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

And my deepest thoughts and sympathies to anyone who has had to go through the trauma, pain and loss of a TFMR I'm so sorry for all you've been through.

Abortion needs to be later than 24 weeks because some women won’t find out until later.
Late abortions are incredibly rare.

Heidi was a wanted baby, her parents have accepted her DS diagnosis. She’s not been in danger of being aborted. Stopping other people having abortions is just forced birth.

I have to say this as someone who would never get an abortion. I’ll stand by the right for others to have one.

Sorry from the court transcript it does seem their is a tiny number where DS is the sole reason “2019 275 terminations were carried out after 24 weeks. From the data held by the Defendant, there were 19 forms where DS was referred to, of which six also mentioned other conditions.”

However the fact it is such a rare occurrence to me simply further highlights the importance of keeping that as an available option where the Mother and her medical deem deem it best. It’s not for the courts or anyone else to remove that right.

The thing I don't quite get with very late abortions is that surely there will be a 'birth' regardless of whether the pregnancy is terminated? Why use the term 'forced birth' when it's just an inevitable result of the pregnancy at that point, isn't it? Does it mean a forced live birth? Or that remaining pregnant until full term is the forced bit? Because otherwise the logic to me is entirely the same as allowing euthanasia for disabilities.
Surely abortion has to be purely based on women not having to be pregnant when they don't want to be rather than the medical status of the foetus?

@PlusCaNameChange

The thing I don't quite get with very late abortions is that surely there will be a 'birth' regardless of whether the pregnancy is terminated? Why use the term 'forced birth' when it's just an inevitable result of the pregnancy at that point, isn't it? Does it mean a forced live birth? Or that remaining pregnant until full term is the forced bit? Because otherwise the logic to me is entirely the same as allowing euthanasia for disabilities. Surely abortion has to be purely based on women not having to be pregnant when they don't want to be rather than the medical status of the foetus?

I wonder about this too.

Either way the woman will have to give birth, the status of the fetus won’t affect her experience.

However if induction of a live baby was available at any gestation for all women, it would present the same issue in terms of inequality - for healthy babies at a decent gestation, I imagine there is a very good chance they would be adopted and live a healthy life. The disabled babies could suffer further complications as a result of their prematurity and there wouldn’t be the same demand to adopt them.

This is the essence of the matter - the only way in which babies with disabilities can enjoy the same standard of living and care as healthy ones is if they’re born to parents who want them & feel they can cope. Creating a system where disabled babies languish in the care system just creates another set of inequalities.

@PlusCaNameChange

The thing I don't quite get with very late abortions is that surely there will be a 'birth' regardless of whether the pregnancy is terminated? Why use the term 'forced birth' when it's just an inevitable result of the pregnancy at that point, isn't it? Does it mean a forced live birth? Or that remaining pregnant until full term is the forced bit? Because otherwise the logic to me is entirely the same as allowing euthanasia for disabilities. Surely abortion has to be purely based on women not having to be pregnant when they don't want to be rather than the medical status of the foetus?

I'm trying not to be harsh and upset people but, there are times when a 'live birth' would have to be a C section but termination doesn't.

Another concern is that after a live birth there is a bay who has, by law to be given appropriate medical treatment and / or palliative care.

I can totally see why a woman would want to give birth to a dead child and be able to hold it rather than give birth to a live child who is rushed away for treatment that will do no good.

Also that treatment may not be available locally so she would have to give birth away from family and support.

There are also women who have undergone surgery to eg closure of spina bifida where the surgery has not been successful.

There is also the issue of whether the current pregnancy is a 'one off' or if the parents are carriers for certain disorders, an examination of

@lljkk

Does anyone remember the news stories about late term abortion for cleft palate, maybe 12 years ago. "Cleft palate" sounds like a simple cosmetic facial problem , easily enough fixed with surgery, but it can be used to describe deformities where the skull is almost cleaved in 2. That's how I feel about Downs: it sounds simple but very often is not what you thought it was.

i was under impression that access to late term aborition isn't easy, 2 doctors have to sign it off in good conscience. I'm not imagining a better system, myself.

Re Downs: I have a cousin in mid30s with this condition. His quality of life has mostly been good, but not easy for his parents (who adore him). He's approaching end of life, now. It is profound disability.

I don't remember the cleft palate case but somehow I had a feeling that some severe cleft palate cases aren't compatible with life. I Googled to find over a 10 year periods 36 per 1000 die before the age of 4. I'd guess some of the more severely affected would already be terminated.

Up there with spina bifida, mild at one end not compatible with life at the other.

Other ladies who've had a tfmr have also said two doctors need to sign the papers.

I bet it hasn't been easy on his parents. And that's the bit people forget. It's a lifetime of fighting the system and worrying.

Thanks sashh. I can't work out how to quote your post as it's separate paragraphs but I can see there are a lot of nuances and circumstances to consider. I just find it difficult to get past the fact that we would never advocate euthanasia of children that have been born however disabled they were (or however difficult their family circumstances were). Yet this is specifically the reason for allowing late term abortions.

I just feel it muddies the waters because you couldn't legally make that choice for a healthy pregnancy at that stage AFAIK so it's really about disability rather than choice per se.

