A world without Down's syndrome?

[Hulababy]

Anyone else watching?

Interesting so far

I do understand, Jinx. I was just trying to establish the reasoning behind your line of questioning. It threw me because it seemed to bear no relation to the points I had made.

Getting results earlier in pregnancy is problematic for the reason there is less known about any actual health complications in the case of testing positive for Down's, as I pointed out earlier. Although termination is less complicated earlier on, any actual health related conditions, related to Down's, cannot be established until much later. So in this way, decisions could potentially be made based on less information.

You mean some people would terminate before the 20 week scan, which would highlight any physical abnormalities (heart/gut issues, etc)?

I take your point, but I reckon lots of people get a Downs diagnosis and terminate the pregnancy before 20 weeks already.

If you have a chromosonal abnormality picked up you will be having scans constantly. My DD's incredibly rare heart defect was picked up at 15w, diagnosed at 16w. Many major problems can be picked up a lot earlier with higher risk cases.

Yes, Jinx. I think me saying 'consider abortion maybe wasn't clear. I used this phrase to include Health professionals questioning a person refusing tests (in the hope that a discussion regarding aborting a child due to Down's would not be on the table) as mentioned in the documentary. The persistent questioning, in this manner, meant the woman was actively encouraged to consider abortion, hyperthetically, without diagnosis.

I just meant, as amino is done later, more is known about the feotus' health condition.

Oh god raspberry, if anyone was ever in any doubt, this miserable thread has hammered home how awful adulthood with DS is in no uncertain terms. No need to say it again .

And no, again, its not like that for everyone.

Gruffalo I didn't / don't know that. The new tests have not been made available on the NHS yet / when the documentary went out. I have heard of cases where certain authorities have offered the first scan late due to cuts.

A CVS can be done between 11-14 weeks. My DD's first sign of an abnormality was picked up at 10 weeks at an emergency scan. I had a CVS done in a week. Even if you add in the time for the NIPT it's literally a few days. My CVS on the other hand took over a month to get the results back. At least with NIPT people will be put out of their misery.

The woman that terminated her son at 25 weeks really got to me. When she said "One minute he was wriggling then the next he'd gone" made me turn it off... 25 weeks! She could of at least had the baby adopted! And no, I am not against terminations... but as late as 25 weeks is just not acceptable in my view and now she is pregnant again! If this one turned out to have DS wonder if she'd abort that one too?!

butterfly There are people on here that have terminated at similar gestations for reasons that you obviously can't fathom. Have a bit of fucking empathy.

Agruffalocrumble
Fair enough I understand that but that woman surely knew her son had Down syndrome very early on (12 weeks) so she should of chose the option to terminate then! Rather than wait until 25 fucking weeks to do it when baby is past viability.
She didn't show any remorse at all so I am sure she is glad that she has done it but she's pregnant now so lets hope this one is "normal" and doesn't get aborted either.

Butterfly you've no actual idea what went on, so save the shallow judgment.

Okay then forget I said anything I am just saying it really got to me and just don't see why she left it that late to terminate her pregnancy that was all! She didn't go into it! As I said, I am not against it.

Butterfly - you make it sound like she made the decision on a whim! There's every likelihood that by 25 weeks it was established that the complications (heart defects() associated with the diagnosis were severe. To say she 'could have had him adopted' suggests it was a decision made for selfish reasons rather than to spare her child what she may have perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be a lifetime of suffering. No-one enters in to a decision to terminate at that gestation lightly.

There are posters on here who seem to be saying that women should not be allowed a termination for Downs until they have been given "enough" information. This seems to me to be the same as the states in America where women have to have scans and to see the embryo. Where there then to go away and wait before they can have the procedure.

Women are not stupid. They should be allowed to decide what they want to do with their own bodies. They should be trusted to know what's best for them. We may not like it. We may decide differently for ourselves. But we have no right to tell other women what they should do.

She could of at least had the baby adopted!

The ignorance of the process of relinquishing a baby for adoption is astounding. You don't just pop it out and say "right yeah give that to someone else please".

If this one turned out to have DS wonder if she'd abort that one too

If she doesn't want to have a child with Downs Syndrome, she probably would I don't know why this seems surprising to you?

She didn't go into it!

Probably because Sally Phillips made it all about her and started crying, and then she may as well have said "Look at this gymnast with Downs Syndrome, that's potentially what you killed", which I thought was absolutely vile. I turned off at this point too, because I was so angry at the TV show's treatment of that poor woman.

Bertrand, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that women should be offered balanced information. They should not be badgered with biased information or forced to consider abortion for Down's, especially when they have specifically stated they do not wish to discuss this option. This is what some women are facing, as the documentary showed. This type of treatment is not pro-choice. This is what I am against.

I didn't see the programme. Can someone tell me how medical facts can be biased?

Morris emphasising only the most negative prognosis is biased. Giving advice based only on the most n

Sorry pressed post too soon.

Giving advice based only on the most negative prognosis is biased.

Down's affects individuals differently. There is a range in the severity of disability and associated health conditions, related to Down's, people experience.

I just googled NHS Downs Syndrome and got thisas my first hit. It hardly seems to be painting the blackest picture. Nice smily photograph, lots of positive stuff. One section at the end about complications. How do you feel about it?

I'm pretty sure that was the leaflet SH was flicking through when she read out that list of potential problems. Conveniently ignoring all the other sections. And the fact that her list was in a section called "Complications"

As you say the leaflet seems balanced, Bertrand - which is more reassuring. However it does not negate some of the more biased advice some women receive, as highlighted in the documentary and on threads on here.