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

@pantsandpringles

I’m in favour of a woman terminating for that reason, or a variety of other reasons, or even no real reason at all. Because no one owns their body and until a fetus can survive on its own, then its up to the woman if she wishes to continue with the pregnancy or not

This law is about foetuses that can absolutely survive on their own, though. Current law allows termination up to birth in these cases, not the normal 24 weeks. That is the whole point of her argument.

I think women should make their own decision on that.
She doesn't have the right to dictate to others, just because she has Downs Syndrome.

Heidi Crowter'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.

Totally agree with this.

I think abortion laws should be equitable for those that have a manageable disability to those that have no visible disability.

I wonder if autism was a similarly variable, single chromosome mutation how would things pan out?

People would lose their shit, even though many people with DS have a much better quality of life than many people with autism.

Anyway, I think to understand this you have to understand why the law restricts post-viability abortions in the first place. The fact is that while most people do not consider a fetus just a nothing as you get close to the birth. People begin to see it more as a living thing that requires protections, maybe the same as an infant, or maybe more like a pet, depending on their POV, but a living creature in any case. So the law at that point looks to balance the good of the mother against that of the baby.

Here is the tricky point, I think - from the POV of the fetus as a living being, the week before the birth and the week after there is almost zero difference in their development. You could choose to do a section the week before and what you would be holding would be a perfectly normal infant, disabled or not. It's an arbitrary date developmentally except so far as in the week prior, the mother's body is in the picture as well, which then affects the mother's bodily autonomy. So it's not about the infant, so much as about the mother, and the exceptions are meant to reflect that.

What disabled people are afraid of is that the logic around the value of the disabled will be followed to it's logical conclusion, as is so often the case when social changes like this happen. The question then becomes, if it is ok to want to abort a disabled infant, who may have a perfectly reasonable QOL, a week before the birth, why not the day it's born, when the infant is no different than 24 hours previously? That sounds like it's crazy on the face of it to most people, they recoil, but historically that is not an unusual approach,. People can and have thought this way, frequently. It could equally be justified in terms of cost and responsibility for the parents. And as euthanasia becomes more accepted, for more things, it is difficult to say that western culture could never go in that direction - there is a reason many disabled people are also very alarmed by that kind of legislation.

It really gets into the issue of, who has a life worth living?

In my view, it is up to the woman to make that decision. Women are allowed to have abortions for all sorts of reasons and some of those reasons might not be palatable to others, but she is the one who has to go through pregnancy, labour and the responsibility of caring for a child up to adulthood and beyond.

Not all people with Downs Syndrome are as able as the young woman who brought this action. Some require a great deal of lifelong support and some have significant health problems too. Not all parents have the emotional and physical resilience to deal with this, especially people who have other child care responsibilities or who are in a low income household and need to go out to work.

I agree. It's a little like saying a pregnancy of a girl in a country as fucked up towards women as Afghanistan currently is should terminate as their live will be so burdeness.

Here is the tricky point, I think - from the POV of the fetus as a living being, the week before the birth and the week after there is almost zero difference in their development

But there’s a huge amount of change that happens at birth! The placental circulation is lost, blood flow redirects through the lungs which have to go from fluid filled to air filled, open up and stretch out their blood vessels, lung blood pressure falls, the path of blood through the heart changes, oxygen saturations go from 50% to 90% and brain activity changes in response. And these changes are much more difficult to achieve in babies with Down syndrome, which is partly why they don’t survive very well being born preterm- the equivalent survival of an average 24 weeker is pushed to over 28 weeks if the baby has Downs.

Nobody carries a baby to 24 weeks without loving it and dreaming of its future.
Not every woman gets her 20 weeks scan on time, maybe a more detailed scan at a different facility, discussions with consultants, time to think, make decision, get the procedure booked and carried out. I can easily see how it can be over the 24 weeks.

But if you remove that exception then your forcing women to rush the decision. In some cases it will be very black and white that a condition isn't compatible with life. The more grey the more scans and discussions are required.

I can't even work out who'd want to adopt a severely disabled child. If they become ling term Foster carers then they get rest-bite and holidays. And when it becomes too much the council need to find them a home.
If people adopt them they become their problem and they need to fight for support.

