Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Telly addicts

A world without Down's syndrome?

663 replies

Hulababy · 05/10/2016 21:12

Anyone else watching?

Interesting so far

OP posts:
FrancisCrawford · 07/10/2016 19:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Rockpebblestone · 07/10/2016 19:07

Thank you for the clarification, Francis.

I do not blame SP for the lack of a more comprehensive coverage, of experiences with Down's, in her documentary though. There were undoubtedly omissions. She fully admits, her personal experiences do affect her perspective. For a more fully comprehensive picture to be portrayed, I think, you would need a whole series of documentaries.

FrancisCrawford · 07/10/2016 19:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Rockpebblestone · 07/10/2016 19:40

I think it was clear from the start she was coming with the perspective fher own experiences have given her. Just because the experiences, of others, she portrayed on the programme, fitted with her own worldview, does not make those experiences any the less valid, either. She makes some pertinent points, but yes, we need to hear about more varied experiences too.

I'm not sure she went in with an explicit intention to push her own agenda, rather than to address an injustice she had some knowledge of.

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 07/10/2016 20:24

(sorry this has turned out rather long)

The more I think about this the more fucked off I am with Sally Phillips.

If I had watched this documentary knowing nothing about Downs I would have come away with the impression that people with this condition are just lovable bundles of empathetic joy who can live independently in good health, who can dance, be fantastic gymnasts, do TED talks, write letters to the papers ... All of these things are true for some and I'm very glad that outcomes have improved so dramatically over recent years and continue to improve.

I wouldn't have learnt about the high risks of heart defects, thyroid problems or early dementia. I wouldn't have learnt about the shoddy and dwindling support services for disabled people and carers, or about the grinding poverty and exhaustion of caring for a child and then an adult with significant additional needs if you don't have money. I'd have learnt nothing about the anxiety of parents for what might happen to their child after they die or are no longer able to care for them, or about the emotional toll of caring which leads so often to divorce and sibling resentment.

Maybe all of these negatives are covered by HCP if you get difficult news after a test (I don't know, I opted out of testing and neither of my DC had additional needs, although one does now as an adult) - maybe SP was just trying to redress the balance, which is fair enough as far as it goes (It doesn't go that far though, considering she's in quite a privileged position, not only in terms of wealth but also education and influence - she has the skills to research and advocate for her child's needs and is famous enough that people will listen to her).

There is a valid and overdue debate about how we (fail to) value and support disabled people in our society but for fucks sake do not link this to a new test which gives women exactly the same information as before, only earlier, safer and more accurately.

SP says she is pro choice. Is she fuck! At the same time she is campaigning against raising concerns about a test which will give women info earlier in their pregnancies, she is retweeting a campaign to lower the time limit for TFMR to bring it in line with termination for other reasons*. She doesn't want women to have test results early enough to make a choice she doesn't like. Everything I've read and heard about her position over the last few days suggests to me she is anti-choice but doesn't have the guts to say it.

I'm fucked off with Sally Phillips because:

  • I think she has missed a trick. She could have used her influence to do something really good for disabled people and carers but this is not it.
  • anti-choice by stealth
  • divisiveness. This has pitted women against each other to the benefit of nobody.

*I agree with this campaign that the current law is discriminatory but I'd prefer the time limits were brought into line by raising the general time limit to term. I don't believe this would increase the number of late abortions. Very few are performed after 24 weeks and the circumstances surrounding them are generally harrowing, as are the circs around women who are denied abortion after 24 weeks. For women who need abortion - as early as possible, as late as necessary.

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 07/10/2016 20:25

And yes I would say this to Sally Phillips if I met her in person.

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 07/10/2016 20:26

forgot this

A world without Down's syndrome?
LynetteScavo · 07/10/2016 21:03

I have reasonably strong personal views on this so didn't want to post earlier as I think there are many posters on MN who have decided to terminate rather than bring a person with Down's syndrome into the world. I can understand why posters in this position are so angry at the portrayal of parenting a child with DS in such a jolly way.

I totally think the new tests are a good thing. All the parents of DC with DS I know think the test is a god idea (these are people who had, for example, a 1 in 300 "chance" and made decisions on whether to continue with their pregnancy by considering whether they would bet on a horse with equal chances...not very scientific or sensible, but it's the best they had to go on.

Everyone I know who has a DC with DS also have nothing but positive stories to tell, and are thrilled by the documentary shown the other night, saying they love how DS was portrayed so positively and how they found it " refreshing".

The biggest fear of parenting a child with DS seems to be they will need care after the parents can no longer provide it. I find it hideous that we live in a society where people cannot have a child with a disability knowing the child will be provided for for the rest of their life, comfortably and safely without a close family member caring for them.

Until that changes, people won't feel confident to bring a child with a disability into this world.

BertrandRussell · 07/10/2016 21:03

"I'm not sure she went in with an explicit intention to push her own agenda, rather than to address an injustice she had some knowledge of."

I really don't see the injustice.

