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

It’s actually really sad isn’t it @RobertaFirmino, the heart implications can be devastating.
The learning disabilities can be absolutely devastating too, never mind the aggression.
More often than not independent living even when supported cannot be achieved. Nobody wants to choose that for their child.

[quote Suzy39]@Lalliella a fetcide is done injecting the heart in utreo with analgesia[/quote]
I’m sorry I asked, I hope my question hasn’t upset anyone this has happened to and I’ve reported it to be deleted. That must be an unimaginably awful thing for a woman to go through

@Staryflight445

I sadly sense that a lot of posters in this comment sections don’t understand how bad DS can actually be.

Another post I strongly agree with

This idea that people with DS are happy all the time and can do great things like get a job or become an actor is wishful thinking. That may be true for some but not all.

I know a family through an arthritis charity who have 2 kids, both with DS. Both with significant heart problems, both with juvenile arthritis and uveitis, one is slowly losing sight. One is deaf. Both will never be able to live independently and have regular violent outbursts.

That is their life, and it's the life for so many. But we never see that representation in the media or in this campaign.

@Babdoc

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.

This.

@tiggerwhocamefortea

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?

I didn't actually know I was pregnant till 18 weeks... so I didn't have a 12 week scan and my foetal anomaly scan was actually at 23 + 5 which is as near 24 weeks as damn it.

Not everyone is seen/screened/aware - we don't live in a perfect world. And indeed, often women who aren't seen and screened are in coercive situations (I wasn't!)

That's why it has to be as early as possible, as late as necessary.

@Covidworries

Im pro choice too BUT a pregnancy can not be terminated after 24 weeks in most cases. After 24 weeks if the fetus isnt viable is different BUT DS shouldnt be a reason to terminate. Currently a DS baby can be terminated up to term and that isnt right as DS doesnt mean the child isnt viable or would be unable to servive outside of the womb. Plus DS isnt the only thing a child can be born with that causes learning difficulties but most learning disabilities cant be checked in the womb so the ruling has been a kick in the face for the DS community by stating their life isnt as important as a non DS life regardless of any oyher disabilities or not.

So you’re not actually pro choice. And that’s ok, but at least be honest about it.

I imagine the numbers actually terminating that late is very low but if it was made illegal what would happen to the baby after birth?

Raising a disabled child is incredibly difficult. This lady is high functioning and articulate. That’s not the case with all babies born with Ds. Add to that literally no available support, the constant fight for decent education. After education there is then a void of no support or services leaving everything to parents again. I know we’re going through this at present. I’ll be caring for my son until I die probably and then who does it? A group of us have been trying to find decent placements for our adult children for months now. There are none. The places that have vacancies have no staff.

Termination should always be an option.

I’m sorry I asked, I hope my question hasn’t upset anyone this has happened to and I’ve reported it to be deleted. That must be an unimaginably awful thing for a woman to go through

I don't agree. This is a much needed discussion and facts like that need to be known. Thank you to those who have shared what must have been heart breaking situations.

It's none of Heidi Crowder's business what other women do with their bodies.

People with disabilities are quite often against screening. Deaf people, autistic people have been vocal about not being screened for

Yes that's all well and good, but it's not so much about them as the women who will have to look after them and may not be able to.

@cloudacious

People saying Heidi has been manipulated are incredibly disablist and rude. She's articulate and perfectly capable of taking this position.

Personally, I don't think DS should be a special case re abortion and is not a reason to terminate a viable baby. It isn't that kind of disability. We expect every other woman to go through with a viable pregnancy after viability because choice is not the only ethical consideration. No one needs to bring up a baby if they don't want to but no, it is wrong to kill a child who is recognisably a baby and could lead a fulfilling life (as Heidi demonstrates, clearly inconveniently for some).

What ‘kind of disability’ do you think DS is? How can a mother determine whether the baby will be able to have a ‘fulfilling’ life or not?

@lalliella it is awful to go through, but I hope actually your comment doesn't get deleted because surely it shows that people are labelling those who have TFMRs awful murderers. Yet you can see just by this thread how hard it is for people to make that choice.
It is not a choice I ever wanted to make and despite it being the right one for my family and the baby we lost, I feel guilt everyday. I have flashbacks. It's hard.
Yet I would never change my decision and I hope women are always able to make their own decisions in pregnancy.
Terminations for medical reasons and late abortions are there for a reason. They're not a picnic and the baby doesn't disappear.
In fact, it's often interesting to me that we say "no woman should be forced to give birth" because actually no matter when the abortion is done that's often what ends up happening.
I've had 4 pregnancies and I have two living children. My first pregnancy was a miscarriage at 8 weeks and my tfmr was at 22+4. Each time I've experienced pain and delivered my baby. No way would I wish the suffering of losing a baby on anyone and I definitely wouldn't wish a tfmr on anyone.
Having to sign the papers to end your baby's life, lying very still while their heart is stopped, waiting to check it has worked, going through labour to deliver a baby who is no longer alive.
I just wish people would think properly before saying "the poor baby"

And I've just realised that seems a dig st you @Lalliella. It wasn't at all, the opposite in fact.