I have a disability that women often choose to have an abortion for. It's one with various degrees of disability so you could end up having a child that needs 24/7 care their whole life.
I am 100% behind women choosing to have an abortion - it doesn’t devalue my life, I don’t feel like anyone thinks I'm worth less. Their choice is what's right for their life and no-one else should get a say.

The right decision was made.

I am so very glad this lady has a voice. I am not glad about the way this was portrayed in the media. It was implied that the current law had women deciding that they wanted to “get rid of” their otherwise healthy baby at 39 weeks. The statistics and experiences of women whose babies have significant disabilities are very different.

I had a TFMR at 22 weeks after our 20 week scan (and follow ups) showed us our son wasn’t going to make it. I could easily have been a post 24 week termination.

The current law covers far worse conditions than DS, although the variety of ways that can impact people is significant, everything from causing miscarriage/stillbirth, through to a healthy adult.

The law covers women who find out there is a major problem after their 20 week scan. It covers those who know there is a problem but have been monitoring and hoping for a miracle that didn’t come. It covers those who have struggled with their decision to terminate, but know it is best for them, their baby, their family.

No woman chooses a late term abortion for any other reason.

In 2020, there were 236 post 24 week abortions. I can’t see that data, but assume the majority of those are closer to 24 than 40 weeks. Of those, some Bavaria, I’m sure, has DS. Others, like my son, would have had far worse conditions.

I also believe this change would be counter intuitive. I think rushing women into a decision after a DS diagnosis is more likely to result in them terminating than not. Those women who decide to monitor their baby’s health would no longer have that option.

This law is used in exceptional circumstances, which is why the definitions need to be broad. Most people are fortunate enough to never find themselves in one of those exceptional situations.

My days of having Bavaria are behind me, but I hope the law remains to protect women like me in the future. I had the right to decide that I didn’t want to have a later term still birth. I had to right to choose to spare my son a short life of suffering. I am so grateful I had that right and that this is not being taken away from women like me.

Nobody carries a baby to 24 weeks without loving it and dreaming of its future.

That's simply not true and shows a very limited understanding of why women may seek late terminations.

They have all my sympathy but I don't believe they are all justified. There does come a point when society should also consider the ethics of ending the life of an unborn child.

Most posters here seem to be comfortable with terminations for any reason up to birth. That is a different conversation to having different ethical guidelines for terminations relating to dusability. You can't discuss both things together without constant misunderstandings.

If Heidi is against abortion, then she doesn't have to have one. It's not her place - or anyone else's place - to say that other women should be forced to carry on with pregnancies they don't wish to.

Very, very few women will ever take the opportunity to terminate very late. When they do, they should be offered swift support and care, not be forced to act as vessels and given no control over their own bodies.

Good decision. Considering that post 24 week abortions for ALL medical reasons (not just DS) are less than 1% of abortions carried out, the number after 24 weeks for DS will be incredibly small. With regards specifically to DS, knowing how high or low functioning a child with DS will be can't be known before they're born. There are a myriad of possible issues;

Heart defects
Gastrointestinal defects.
Immune disorders.
Sleep apnea.
Obesity.
Spinal problems.
Leukemia.
Dementia.
Increased risk of developing Alzheimer's disease.
Associated other health conditions - endocrine problems, dental problems, seizures, ear infections, and hearing and vision problems.

And that's all before you consider how lacking the country is for good, quality, accessible services for the Disabled in general, or indeed whether an already existing family unit can take on the additional needs. No woman should be made to feel guilty or denied access to abortion when considering all the above. Not one.

I think it is a red herring or Trojan horse in many ways.
In my opinion, it's irrelevant what issues a foetus has or doesn't have. I don't give a damn. I don't care if screening can effectively remove something - a type of people, from the world. It's a woman's choice. And should be up until birth for any reason imo. It's not my right to force her to carry a baby and look after it or suffer putting it into a care system that is already buckling under.
This decision was a just one.

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”

It doesn't matter if it's not actually her body. It's dependent on her body, and therefore, by her own bodily autonomy, she has the right to stop anyone or anything (foetus/baby or otherwise) using her body. It's not her fault something relies on her, is essentially leeching off her. Why do her rights to bodily autonomy suddenly not matter? FGS we can't even take the organs from dead people to save others lives without the permission of the DEAD person because they have a right to bodily autonomy. Why are the rights of dead people more sacred than the rights of women?

