A world without Down's syndrome?

[Hulababy]

Anyone else watching?

Interesting so far

There comes a point, I feel, Bertrand where challenging someone over choices, which are their legal right to make, is not appropriate and could be viewed as (verbal) harassment.

Francis how can something be a consequence of a particular thing but not related to it? There is a relation, at the very least, a contextual one.

The more I think about the programme, the more offensive I found it. Imagine if you were planning on having an aminocentisis and watched that ridiculous skewer and plastic bag pantomime.

So she has called into question the new early testing. Terrified people about the currently available tests. Made a woman who chose to abort look like a heartless cow, and a woman who chose not to look like a bullied victim of the medical establishment.Talked about eugenics. Misrepresented the information routinely given to pregnant women on the subject. Presented a ridiculously rose tinted view of life with a child with disabilities. Failed to mention her own personal agendas. Anything else? Oh, and approved of a woman who presents an emotionally blackmailing talk to HCPs and exploits her own child in the process.

Bertrand, I think it is plausible to view things in the way SP presented. I see it as just one perspective, which is undoubtedly thought provoking. Imagine living inside her head and feeling the injustice that viewpoint offers.

HCPs have to care for people with perspectives such as SP's and ones such as your own. Without bias. Your perspective is not automatically correct and hers incorrect - you are both allowed to think as you do. People holding both perspectives need to be respected in terms of the choices they make about their own lives. This is fundamentally what pro-choice is about.

"People holding both perspectives need to be respected in terms of the choices they make about their own lives"

Which is what SP and the Pro life lobby signally fail to do.

Bertrand But the pro-life lobby is not what this documentary was about.

I, personally, thought it was a thought provoking emotional piece which uncovered some biases in the way Down's is viewed and the way women are treated within the NHS. In the context of a new test for Down's these issues are particularly pertinent.

I would hazard a guess that some HCPs feel strongly about making sure the option of termination is entertained because they will be the ones picking up the pieces if they parents decide that they can't cope.

I have worked with HCAs who have cared for people with learning disability who have gone out into the community and been gang raped or used as slaves for running drugs and ended up in prison. HCPs who work in the area of serious LD are the first to say that the myths of cute Down's babies hide the serious and devastating consequences of having a LD without adequate support. These children grow from vulnerable babies into vulnerable adults.

Whilst diversity is a positive thing, I would never knowingly choose to bring a child into the world who is more likely to be emotionally, physically, financially, emotionally and sexually abused than a child without their condition. I would not make my child into a political statement when the risk is that they will be horrifically manipulated or neglected by society. It is just not fair.

People with Down's are visibly so, and certain people will always seek out and target them since care in the community has taken over and they cannot be kept safe.

Francis SP's issues with the test itself were not overtly stated in the documentary, which is what is being discussed here.

Ambivalent this is one reason why HCPs can not be regarded as being totally unbiased or has having more expertise in a general sense. Their job most often involves dealing with things when problems have occurred. Their expertise is specific to this. They don't get to see as many people who have relatively few problems as these people need less support from them.

Maybe, but why would you gamble your child's health because you want to improve diversity in the world? Sorry, but it seems very irresponsible. It is a genetic abnormality and those who don't experience severe adverse effects are lucky.

"Bertrand But the pro-life lobby is not what this documentary was about."

I think anyone who thinks this is very naive.

Ambivalent Why gamble? Because some people believe if a person can sustain life they should be allowed to.They are allowed to think that and make decisions based on this belief. They have the legal right to make a choice to progress with their own pregnancy. When we are all genetically individual, what is viewed as constituting a genetic abnormality is not absolute and could change over time - where will the line be drawn in the future?

Bertrand, do you view every documentary or written article as a piece in its own right or primarily do you decide whether you agree with the points made based on the author's other known activities?

I don't quite understand the question. I always look for bias and agendas. Don't you?

Why should a baby have to survive instead of thrive? I'm not talking about "legal rights", I'm talking about the morality of knowingly inflicting serious suffering on a baby in the name of activism, whether that is disability activism or religious activism.

Would you see no moral issue with giving birth to a child with Huntington's? After all, they technically survive at birth. Are they just "genetically diverse" too, or does that one count as a disease?

Never said I was the thread police Francis. However subtext and what is dealt with covertly is largely a matter of interpretation, which I'm sure you can appreciate. That was why I thought it was worth pointing out that the documentary did not explicitly state SP opposes the new test. I know only too well I could not stifle discussion, even if I wanted to, this was not my aim in making my point. It was more to point out that any covert messages were a matter for interpretation. Not everyone watching will follow SP's activities very closely.

Ambivalent I don't even remember having a test for Huntington's. Is the test routine? Don't know much about it. When would you find out the child you were carrying had it?

Bertrand no I don't always look for bias and agendas (as a first priority).

I like to view what is said on its own merits, primarily. Even a person who has very different biases and agendas to myself, they could potentially make a very pertinent point. If you are overly concerned about checking a person's background, rather than paying attention to what they are saying, your own biases and agendas could prevent you from learning something new which challenges those biases and agendas you possess.