No human being is legally required to donate as much as an ounce of blood for another living human being, including their own children at this time. So I see no reason why women should legally be required to be hosts to foetuses who are not independently living human beings. I think they owe more to their living children than they do to potential children and that they are the sole arbiters of what goes on in their own bodies.

Don’t worry the feeling’s mutual 480Widdio.

This thread is definately food for thought.
I am sorry it has been triggering and upsetting for so many.

I started reading and commenting on this thread foccused on the rights of individuals.

I have a pretty good understamding of DS but also other disabilities which cant be screaned prior to birth.
Thats one of the reasons we didnt opt for DS screening. I have experienced disability from mild to extreme both DS and other. My view was when you have a baby you dont know what you will get.

One of our children has quite challanging needs but these wouldnt be have been picked up by screening as a fetus and i cant imagine life without that child.

I do understand that most late term abortions are due to more complex needs and my heart and thoughts are with those families.

I dont know what the answer is but clearly makong life even more difficult for families having to decide on late stage abortion isnt an option.

But equally i dont want to be in a society where peoples worth comes down to havkng or not having a diagnosis.

Thank you everyone for your insights, it has definately made me think about mpre than the surface obvious angle

Yes that's all well and good, but it's not so much about them as the women who will have to look after them and may not be able to.

In fairness, it is about both and that's the problem. There is a conflict.

I understand that this is a very emotive subject and I'm genuinely sorry for anyone on either side of the argument who has been upset by it. I'm sorry, too, if I have inadvertently offended anyone with any of my posts, I have tried to be sensitive. I absolutely believe people when they say that these decisions are never taken lightly because I can only imagine how incredibly painful it must be to make that decision. However, these are important moral questions and we cannot simply shut down the debate because it is upsetting.

I'm delighted the ruling went the way it did. Women are not there to be breeding machines to maintain the population of people with DS. If a woman wants to carry on with that pregnancy, that's great for her and I hope her/child get all the supports they need (they won't but that's another story). If she decides raising a child with DS isn't what she wants, I'll back her decision 100%.

In future maybe we'll have the ability to test for other conditions while the foetus is in the womb and I hope women then will also be able to exercise choice over their bodies and futures.

And to answer your question OP, I bet Heidi is funded by the American pro-life religious groups. They're so fond of interfering in other countries legal/democratic systems. Any Irish person around for the abortion ref will remember it.

I echo those who say that the stereotype of the happy smiling downs syndrome child is just that. A stereotype. And not a particularly representative one.

Others have outlined clearly how much more complex and disabling the condition can be. I don't intend to repeat that.

I add that, in my experience, even if a child meets the 'happy, smiling, loving' stereotype, then their adulthood can be bleak. There's two reasons for that. Firstly, DS is strongly associated with early onset, severe dementia, which not infrequently causes real confusion, violent outbursts and inconsolable distress to the individual.

Secondly, this happens just as the parents get elderly and are no longer able to cope with an adult-sized child who is confused, distressed, agitated and violent. I have seen a number of individuals go from being loved, happy and well-cared for to deteriorating rapidly in a residential setting, in really a very few years.

I make two arguments. Firstly, late-term abortions are thankfully rare. No woman chooses to have a TFMR lightly. It's a heartbreakingly awful outcome to a much wanted pregnancy. As such, it should be a decision made by the woman with the assistance of her doctors, and noone else.

Secondly, Heidi Crowther's activism would do much more for the lives of people with Downs if she used her platform to advocate for improved social care and support for these individuals. That - unlike this legal case - could make a real difference.

It is difficult.
I've had experience with both sides a family member terminating a baby girl with DS and an uncle who had a very fulfilled life until he was 44, he had an amazing personality.

I've a cousin too he isn't independent, his elderly parents do a great job, he can't walk anymore, he has regular carers, he eats a lot he is extremely heavy.

There are a few DC with DS in my DC school they are very independent.
But it isn't my decision to judge a woman who terminates a late baby with DS.

A baby (unborn or otherwise) or foetus or whatever you want to call it, is not part of “a woman’s body”, it’s an individual life and just because it’s dependent on a woman to live until it’s born does not make it “her body”. If a termination is done for the sake of the unborn child that’s one thing, but I just think it’s odd that people keep going on about it being a woman’s choice about what to do with her body and no mention of the actual baby.

I’m extremely pro-choice, I think the law should reflect “as early as possible, as late as necessary” more fully. I wouldn’t hesitate to abort a fetus with DS - my priority is my already existing child.

@Staffy1 it isn’t an individual life, that’s the whole point.