Oh FFS I am shaking... has there been a thread yet about Minette Marin's unbelievable column on babies with Down's syndrome?

[emkana]

words fail me

kiddiz, I can understand what you are saying. I do think it is tough to have a child with sn. It doesn't mean you don't love your ds with all your heart.

My ds2 suffered from terrible eczema when he was younger - he was absolutely covered from head to foot and I found that (and his special diet) an absolute nightmare. Heaven only knows how I would have coped with anything else!!!

Adult services (where I am at least) are excellent.I work with kids and adults so see both. Once the ridiculous demands of the National Curriculum are removed, a lot of young peopel can focus on what is really going to be of use to them (instead of crap like God awful 'Asdan challenge' crap)

Translated as teacher spending hours putting fancy folders together while sadi kids twiddle thumbs.

Although JJ is right and times have changed for the better - life is unrecognisable now compared to what happened to my great-uncle, who lived in an institution his whole life where he was well-looked after but patronised and never, for instance, taught to read.

Edam it was only in the ??? 80's I think (may have been 70's - in my lifetime anyway) that people with LD's became legally entitled to an education.

Of course their prospects have changed now they're receiving an education.

And more and more adult services are offering a chance to continue education. That's what we're hoping that ds1 will be able to access.

Beanieb, but you didn?t say you would terminate a baby with downs, you said, ?I would almost certainly choose to terminate if I knew my child was at high risk of being downs?. How high a risk? Would you even wait for the confirmation from an amnio? Or would you terminate if your risk came back as, oh, 1 in 10? 100? 250?

People do terminate pregnancies when downs is detected. I don?t understand why but 91% of women obviously feel differently to me, and although I think I should have the right to disapprove in the same way this ignorant woman seems to disapprove of women who go on to have ?damaged? babies and create ?damaged? families, obviously it?s their life and their choice. But to terminate a pregnancy based on a risk alone I find incredible. I don?t find it unbelieveable because my own mother did exactly that, and terminated a pregnancy because she didn?t want to risk having another disabled child (I am blind but that is all but clearly she couldn?t deal with that). But to be so unaccepting of disability that you would choose to terminate based on a risk alone? Words fail me really.

wrinklytum wider society does not think that children or adults with sn are worthless .

My first son was born with xxxxy syndrome which was not picked up on till he was 5 months , it would not be picked up on any scans and although we only had him until he was 14mths old I would not have missed a moment of my time with him . And yes maybe our family did become damaged after we lost him but that was because we lost our beautiful boy and nothing to do with his sn . Most of which would have become more apparent in later life and not as a baby .

I don't begrudge him any of the so called damage he caused our family .

The woman is an idiot

I hope so too. I'm sure my great-uncle could have been taught to read. Tragic that no-one thought it was worth bothering.

My grandmother, his big sister, was devoted to him and kept him nearby her whole life. But even she could miss his cues - I think he was always her baby brother, IYSWIM.

Remember as a child being in the car taking him for a day out and my grandmother ignoring him when he was protesting. I was trying to tell her something was wrong but she was used to him grumbling and moaning and didn't realise her horrible husband (NOT my granddad) had shut poor Uncle Alan's hand in the car door.

"Beanieb, but you didn?t say you would terminate a baby with downs, you said, ?I would almost certainly choose to terminate if I knew my child was at high risk of being downs?. How high a risk? Would you even wait for the confirmation from an amnio? Or would you terminate if your risk came back as, oh, 1 in 10? 100? 250?"

I would have the amnio, then I would make the decision.

i'm going to stick my head above the parapet here..
when i was pregnant with dd i had all the tests for downs, and had decided that i would terminate if the tests indicated a high risk of downs. i would probably do that same again - not beacause of the reasons listed by minnette marin, but because i was terrified of being a mother anyway and was worried that a child with special needs would be beyond my ability to cope. as it is my daughter has two holes in her heart.

the article written by minnette is stupid (understatment i know), but i don't think all women who would or have chosen to terminate down's pregnancies should be judged by her flippant comments. i think she made an interesting point that some reasons are judged 'good enough' by society to have a termination....but what is a 'good enough' reason? in my opinion it is completely a matter of choice.

good post gokwancarr.

I insisted on amnios with both pregnancies, and I wouldn't have hesistated to terminate if chromosomal abnormalities had been present. No, you can't test for everything. No, a genetic abnormality does not mean severe physical health problems.