I'm a bit torn because I know and hugely sympathise with a couple of people who went through TFMR and I would never judge them or want to add to their heartbreak, but unless the medical reasons are incompatibility with life then to my mind it's morally ambiguous to say the least. It does mean fewer children with disabilities in the system if parents don't want to keep them, fewer parents going through the hardship and worries of caring for a disabled child. Maybe it means less suffering all round. But then we should be honest and say we don't think some lives are worth living, since that's what it comes down to.

The answer is to remove the 24 week time limit.

This is not the same as full decriminalisation (which I am in favour of but I think is currently an unrealistic goal).

In England, Scotland & Wales we do not have abortion on demand at ANY stage of pregnancy (NI law is different).

Even before 24 weeks, the law says that you need two medical practitioners to be of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the continuance of your pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to your physical or mental health, or any existing children in your family.

It's not the case that if the time limit were removed, women would just be able to rock up and demand an abortion in the final weeks of pregnancy, 'just because'. You can't do that at 20 weeks, or 12 weeks, or 8 weeks ...

You shouldn’t be able to @LangClegsInSpace but it seems to me that in practice we do have abortion on demand, at least up to 12 weeks. A thread on the subject recently related women saying they’d had terminations for reasons that wouldn’t meet the legal threshold.

Pre 12 weeks the only threshold at all should be the woman has made the choice of her own free will to end the pregnancy. Personally I would apply the same for the whole duration of the pregnancy but obviously with clear guidance and support for the woman along the process

@Sirzy

Pre 12 weeks the only threshold at all should be the woman has made the choice of her own free will to end the pregnancy. Personally I would apply the same for the whole duration of the pregnancy but obviously with clear guidance and support for the woman along the process

That may be what you think the threshold should be. The fact remains that legally it isn’t. I suspect the law’s being broken constantly.

It's difficult to comment on this case because to me there are various different issues, abortion, disability and discrimination. These issues are often overlapping and intertwined. I think it has to be very clear what people's ultimate aim is and try to focus on that. Reducing the time to 24 weeks would possibly suggest equality and therefore decrease discrimination, but at the same time it would reduce women's choice and therefore people's views on abortion are called into play, putting aside all talk of disability. If the objective was to extend all abortion limit to term for all pregnancies, with or without disability present, then I believe it would have increased equality, but for one reason or another they chose to not ask for that, and I feel that's an important question to answer.

Posted too soo, I meant it is important to ask why they chose to ask for a limit of 24 weeks,rather than an extending for all pregnancies. Both would have brought about the same rules for all

That's a good point easterndreaming. I'm not sure many people would support scrapping the limit for all pregnancies though. I know quite a few MN posters do say allow abortion up to full term but I'm not convinced it's a mainstream position.

Suzy39

Thank you for posting.

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?

A viable pregnancy has nothing to do with it. A pregnancy can be viable even though the dc might have a life expectancy of hours.

I think by posing the question you have in this manner, you are minimising and belittling the harrowing experiences some parents have to live through. I can’t possibly comment on whether or not I would terminate a pregnancy at 38 weeks because I have thankfully never been through a situation where it would have been an option. I assume that anyone who has made that difficult decision has done so after a lot of heartache and soul searching after being presented with all of the potential outcomes. I don’t judge them, I feel dreadfully sorry for them having to decide the right course of action to minimise suffering for their unborn child.

@PlusCaNameChange

That's a good point easterndreaming. I'm not sure many people would support scrapping the limit for all pregnancies though. I know quite a few MN posters do say allow abortion up to full term but I'm not convinced it's a mainstream position.

I'm on the allow up to term, mainly because I never want someone pushed into a decision "you need to have the procedure by Wednesday but you won't have results until Friday"

Or in the case of someone who's baby has deteriorated and more information comes to light at a late stage, babies can have strokes in the womb, or potentially develop cancer.

I imagine it must be horrendous and nobody would take the decision lightly

What is the basis for the 24 week limit?

@Blossomtoes

You shouldn’t be able to *@LangClegsInSpace* but it seems to me that in practice we do have abortion on demand, at least up to 12 weeks. A thread on the subject recently related women saying they’d had terminations for reasons that wouldn’t meet the legal threshold.

Being denied bodily autonomy is always likely to be injurous to women's mental health.

Two medical practitioners must decide if the continuance of your pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to your physical or mental health.

In the early weeks of pregnancy that's a no brainer.

@Sirzy

Pre 12 weeks the only threshold at all should be the woman has made the choice of her own free will to end the pregnancy. Personally I would apply the same for the whole duration of the pregnancy but obviously with clear guidance and support for the woman along the process

Yes, NI has abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.

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?

It's horrible to put it in terms of being "happy". Who would be "happy"? It's about making the best choices you can in a horrible situation.

@easterndreaming

Posted too soo, I meant it is important to ask why they chose to ask for a limit of 24 weeks,rather than an extending for all pregnancies. Both would have brought about the same rules for all

Ah right I'm with you!

Because primarily they are an anti abortion lobby group. They want to chip away at rights of mums.
Yes allowing all abortions to term would have the same result as only allowing abortions to 24 was.

If they get the limit brought down to 24 weeks for all babies, their next step would he 20 weeks, and the argument 24 weeks needs to stand to allow people to make decisions after 20 week scan, wouldn't wash because that's then discrimination against babies with issues.

It is seriously about chipping away at rights.

Completely agree @Lockdownbear