A world without Down's syndrome?

[Hulababy]

Anyone else watching?

Interesting so far

Bertand

"Choice" does not mean "choice to abort"

This was exactly my point.

Women feeling pressurised by HCPs, into testing or to consider aborting due to Down's, are having their choices compromised just as much as those women whose choice to abort is not respected.

I was saying some posters on this thread seem to be glossing over the erosion of choice occurring in the former scenario in order to emphasise the erosion of choice in the latter.

Yet both scenarios involve an erosion of choice. Being concerned about the latter scenario should not preclude being concerned about the former, if you are genuinely pro-choice.

I would like to hear two things.

1. I would like to know what people mean by balanced information and how they think it should be decided that women have had enough of it to be allowed to make a decision about their DS pregnancy

2. I would like some first hand accounts of women being pressurized or bullied into an abortion. I can understand how they might feel that HCPs can be over zealous about encouraging testing. I was certainly asked several times and asked whether I had changed my mind. But I'm my opinion the HCP were simply doing their job. I have never met a real life person who was pressurized into having an abortion. Wanting to discuss the possibility does not constitute pressure.

Good questions Bertrand.

Also totally agree with your post at 23.02. It was like a pro-life rally and I was amazed when I discovered the audience were HCPs. I thought they were fellow Downs advocates and she was preaching to the converted, as it were.

Bertrand

In answer to your first question, I personally, am simply concerned that women are offered balanced information, that is they don't have to take up the offer.

So a scenario might be they receive leaflets with information and are told that they can make an appointment to follow up from there, to discuss the information, if they wish to. If a woman declines tests/appointments, I think, they should be informed time lines for changing their mind (backed up by written information)but beyond that they should not constantly be asked whether they have changed their minds at every follow up appointment (as per the example of the woman in the documentary).

With regard to what I consider balanced information, as I said earlier, the leaflet you linked to I felt was balanced.

Wanting to discuss the possibility does not constitute pressure

It could be, depending how the discussion in broached and how often the discussion is broached. For example if a decision is treated with disbelief or shock/surprise this could constitute pressure, especially if coupled with repetitive questioning.

The woman talking to the HCP's was simply offering a first hand account, from her own experiences with having a daughter with Down's.

I think first hand accounts is exactly what HCP's should have access to in order to improve care. Yes, they should have access to a wide range of first hand accounts but these might not offer a 'balanced' viewpoint, in terms of the whole range of viewpoints, because if more people have one type of perspective this might be simply more representative the greater number of women's experiences.

And what is wrong with being a Down's advocate? Being a Down's advocate does not preclude being a women's advocate.

So in your opinion, there is no need for any more than the leaflet which is already given. Good.

Do you really see no problem with the woman using her daughter like that? I thought it was utterly exploitative and disgusting.

In fact, if I had to pick the most outrageous thing in the programme, I would be hard pressed to choose between SP crying in front of the woman who had chosen an abortion, and that woman apologizing for upsetting her, SP flicking through the leaflet, and reading out only the items in the section clearly headed "complications" and that little girl listening to the "rally" and running up to hug her mother at the end.

Bertrand I thought the leaflet was balanced but there should be the offer of more information. And I mean offer as in women do it have to take the offer up.

As far as exploiting her daughter, I think it depends somewhat on how the daughter felt about going to such an event and her mother sharing aspects of their life together. Mothers should be able to speak about their experiences with their children, though, without being automatically accused of exploiting their children. Where you draw the line I think is complex and really depends how those people involved feel about sharing aspects of their lives.

I honestly don't understand what you mean by "offer of more information"

And that child was, what, 4? Stretching a bit to say she could give informed consent to being a "prop", surely?

'Do not' not 'do it'. Typo.

I thought the child with Down's was much older. I'd have to watch again to check. I think the same woman might have had a blog on here which I read.

Offer of more information just means offering follow up appointments to discuss further, to be taken up or not, as wished.

Or pointing towards place where more information can be sought.

Here is another page from NHS Choices- probably most people's first port of call when researching any health issue. Two real life stories. Both positive.

Where are all these negative presentations of Downs Syndrome people are twlking about?

Where are all these negative presentations of Downs Syndrome people are twlking about?

Perhaps in the face to face consultations? The evidence of that happening would not come from a leaflet.

So. At best we have a few HCPs screwing it up.

And that is enough to consider curtailing women's choices?

Rock- canninask a personal question? Were you surprised at the time of the NHS information?

Bertrand I do not think the documentary really explored 'curtailing women's choices'. It did explore the advantages and disadvantages to the new earlier test and its implications, as far as the documentary makers could gather.

Surprised at which NHS information? The information you linked to? No not particularly. It possibly looked more 'people friendly' than more the more textbook type information that is sometimes made available. The information SP referred to? No. I somewhat expect medical information to read like that. Worst case scenarios, complications often paint a bleak picture - it's like reading about side effects. However I can see how it could be emotive in her position. And I do see how it can be emotive if you are not used to reading much medical information.

"The information SP referred to?"

Sorry- I''m losing track. What information was that?

You could only see a bit of it Bertrand. It was the leaflets she read from on screen. You mentioned the scene yourself.

I don't understand your last point, Francis

If a person did believe, as you suggest, a woman should terminate because of a diagnosis of DS, earlier testing would be an advantage (not disadvantage) as earlier terminations are less complicated.

If you believe a diagnosis of Down's has no impact on a woman's decision to terminate, testing early is potentially an advantage as there would be more time to find out about Down's and make preparations for caring for a Down's baby.

The disadvantage to the test(as mooted as an implication by the documentary) is that, if you believe a woman should continue the pregnancy in the case of a positive test for Down's, she might terminate (due to testing positive for Down's), when she would have continued with the pregnancy and refused the amnio because of the risks associated.

Another disadvantage, I personally wondered about, was that women could be deciding to terminate based on less information, regarding the actual health condition of a foetus testing positive for Down's. Because an amnio test is given later more can be determined concerning the feotus' development. Some women might want to continue with a pregnancy in the case of Down's if there were no very severe health conditions detected at that later stage. Although, of course, late abortion is more complicated and traumatic.

Just because disadvantages are spotted does not mean the test should not be offered IMO. More that there should be no attempt to persuade a woman to take the test when she has declined it.