/09/2021 11:28

@Pitapotamus

There seems to be a misconception about Down’s syndrome, as if it is some kind of terrible thing whereas in reality it’s fine. People who happen to have Down’s syndrome are usually capable of living full and happy lives (just like people who happen to not have Down’s syndrome are ‘usually’ capable of living full and happy lives.

The ruling is discrimination, plain and simple. There is a different rule for babies with Down’s syndrome and babies without. How can that not be discrimination.

This is absolutely and completely wrong. DS is not "fine". Educate yourself.
Lockdownbear · 24/09/2021 11:30

@Pitapotamus the ones with DS you see out and about are fine, you don't see the ones who are hidden away in care homes.

sqirrelfriends · 24/09/2021 11:33

@Pitapotamus how many people do you know with down syndrome?

Yes some will live full, happy and semi-independent lives. That's fantastic and obviously the best outcome.

Some will be more affected and can have heart problems, hearing problems along with a severe intellectual disability.

A lot will end up being too much work for ageing parents and end up in institutions or "homes"

Who wants that for their child?

BoredZelda · 24/09/2021 11:36

You're still not gettiing it Zelda. Don't be so obtuse.

I am getting it. And if you read my earlier posts, you would have seen me posting about a similar situation my very good friend was in. I also know another mother who’s child’s brain defect was confirmed at 23 weeks and they were told she would not survive to birth, the child is 12 now with no issues. I speak with countless women through my work with Bliss who have been in similar situations, it is heartbreaking and difficult and if we added a time bar into that situation it would make things exponentially worse. I have said that already. If you think I’m not getting it, brush up on your comprehension skills.

My objection is to using the words “I would have been forced” when talking about abortion. It may have been clumsy wording, but language is really important here. I don’t want anyone reading this, no matter what the law or their circumstances to think there is any situation where medical professionals or anyone else could force a person in to having an abortion. She may have been forced to make a decision she wasn’t ready for, she may have been forced to do so with half the information, but she would not have been forced to have an abortion.

The reason it is important is, there are women who right now will have the results of tests beyond 24 weeks which confirm their child will have lifelong disabilities or chronic health issues. There are some who right now will have been told there is a 90% chance their child has a specific condition, and they are having to make the same decision at 26 weeks or 30 weeks, that she would have been facing at 24 weeks. I don’t want anyone in that position to think anyone can force them into having an abortion.

If making sure people have the right information is what you call being obtuse, I’ll wear that badge with pride.

Staryflight445 · 24/09/2021 11:39

It’s not even about just their parents. I know of a lady with DS who lives (at 40) with her sibling and their family because their parents passed away.

At 40 they were known to be quite aggressive and had no independence what so ever unsupported. Even supported independence was difficult.

Can you imagine putting that on a current child. It isn’t fair.

ManifestDestinee · 24/09/2021 11:39

My objection is to using the words “I would have been forced” when talking about abortion. It may have been clumsy wording, but language is really important here. I don’t want anyone reading this, no matter what the law or their circumstances to think there is any situation where medical professionals or anyone else could force a person in to having an abortion. She may have been forced to make a decision she wasn’t ready for, she may have been forced to do so with half the information, but she would not have been forced to have an abortion

She would have FELT AS IF SHE WAS FORCED. Yes, she would have been forced to make a decision, as you say. That is the point.

Nobody is saying she would have been held down and forcibly had the pregnancy terminated, so stop arguing against that. Get a clue and have some bloody compassion. Hmm

Teapiggies · 24/09/2021 11:43

Sorry to add one last thought, I find the 90% termination rate being decried by ‘pro-choice’ people to be nonsensical.

Surely if you are pro-choice, there is no arbitrary rate of termination which is the ‘correct’ one? It’s just projection of what you think is acceptable.

There’s actually no reason to believe that the 90% of women that terminate have not carefully researched their options.

bookworm14 · 24/09/2021 11:45

@Pitapotamus

There seems to be a misconception about Down’s syndrome, as if it is some kind of terrible thing whereas in reality it’s fine. People who happen to have Down’s syndrome are usually capable of living full and happy lives (just like people who happen to not have Down’s syndrome are ‘usually’ capable of living full and happy lives.

The ruling is discrimination, plain and simple. There is a different rule for babies with Down’s syndrome and babies without. How can that not be discrimination.

I’m afraid this is not always the case. Down’s has a huge range of presentation, from people who can live independently, hold down jobs and have fairly normal lives, to those with very severe disabilities who need constant care. I entirely understand why people with Down’s feel distressed at the idea of being ‘screened out’, but the alternative is forcing parents to give birth and care for a child they may be unable to cope with.

I have a sibling with down’s, autism and a severe learning disability. I love her dearly, but if I were to get pregnant now and discover the foetus had down’s I would terminate almost without question. This is not because I don’t value disabled people’s lives, but because I know first hand how difficult it is to care for a severely disabled person, particularly with support from the state now almost non-existent. If these people want to reduce the number of terminations for Down’s they would be better off advocating for vastly improved social care funding.

Ducksareruiningmypatio · 24/09/2021 11:45

@Pitapotamus

There seems to be a misconception about Down’s syndrome, as if it is some kind of terrible thing whereas in reality it’s fine. People who happen to have Down’s syndrome are usually capable of living full and happy lives (just like people who happen to not have Down’s syndrome are ‘usually’ capable of living full and happy lives.

The ruling is discrimination, plain and simple. There is a different rule for babies with Down’s syndrome and babies without. How can that not be discrimination.

You've obviously only met high functioning people with DS. You really have no idea.