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

[LangClegsInSpace]

You say never to ‘personhood’ but the fetus already has some rights and considerations according to most legal systems. Its not something that will happen, it’s already happened.

You want to change the status quo, basically.

Go and read the judgment.

This case failed because the judge confirmed that a foetus does not have personhood or rights

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/crowter-v-secretary-of-state-for-health-and-social-care/

[Balonzette]

The idea that a baby can be aborted up to birth is absolutely horrifying.

[ScumbagDave]

I know it must be such a painful choice for the parents who choose to abort a short time before birth. It must also be awful for the doctors. I know a junior doctor who said that when they were training and some of them had to assist at later term abortions, it was just traumatic.

While the decision has to lie with the mother, the affect on other people is difficult to ignore.

Also yes, you can't compare DS and conditions like Edwards. I know people who have had both (different families). The Edwards baby died almost immediately. So heartbreaking. The DS baby went on to mainstream school and has a very full life. Not minimising the experiences of parents to DS children who aren't as fortunate. It can vary so much, I know.

[FuckingFlumps]

@Balonzette

The idea that a baby can be aborted up to birth is absolutely horrifying.

Yes imagine getting so close to birth and having to make such an awful and yet brave choice to prevent the suffering of a likely much wanted child before it is born.

Thank goodness in reality it very rarely happens and that you've never found yourself in such harrowing situation to have to make such a horrifying choice.

[AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken]

The only thing this debate makes me feel is complete gratitude that I’ve never been in the position to have to make a decision like this.
The thought of full term terminations does upset me but I’m sure it upsets the mother much more. I don’t think I can make any judgement when it’s such an extreme situation that I have no experience of.

[Suzy39]

@ISpyCobraKai

UsedUpUsername
Terminations just before 24 weeks, as in 23+5 don't necessarily mean the woman has to give birth.
It can be done under general anesthesia.

No it isn't

You are induced and give birth naturally. Only if there is medical reason would a c section be performed (under local). How do I know? I had one.



I am going to leave this thread as the dumb-ass comments are really starting to rile me from people who know nothing of what they are saying.

[olivehater]

It’s OK to say level things up by allowing termination up to any age but medical professionals still have to do it. They are more able to justify it if it has a severe medical abnormality.
I myself have assisted feticides with ultrasound over 30 weeks gestation for very severe cases that took time to get a diagnosis. They are awful for everyone involved. They are few and far between. I remember the obstetrician shaking whilst doing one. I am happy to be involved and believe women that should have this option but no I would refuse be involved if it was not for a fetal abnormality.

[ISpyCobraKai]

Suzy39
I had one at 23+5.
I didn't have to give birth.
It was a BPAS clinic that I went to 14yrs ago.

[Mjfdrjjbf]

@olivehater that’s a really good point and I’m ashamed to say something I hadn’t given much thought to. In practice I suspect it wouldn’t ever really come up but of course clinicians need protection too.

I think if I had to sum up this thread - it’s very, very complicated and difficult, and any simple answers will be wrong.

I really appreciate that so many people have contributed different viewpoints though, even when for some people that will have been really painful.

[Mjfdrjjbf]

@Suzy39 and @ISpyCobraKai I’m so sorry for your loss

[pointythings]

olivehater but in reality it would be for something like severe foetal abnormality. Do you really believe that women would just decide to have late terminations for no reason? The one case in recent years where a woman demanded termination at 38 weeks when her baby was healthy was someone who turned out to have very serious mental health problems, and the termination was not granted.

[pointythings]

And this thread is an example of MN at its finest - reasoned debate and mutual respect.

[Tillysfad]

My personal view is that rather than termination on demand at any gestation, we should have termination on demand until (for example) 28 weeks, and induction on demand thereafter. At this point there is a very good chance of the baby surviving without major health issues, and finding a home for them shouldn’t be too difficult as there is huge demand to adopt small heathy babies

It certainly seems like the answer until you start considering the doctors who would be asked to go against everything they're trained to do-bringing babies into the world who would struggle needlessly and face expensive, painful NICU care with greater risks of long term damage. They would never ever do it

[Lockdownbear]

I was thinking that too induction on demand really isn't a good idea for either Mum or Baby.
For a healthy baby it's lots of medical intervention and risks of disability.
For an already poorly baby, who knows if it will be easier or worse, I can't imagine it would be easy.

[Embracelife]

My personal view is that rather than termination on demand at any gestation, we should have termination on demand until (for example) 28 weeks, and induction on demand thereafter. At this point there is a very good chance of the baby surviving without major health issues, and finding a home for them shouldn’t be too difficult as there is huge demand to adopt small heathy babies


So what do you mean?
Like forced adoption?

But surely prem babies need help like NICU
They don't just survive with no help
Why would you allow forced prem babies?

[RobertaFirmino]

@Balonzette

The idea that a baby can be aborted up to birth is absolutely horrifying.

I find the idea that a baby can be born into a life where it will know nothing but excruciating pain far worse.