Prob not a popular view on this thread, but it's my right to choose.

thanks beanie. it's a shame minnette marin wrote such a poor article because i feel there were some elements to her argument that are worth intelligent discussion, (eg people not against abortion but against abortion for risk of SN) but she filled it up with sentiments that are, well, tripe really. 'damaged child' etc....and india knights article was good but hardly abstract debate. i could easily start ranting about my dd heart probs but that's not the point (in my view). i think, in a nutshell, that women choosing to terminate babies due to high risk of down's do not deserve to be compared to nazi's. just like children with Sn shouldn't be labelled 'damaged'.

I absolutely uphold a woman's right to choose.

However that choice should be a properly informed one not one based on this sort of crap article. Someone said further down that things are changing - they'd change a whole lot quicker if people like Minette didn't perpetuate the myth that 'those who choose differently should understand they are choosing hardship, perhaps great hardship, for their child and for their other children'. Particularly in relation to Down's Syndrome. There are things a whole lot worse than Down's and it annoys me to distraction that testing is still so Down's focussed.

I don't have anything valuable to add to this thread but just wanted to say that I admire the people like Thomcat for example who have gorgeous, happy, well loved kids who just happen to have ds. I didn't have any of the tests with DS as I knew I would never abort my much wanted child for any of the things that may have shown up. Emkana, how old id your DS? He is gorgeous and has the exact hair I want to DS to have when it finally bloody grows

That 91% figure made me cry. I think it will be looked back on as a kind of genocide.

I couldn't bring myself to finish the article.

I think the way I feel about it now is very different to how I felt about it when I was younger.
Now I've had kids I know I could cope - also I have mates with kids with SN and LD and can see that their lives are not dreadful.Although I think it's disingenuous not to admit they have stresses and strains that I don't.
However when I was green I probably would have been terrified by the very thought of the extra resposibility. Maybe I would have considered a termination, I don't know.

This is not genocide. It's no more genocide than the thousands of other abortions every year.

"Sad observations over decades have convinced me: a damaged baby is a damaged family, even now. "
f^^^ i got that far and gave up(not read thread yet)
what a thick idiot.

Can I just observe that any problems with the treatment of adults with LDs should not surely be quoted as a reason not to have a child with SN.
By making a child who has SN an 'option' we are devaluing their life. And when we devalue their lives and make the choice ( as MM does in her article) to see them as 'less' and as 'damaged' then can we really be surprised that society does not put more care into supporting them in adulthood.

We cannot say 'oh but I would not have a child with Downs syndrome because they get treated poorly' as we are, by so doing creating the very attitude that devalues them!

Personally I think anyone who views my beautiful boys life as a matter of regret is saying much much more about the paucity of their spiritand their own capacity for joy then they are about him.

My son is a nice young man. Those who know him are bloody lucky to have the chance. And I include myself in that group.

What a sad and disappointing article, particularly given MM's professional backround and the many advances people with Down's Syndrome have made over the last few decades.
My family, have been fortunate, and I use that word deliberately, not damaged, to have someone with DS as part of it. My children have grown up with an uncle who is loving, funny and always ready to play with them. He has a busy social life and is well traveled. He is independent and a well regarded employee, able to read with an encyclopedic knowledge of James Bond. Yes he has never married or had children but he still lives a useful and happy life . And at 58 he has had some ill health and is showing early signs of dementia. But so was my mother at 60.
My children see their uncle as a whole person, having Down's Syndrome is just part of who he is. All four of them have friends who happen to have different disabilities including Down's. They see the person within. If the 'damage' done to them has helped them grow into thoughtful, tolerant and inclusive people i'm very glad it's been inflicted on them.

Did anyone see this article in the Guardian recently - written by someone who had a termination and has felt guilty ever since?

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/01/family-abortion-trisomy-13

Also this on how every newspaper and Radio 4 misinterpreted the statistics?

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/29/downs-syndrome-bbc

pagwatch good post

SSB, I figured that must be the case when the report first made the news -- the slant they were putting on it was just so counter-intuitive.

the stupid thing is, you can test until the cows come home for this that and the other, but you can not test for the hospital cocking up and "damaging "you babies brain.
so at the end of the day all the talk about choice is a waste of time imo.