Rock, you keep saying that women are not making informed decisions about abortion,, but you don't seem able to say how you think things should be better managed...........

Rockpebblestone · 07/10/2016 21:08

Health professionals/society pressure upon women to consider abortion, in the case of a foetus being at a high risk of having Down's, as experienced by the women on the documentary and mentioned by women on this and other threads, is not exactly pro-choice either though.

What I took away from this documentary is how health professional's and societal prejudices, regarding disability, can compromise the choices women should have the right to make, by law, now.

Rockpebblestone · 07/10/2016 21:13

Bertrand this should be managed by tighter regulations regarding giving women access to more balanced information on disability and testing.

BertrandRussell · 07/10/2016 21:46

So basically you don't trust women.

BertrandRussell · 07/10/2016 21:48

The woman in the programme who chose to have an abortion- do you think she was ill informed?

Rockpebblestone · 07/10/2016 21:59

Bertrand, I just want women to be given balanced information by medical professionals. Why would you equate this with not trusting women?

I didn't get a clear picture of how well informed the woman who decided to abort on the programme was. What did come across more clearly was the pressure the woman, who decided not to test, described experiencing at the hands at a consultant who quizzed her on get decision when she asked it to be put in her notes she wanted no further discussion regarding her (legally entitled) choice.

Why do you (seem to) think questioning this type of pressure put on women to consider abortion, in the scenario where Down's is a high risk, is so controversial? I thought you were Pro-choice not anti?

JinkxMonsoon · 07/10/2016 22:00

One of the prevailing ideas on this thread (and indeed during the film) was that the women who opt for termination are ill informed, and therefore more balanced information is needed.

How can you define "balanced"? Surely one person's "intolerable" scenario is another person's "tolerable"? It's completely subjective.

JinkxMonsoon · 07/10/2016 22:06

One thing Rock, you keep saying that women are pressurised into terminations when they are classed as "high risk" for Downs after screening. You're forgetting the next step, which is amniocentesis. No one passes straight from "high risk" to termination. People wait to get a definitive diagnosis before considering their options.

Maybe I sound like I'm nitpicking, but you were (inadvertently perhaps) insinuating that people are offered terminations without knowing for certain if there was a trisomy.

Rockpebblestone · 07/10/2016 22:08

Jinx balanced involves exposing women to accounts of a positive prognosis, with regard to Down's as well as a negative one. It involves accepting and not repeatedly questioning a woman's decision not to consider abortion.

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 07/10/2016 22:16

The woman in the documentary who had a termination appeared to have spent considerable time looking at positive prognoses. I'd say she was well informed.

Rockpebblestone · 07/10/2016 22:20

Jinx no one? Why the Icelandic statistics then?

Rockpebblestone · 07/10/2016 22:24

Plenty I might think differently to the woman, who decided to abort, but I would not attempt judge her for her decision.

JinkxMonsoon · 07/10/2016 22:41

Jinx no one? Why the Icelandic statistics then?

I don't think anyone would have a termination after a "high risk" screening result, no. Because "high risk" is defined as 1 in 150 or lower, if I recall correctly. No one proceeds with a termination without going for an amniocentesis to confirm for sure whether the baby has Downs.

With respect, I think you are confusing "high risk" with "testing positive for Downs" which is not the same thing.

As for Iceland, someone on this thread guesstimated that, due to the population of Iceland being so tiny, a "100% termination rate" for Downs amounts to something like four terminations a year. Which isn't so alarming when you think of it like that.

Rockpebblestone · 07/10/2016 23:08

Jinx If I am, I think others on this thread have also. I say this because more than one poster on this thread has said one of the benefits of the new earlier test is that it will reduce the need for late abortions - people can make their decision earlier. How? If they are still going to wait for amniocentesis..

MerylPeril · 07/10/2016 23:10

Lynette is right totally about long term issues.

I still haven't seen it but from what I read it focuses on children/young adults.
One of the major changes for people with DS is life expectancy. They told DHs grandparents his aunt would have a very short life and she lived longer than some of her siblings. Surely if Sally wanted a balanced programme she should have looked at adults/old age too.

JinkxMonsoon · 07/10/2016 23:17

The new NIPT test means that amniocentesis will no longer be necessary Rock. It can give a positive or negative result for Downs (or Patau or Edwards syndrome) from the mother's blood alone.

Up until now, women were given a blood test that only gave a result in terms of probability (1 in 5000) or whatever. Anyone classed as "high risk" is then offered amniocentesis to give a positive or negative result.

So, NIPT does indeed mean that women will get results earlier in pregnancy. No need to wait for amniocentesis because it's not needed.

I'm not quite sure why you're wading into this thread when you don't seem to understand what's actually being discussed?

raspberrysuicide · 07/10/2016 23:20

I've worked with people with various disabilities for nearly 20 years and I can honestly say that not all people with down syndrome are happy, affectionate, funny or capable of living independently.
I've known them to be non verbal, aggressive, very stubborn, sometimes violent and quite sexualised.
If you think they are all cute, cuddly children then you would be very much mistaken.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread