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

I think some PPs are making the mistake of thinking Downs Syndrome is a uniform condition, consisting purely of mild learning difficulties. It is not.
It includes a whole variety of comorbidities, from oesophageal atresia to cardiac malformations, underdeveloped middle third of facial bones, airway difficulties, an increased risk of leukaemia and early dementia, and a reduced life expectancy.
Babies may require repeated major surgery. And the intellectual impairment varies from mild to severe, meaning they may never be able to live independently- a major burden for their ageing parents, who then have the worry of who will care for their adult Downs child when the parents die.
The only person who can or should make the decision re termination is the mother, after full discussion with her doctor. Whether or not we agree with her choice is immaterial, and none of our business.

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.

There's a conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. That's inescapable. In my view the current law gets the balance right. Of course there will always be debate over exactly where the line gets drawn 8n terms of both timing and the level of disability

@AlexaShutUp

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.

They shouldn't. But rolling back abortion rights is not how to address it. What needs to happen is that abortion should be available until the last minute for all women, for any reason.

I'm sorry for your loss @Suzy39
I didn't see your post before posting.

kittii. Not every child with DS is like your friend’s DD though. My friend works in a special school for children with profound SEN. The children she teaches with DS are often incredibly frustrated by their difficulties in understanding and communication. They are often angry and upset and in addition some have a whole host of physical manifestations of DS that make life very challenging for both themselves and their families. This image of happy, loving, sweet and gentle children is a stereotype. Some are indeed all these things and some are very much not. Every child with DS is different just as every child who doesn’t have DS is different. Many have a very tough time of it indeed.

I think if you’re high functioning with any disability it’s horrible to think that a baby can be aborted so late.
However nobody knows whether the baby will be high functioning or not and the time/energy/money that the parents have to give to raise that child is surely up to the parents?
I don’t know anyone who would choose to terminate that late but seeing a friend give up her life for 8 years for her ds child, all the appointments, finding a special school etc and myself spending 12 years caring for my own disabled child I don’t think I could blame someone for being honest and saying they can’t do that.

@Treaclepie19

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.

Sorry for your loss Agree it is every woman choice To decide

But Also agree to wider awareness of the potential of many people with D S and other l d ...and that it is a wide spectrum.and to encourage acceptance and support because we don't always know before birth our dc will be disabled

Putting D S in same category as Patau and Edwards is misleading

As far I understood the issue was not banning the abortion of those with disabilities such as Downs.

The issue was that if a woman is pregnant with a healthy baby, she cannot have a termination in most circumstances after 24 weeks but a baby with DS or a cleft palate or club foot can be aborted up until the point they are in the birth canal. The argument Heidi put forward was that this policy is disability discrimination as a "healthy" foetus has more rights than one with DS or other non-lifethreatening disability. She, and her supporters, were campaigning for the same limit to apply (24 weeks) and, in their eyes, equality for the disabled.

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 too.

“ 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? ”

Well I might not but I support other women’s choice.

I think any manipulation is a red herring. The case either stands or doesn’t whether it was brought someone with DS or not. The legal decision isn’t based on that (I assume).

[quote Covidworries]@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.[/quote]
Honestly yes I think as early as possible as late as necessary.

No women wanting to terminate that late is doing so for such a simplistic reason, they will have to give birth to the child ffs it's not an easy way out. Taking the option away means women face a much more difficult choice of being left to care for a child they wanted to abort.

Its not as simple as saying its just removing down syndrome. Not one person has aborted that late due to just down syndrome, it often comes with a heck of a lot more comorbidities.

On a side point did anyone else think it was weird how the BBC news article pointed out that Heidi is actually married but uses her maiden name when campaigning - how is that in any way relevant to the news story?

They shouldn't. But rolling back abortion rights is not how to address it. What needs to happen is that abortion should be available until the last minute for all women, for any reason.