As early as possible as late as necessary.

No one has the right to 'leech' off another human for survival, no matter how much or little it would affect the person being leeched off. It's why we don't have forced blood or bone marrow or kidney donations, no matter how many lives it would save. Bodily autonomy is sacred and cases like this, all the notions of 'I'm pro-choice but' chop away at it.

No one has the right to any other persons body. That includes leukaemia sufferers who just need the right bone marrow transplant, kidney patients who only need one kidney, and don't you most people have 2 and could survive fine with just one, liver patients - they only need half and the donors liver will fully regenerate in afew months, and foetuses who depend on another's body to sustain them.

I know this is an incredibly fraught and emotional subject but I think Heidi has a point.
DS can be a life limiting illness and can have comorbidities, the most common of which is the hole in the heart which will most likely need surgery. But with proper treatment and care, people with DS can live a relatively long life (I don't believe they usually get past about 60, with rare exceptions).

I don't think that people should be allowed to terminate a baby with DS after the standard 24w. There are enough tests available prior to that to determine whether or not the baby has DS, so the decision can and should be made well before term. But I have never been in that position, so I can't know what I'd do or feel. I have a friend who has been in that position, who chose to go ahead, and her child is utterly delightful.
I understand that some people can't handle the idea of a child with disabilities - but then their responsibility to themselves is to test early as needed.

I think this was specifically aimed at Down’s syndrome who as we all many can grow up and leave perfectly normal lives.

Having had some personal experience of DS in the family, I am very wary of those who seek to underplay or minimise the impact that the condition can (and often does) have on the individual with DS and their family.

It's interesting that they have chosen someone like Heidi who is clearly extremely high functioning to be the face of this movement. She is obviously articulate and seems to care deeply about the issue but I would also argue she has one of the more socially acceptable forms of the condition. Like how they use young children and toddlers with rosy cheeks and bright eyes in a disproportionate amount of literature you see on DS.

What you see less is the non verbal adults with DS that need full time care. You rarely see the obese middle aged person with DS suffering early onset dementia. You don't see the elderly parents fretting and worrying about what will happen to their child with DS when they are no longer around. You don't see the frustration and anger of some higher functioning adults with DS who want to live 'normal' lives and through a combination of lack of support from government services and limitations due to DS, simply can't access so many things that most adults take for granted.

Generally I am pro-choice and believe in the woman's ability to choose what happens to her body, but I am an even bigger proponent of it in cases such as this due to the high level of additional demands a child with DS can place on a mother and their families. I don't think it's at all desirable for women to have unwanted babies in general for a myriad of reasons and unfortunately the future for an unwanted baby with DS is potentially even bleaker due to an overburdened state system and a reluctance of people to adopt children with higher needs. I can't stress enough from what I have seen how involved most families are with their adult children with DS. This is a lifetime commitment and should only be made willfully and with a full understanding of what it means now and in the future.

People forget it’s not about ‘baby’s right to live’. This isn’t about Heidi, she has absolutely zero right to dictate other women what to do with their body. It’s so hypocrite to say she is doing this for human right reasons, when she’s actively trying to take women’s human right to bodily autonomy.
I have zero sympathy for this entitled point of view and I am glad she lost the case.

*trying to take away

I think a woman has the right at any point to say "I don't want to be pregnant anymore" but doesn't have the right to say "and the baby can't live". If the baby can't survive without the mother then there's nothing the state can do but if the baby can survive without the mother then it has the same right to treatment and care as anyone.

People also forget it’s about the bigger picture, if the court ruled in her favor, the door would open to others who want to limit women’s right to abortion for other reasons. It’s a slippery slope.

@Pikamoo

I think a woman has the right at any point to say "I don't want to be pregnant anymore" but doesn't have the right to say "and the baby can't live". If the baby can't survive without the mother then there's nothing the state can do but if the baby can survive without the mother then it has the same right to treatment and care as anyone.

I mean the right of the woman to have an abortion should always prevail above the right of the fetus to not be aborted. Ofcourse if the fetus can survive with medical support after terminating the pregnancy this should absolutely be given but my point is that women should as you say, “I don’t want to be pregnant anymore”