Today's ruling re Down's Syndrome

[Shirazboobaloo]

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

@Shirazboobaloo

Thanks all - how does this relate to screening? I had assumed most people who knew that DS likely would be aware sooner?

Not always. P s there are many other conditions which lead to learning disability some with more severe outcomes as a norm There is focus on down syndrome because it is one of the easiest to be screened for tho now screening cN look for others Downs patau Edwards trisomies haVe always been lumped together tho D,S has much more varied outcome. Very rare for Palau or Edwards to survive beyond a year or two; profound disability

down syndrome outcome is much more varied and people can live to 60s and become actor etc (or not) with majority able to be walking talking reading etc

@Ginger1982

Most disabilities dont become apparent until after birth. And parents have to cope.

A parent not wanting a DS child would still have choice. The choice to screen at 12 week scan, the choice to abort before 24 weeks.

A mum who suddenly decided they didnt want their child at 24 weeks and a day can not abort a child in most circumstances. But a mum expecting a DS child could decide to abort at 38 weeks.

Disclaimer this is different to parents who find out at 35 weeks that their child is missing a vital organ and wont survive outside the womb or will have servere health issues that can not be treated.

I doubt there are many women out there who terminate after 24 weeks. Also those that do have probably found out as the pg has progressed that there are far more problems with the baby's health/development then they first thought.

I am glad the ruling was against her for the reasons theunamedcat gives. I think to have found in Heidi‘s favour would indeed violate human rights - the rights of pregnant women not to continue a pregnancy if their baby is found to have severe disabilities. No woman is going to make that decision lightly and for those that end up having a very late abortion it must be unimaginably difficult.

@shouldistop

I wonder how many women actually terminate after 24 weeks due to DS?

The court heard that none have in the last 10 years

DSydrome is a spectrum and you might not know how disable it’d be until later on. Not everyone can raise or want a severely disable child. Good or bad, people are people.
Heidi Crowther is a hardcore Christian and she’s more inclined the prolife way.
I refuse to believe, after experiencing something relevant, that the NHS hasn’t really thought about it with their extensive ethics knowledge.

I think NHS knows what they are doing and they are refusing to bend over to the erosion of woman's rights. Next thing, we’d be looking for back street abortions like we are freaking Texas.

@Clymene that's what I thought. So who are these disabled viable babies that this is all about then?

What is the justification for treating DS differently from other disabilities? If you can't terminate after 24 weeks for other disabilities why can you do so for DS? It suggests that DS is somehow "worse" than other disabilities. My friend has a daughter with DS and honestly she has the best quality of life. She is constantly happy and thinks the world revolves around her. As her Mum said, who wouldn't want to feel like that every day of their lives?

@owlbethere

She’s a woman with DS who lives independently and sees the law where you can terminate a pregnancy up until birth for a severe disability as a human rights violation against disabled people.

I see her point, and I understand that from her POV as a high functioning person with DS it’s awful to think someone like her can be terminated due to their disability…however I am pro-choice and that means being pro-choice even when it’s not what I would choose to do.

This is my position too.

Anyone who says they are pro choice and follows it with the word but is not pro choice!

It isn't anyone else's choice apart from the women who is pregnant. It is her decision and hers alone. The fact anyone else thinks they can weigh in on the argument and dictate that a women should give birth to a child is immoral and inhumane.

I agree with some of the posts above that most of the messages being reported imply that women are citing 'Downs Syndrome' as a reason for termination. This condition has a wide range of mental and physical impact including vital organs which may be life limiting.

I had a TFMR at 24 weeks (and due to the nature of the prognosis, could have waited longer for further tests ) however the only difference between 24 and 34 weeks is that we would have needed an inquest. It is medical diagnosis and prognosis that are taken into account, not condition per se, in the legality of administering a termination or compassionate induction and gaining the support of two medical professionals.

It pisses me off that anti-abortionists are implying that things like gender and 'minor' disabilities will be acceptable up to birth - and realistically, who would voluntarily choose a termination (induction, full labour, post mortem, funeral, inquest attendance) at this stage of pregancy over information that can be obtained at 9 to 12 weeks.

The media portrayal is horrendous.

I am glad they ruled against her. She had no right telling other people what to do with their unborn child.

I am struggling to work out what to think on this one. I am pro choice and support a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. At the same time, I can see the argument that babies with DS do not have any less right to live than any other babies.