@Clymene, I get where you're coming from, but I would also struggle with the idea of making abortion available to all women until the pregnancy is full term. I am absolutely pro choice but I couldn't support that. For me, I think it comes down to the point at which the foetus has a reasonable chance of surviving independently of the mother... they then become a viable person and have rights of their own.

DS is a spectrum. Some people with DS are functional, while some can’t speak or walk or even use the toilet. Some have heart problems and painful boils and abscesses on their skin, vision defects, hearing loss, weak immune systems, blood disorders, epilepsy, or behavioural problems. I don’t think it’s fair to look at functional people like Heidi and assume that all DS people would be like that. DS can be life limiting for the sufferer and for the family in terms of the burden of care. I absolutely think it has to be the mother’s decision whether or not she can cope with that.

As with many health needs, Downs Syndrome is a spectrum, ranging from people that can go on to lead very fulfilling lives, to those with multiple and severe disabilities and complex and life threatening heart problems.

Whilst Down's syndrome is screened for early, ultrasounds that can determine the physical viability of the baby arent done til much later - 18-20 weeks? With many severe issues not coming to light until the second or third trimester. It is therefore not surprising that abortions are occurring later than some people find comfortable.

The reality is that many women who opt to terminate a baby with Down's syndrome later in their pregnancy, will actually have decided to keep the baby after the screening results, but will go on to find that the health needs are so severe that they are incompatible with life - or at least any life that isn't filled with pain and ended brutally prematurely.

The fact is that there are not loads of women merrily "killing" (as someone said up thread) babies with Down's syndrome, just because they feel like it. I was lucky that my baby was healthy, but do I know whether I would choose to terminate at 28 weeks, or give birth to a baby who was almost certainly going to die? Do I fuck. No woman wants to have to make that decision.

I didn’t know you could abort up to term wouldn’t the baby feel pain?

[quote Covidworries]@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.[/quote]
We can agree to disagree.

You could say a potential person

Well it's not coming out as an E Type Jag is it? It's a baby and every pregnant woman I've ever met calls it their baby.

@Suzy39 - I'm so sorry to hear about your little boy

But the way things have evolved is that because abortion is available having a disabled child is seen as a “choice”, and therefore doesn’t need any government/ societal support.

Well that's rubbish - plenty of disabilities are not detectable before birth. We still don't support disabled people enough. The two things are unrelated. In fact it tends to be hard-line pro lifers who also don't agree with a generous welfare state to support all these babies.

In addition, looking after a disabled child can be a life sentence for parents regardless of the amount of support. And many of these people are effectively abandoned once their parents die and can no longer care for them

There are no winners at all here, the poor babies, the poor women, and even the poor medical staff having to do that.

I've always said I'm pro choice but this case has made me question myself.

@Kittii

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?

DS isn't singled out within the law, as the campaign would have you believe. It refers to disabilities likely to cause severe physical or mental impairment. Some consider Downs Syndrome to be a severe impairment.

Kitii, I have a friend who's son has DS. He is doubly incontinent, non verbal, has severe epilepsy and many other health issues. He is now in his early thirties.

My friend has no relationship with her daughter (older child) because all her time and effort was spent caring for her son to the detriment of her relationship with her daughter. Her husband left when their son was four because he couldn't cope.

Dfriend gets next to no respite. She's permanently exhausted, sad, worries about what will happen to her DS if she dies or is incapable of looking after him. It's no life.

If she had her time again she wouldn't hesitate to abort. And I wouldn't blame her for one second. The court made the right decision.

@sar302 makes a good point - perhaps the reason for late stage abortions of babies with DS is because they are found to have particular severe defects later in pregnancy. But in that case I would argue the abortion isn't due to DS, it's due to e.g. a serious heart defect.

Surely the issue is equality? Either abortion should be allowed at any stage regardless of reason, or it should be 24 weeks for all babies that are viable?

Having a different rule when ds means that foetuses with ds are afforded less rights than those without.

@FuckingFlumps but currently not every woman has the right to abort up to birth? So why is that?
So i think what you are saying is the law needs ti change so that every pregnancy can be terminated up to birth ?