[olivehater]

Pointythings No I don’t think it would happen. And you wouldn’t get many people to do it. But the 24 week cut off makes it’s simpler for everybody. It feels right and we aim to diagnose abnormalities before or close that date as well. For instance a repeat anatomy scan needs to be done by 23 weeks. We aim for fast referral to fetal medicine if we pick anything up at the 20 week scan. The majority of the things we pick up at this stage tend to be minor or catastrophic. The screening for chromosome abnormalities is earlier. But occasionally you get people that initially refused screening but when faced with say a heart abnormality decide they need screening such an amnio. So you are picking up DS with extra complications.
The really late feticides I have seen have often because they were waiting on the results of an MRI, frustratingly, normally severe forms of spinabifida where it was necessary to work out of the fetus could survive or not.
It’s just feels odd to change the law to increase the legal termination for healthy fetuses just the set some sort of example.

[Suzy39]

@ISpyCobraKai

Suzy39
I had one at 23+5.
I didn't have to give birth.
It was a BPAS clinic that I went to 14yrs ago.

So you must have had a C section?

Babies that geststion are 25cm in length and between 1 and 1.5lb. They don't get taken away by fairies.

[ISpyCobraKai]

No I didn't have a cesarean either.

I'm well aware how it was taken away, I experienced it but thanks for that.
Any more guilt trips?

[olivehater]

Suzy is there any need for that kind of language? I think I spy knows what happened to here.

[ISpyCobraKai]

It'll always happen, I'm not allowed to feel ok about it.
It wasn't a situation I wanted to be in, the procedure wasn't fun, but I have no regrets.

Someone will always want me and others in the same situation to beat themselves up about it forever.
The mad thing is, at first, I felt guilty for not feeling guilty

[thesearelaughterlines]

@Suzy39 you are being totally cruel insensitive and downright nasty

It's not rocket science .. terminations are done medically and surgically
Why don't you just go away

To all of you ladies who are affected in your own individual way by this thread , I send you a virtual hug

[LangClegsInSpace]

Thank you for your work, olivehater, you do a tremendously difficult and important job

To be clear, this case was not about increasing the legal termination for healthy foetuses. The claimants sought to decrease the time limit for terminations where the foetus has medical problems likely to result in serious disability.

The reason these additional questions have been raised is because of how the claimants framed their arguments around disability discrimination.

The judge rightly dismissed the claims of direct discrimination. A foetus does not have personhood, does not have human rights and cannot bring a discrimination claim.

But they also claimed that having different time limits affects attitudes towards all disabled people, sending the message that their lives are worth less. They argued that this constitutes indirect discrimination towards all disabled people, who obviously do have full human rights.

The judge also rejected this argument because the claimants had failed to show a direct link, but went on to say that even if there was a link that showed indirect discrimination it would still be lawful because it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

As the judge outlined at 113:

If we reach the stage of justification and must assess the proportionality of the measure, it is common ground that the well-known four stage test applies:

(1) Is the aim or objective of the interference sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a fundamental right?

(2) Is the interference rationally connected to such aim or objective?

(3) Could a less intrusive measure have been used?

(4) Having regard to these matters and to the severity of the interference, has a fair balance been struck between the rights of the individual and the general interests of the community?

If the time limit was removed then this would undoubtedly be a less intrusive measure. Especially as nobody would use it anyway. It would be completely unobtrusive.

This is the weakest part of the claimants' argument and the weakest part of the judgment because the judge just skipped over it and ruled that the current law struck a fair balance.

The claimants are going to appeal and they won't appeal on this point, obviously, because they don't want the time limit to be removed. However, they may well lose on this point if it's well argued.

Removing the time limit would not be just to set some sort of example, it would be to safeguard women's current abortion rights while preventing discrimination against disabled people.

[easterndreaming]

I just wanted to say that this is such an important subject, and I have found this thread very informative. It's important to be able to discuss issues that often are not spoken about. I can understand why, they are things that scare us and it is easier to not speak of them, but just because they scare us it doesn't mean they don't happen and for the women and families that have to face them, well that's their reality, they can't turn a blind eye to what is happening, whether that be the termination of a pregnancy or the realisation that the family you have will inevitably change life in an unimaginable way. It's essential that we keep listening to differing opinions, otherwise we will fossilise in our thoughts, and be less able to connect with the people around us. Thank you to everyone who has shared their stories.

[Mjfdrjjbf]

@olivehater

* The screening for chromosome abnormalities is earlier. But occasionally you get people that initially refused screening but when faced with say a heart abnormality decide they need screening such an amnio. So you are picking up DS with extra complications.*

I might be being overly sensitive here, or the way you’ve worded this might not be quite how I’m interpreting it… but there is a suggestion that if only parents had known about DS earlier they’d terminate, not that the problematic factor - for parents who’ve refused screening and so have taken an active decision that they’d be comfortable parenting a child with T21 - is complex abnormalities that might be found at the 20w scan, rather than DS per se.

Parents coming up against these attitudes creates a distrust between parents of children with DS and clinicians, and is at least part of the reason why this case has been brought in the first place.

I got turned away from A&E with my child because the doctor felt I “was still coming to terms with the T21 diagnosis” and so rejected my legitimate concerns. I had to go back after shift change over to get emergency care for her. This stuff isn’t just an issue in maternity care, it becomes diagnostic overshadowing etc later on.