Just to add, it was my 20w abnomoly scan that flagged congenital defects, up until then all screening and scans were perfect. Sadly, our little boy's brain had not developed due to a placental interuption during development and was not compatible with life. He had carried on growing and was perfect in every other way.

I'm pro choice but with modern medicine and testing now there isnt/ shouldn't be a need to wait until 9 months to terminate. DS risk is tested at the 12 week scan and most results even if a CVS or amnio is required is then done by 16-20 weeks - there should be little reason to have the procedure done any later than the standard 24 week abortion limit?

The law as it stands is correct in my opinion. Most people do find out about the ds sooner. It's a minority that need to make the decision later for whatever reason. It isn't done lightly. In this case the rights of the mother trump those of the unborn child. And most people with ds are not high functioning, and are likely to need a lot of care, have a shortened life, have other medical problems alongside. If all ds people were like heidi then obviously it would be different

It was the right decision. You can terminate for any abnormality after 24 weeks. You can’t start picking and choosing. It is wrong to force a woman to give birth to a Down syndrome child if they don’t want to. Are we really going to force this life on a mother? It’s easy to say well they can give them up for adoption. How many people can do that once they have given birth. It would have set an extremely dangerous precedent and sent a terrible message to women.

Anyone who has ever had a disability detected will know that dr’s paint the bleakest possible picture in fact termination is encouraged in most instances.

How many of the people saying that this is manipulation would be happy to terminate their own viable pregnancy beyond 24 weeks, 28 weeks maybe, 32 weeks, 38 weeks?

The fact is that it’s not just disabilities which are incompatible with life which mean a pregnancy can be terminated. You can terminate. Pregnancy where any disability is detected e.g. club foot, lack of development of say, a leg, the term disability equals disposable in the eyes of many.

Of course it goes without saying that some disabilities are so severe that it is possibly even in the baby’s best interests for the pregnancy to be terminated. But it’s a sad society when a person with a disability who is capable of formulating her own coherent argument is said to be manipulated rather than thought to be capable of independent thought.

It's a difficult area but I think I support her on this actually. With the screening now available there is no need to have a late stage abortion for DS. The outlook for people with DS has improved hugely in recent decades, there's now better healthcare and better understanding of interventions to help people with DS develop better and have a good education. I don't think DS is in anyway a "special case" that justifies late stage termination.

The court heard that none have in the last 10 years

I haven’t looked into this but if it is true (I suspect it is, or very close to) then it makes it far more likely that Heidi has been “hijacked” and used to further an anti-abortion cause. Which is essentially an anti-woman cause.

So transparent

Has anyone got any actual guidance on where it says you can't terminate after 24 weeks for other disabilities? Because that is not what we were told.
This isn't the thread for me to talk about it and I will duck out soon because it'll just upset me, but...
I had a TFMR at 22+4.
If you'd asked me before that if I'd ever terminate a baby I would have said no.
I didn't find out (despite lots of screening) how awful my little boys condition was until 22 weeks. They said we could take as long as we wanted to decide what we wanted to do. It wasn't downs syndrome he had, it was a very rare condition.
People need to have the choice.
Downs syndrome doesn't affect everyone the same way and they can't often say how it'll present until after birth. You can't force a woman to continue a pregnancy full stop.

@Cuddlyrottweiler

People with DS can be killed up until the moment of birth. Which is sick af whether you're pro life or not. People with disabilities are quite often against screening. Deaf people, autistic people have been vocal about not being screened for. It's saying that the world be better off without them, that they deserve to die because of who they are. Who would be happy about that?

In the womb it is a fetus Not a person legally You could say a potential person

(Of course In reality we say "my baby" not "my fetus" )

@FuckingFlumps

So in your oppinion should the law be changed to allow any pregnancy to be terminated up to delivery?

Because what the case was about is removing DS alone as a reason to terminate between 24 weeks and birth. So this would allow life limiting health problems to continue to be abortable up to bith but place DS pregnancies alongside other pregnancies.

@shouldistop

I wonder how many women actually terminate after 24 weeks due to DS?

A tiny proportion. In 2020 there were 229 abortions performed after 24 weeks where there was a “substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.” That 229 will include all abnormalities, not just Down syndrome. Even had the case been won, it would have been largely symbolic.