A world without Down's syndrome?

[Hulababy]

Anyone else watching?

Interesting so far

Huntington's counselling is generally for the parents. So the equivalent would be, knowing that your child will have Huntington's (say because you found out during pregnancy) and proceeding anyway.

"Even a person who has very different biases and agendas to myself, they could potentially make a very pertinent point"

Of course they could. Where did I say I automatically reject what somebody says because they have different-agendas and biases to me?

Isn't it usual to check out the background of people who tell you stuff? Particularly sciency/medically/ideologically/sociologically stuff?

Ambivalent I don't know (re.Huntington's)is the honest answer. I would consider the accuracy of the test and also the quality and length of life someone is likely to have before they deteriorate. If I knew it ran in the family, I might consider not trying to have my own biological children at all.

I am not against women being allowed to terminate their pregnancies. I don't judge them. However I also think women who want to progress with their pregnancies should, equally, have their choice respected. Choosing either is a legal right in this country.

Apologies, this will be a bit irrelevant now but I've not been able to log in since I posted around page 15. In answer to Bertrand's question then, it was not Professor Nikolaides clinic who treated me so horribly - his team at St George's were professional throughout.

I agree with HandbagCrab's post further up this page that those of us who have illnesses flagged up and choose not to terminate should have that supported and not constantly questioned. Believe me, in that situation you are always aware that option is available and that you can change your mind. Emotional blackmail is not something HCP's should be doing, although my experience suggested it was routine at that hospital.

Bertrand usually the points, if valid, will stand alone. Any factual information could be verified through other sources.

Oh, and we can say it's our right, and our body, and our baby/foetus/cells/whatever but if your HCP disagrees with you, you find pretty soon that you have no say, no rights, no voice.

As my midwife said "what happened to patient choice? You're not being given any". My GP was totally lost by it - no GP I know will disagree with a consultant, it's like they're sacred or something.

"your HCP disagrees with you, you find pretty soon that you have no say, no rights, no voice."
So what happens- do they strap you to the table and do an amnio against your will? Lock you up until you agree to an abortion? What do you mean????

HCPs are not just your advocate, they're the patient's advocate. A child with a disability will become their patient. I think it is totally reasonable that they check you are sure at various stages. You have the right not to terminate, others have the right to raise concerns.

Ambivalent it would seem, from your last post, you are not entirely pro-choice regarding women's legal right to continue with their pregnancy if they choose. A line has to be drawn between checking a woman is sure about her decision and harassing her over it. The latter erodes choice.

Being pro-choice, most usually, places a mother's right to choose to continue or terminate a pregnancy, within legal guidelines, over a foetus' right to life or perceived quality of life, indeed, over a HCP's wish to attempt to engineer the type of health problems they are engaged in treating.

If you are a HCP, Ambivalent, or intending to become one, I would suggest, you do some thinking regarding how much right you have, as a HCP to erode those women's choices, that they have a legal right to make, in order to exert some form of control over what health conditions your future patients may have. This intention, acted upon in the extreme, could lead to some very biased and unfair treatment.

'perceived future^ quality of life (as according to a particular prognosis of a diagnosis)', that should read, in order to be more clear.

Her upset was understandable. The woman who aborted did not really seem to have a strongly convincing argument as to why she aborted, not that she has to, not that she has to justify her decision. However, because most people relate other's experiences to their own I can see why speaking to the woman who aborted due to Down's was upsetting for Sally. Sally may have felt better about it, if the woman's reasoning was extremely convincing but it didn't really offer any easy to understand concrete explanation (I do hope more convincing reasoning was not edited out, though).

I can't believe this didn't get more attention. What 'convincing' reason should this poor woman have given? How dare she be made a watch a 'look what you could have won?' video? Especially given that, given she underwent a traumatic late term abortion, the chances are that her child would not have had such a positive health outcome as Sally Phillips' son? DS can be incompatible with life when it comes with severe associated health problems. How dare Sally Phillips make it all about her?

Pro-choice is pro-choice. You don't get to make someone apologise to you, on television, for that choice.

I have to say that my experience, and those of people I know, was that there appeared to be a general presumption when I had screening that I would at least want to consider termination, and I was reassured about a late second scan (booked at 23 weeks) that the 24 week limit did not apply in cases of TFMR without me raising it (I never ended up with high odds of any trisomy) so I can believe that there can be pressure out there. However, given that the material produced by the NHS itself is more balanced, it is more a question of looking at HCP attitudes than the NHS's formal policy surely?

Karen, I'm so sorry for your experiences. I know the medical juggernaut can be very hard to fight, and it must have torn you apart.

Three, please note I said, no woman has to justify their decision to anyone regarding aborting. I am pro-choice.

My point was that it is human nature to want to look for explanations, in order to understand, in order to process - so I can empathise with SP.

The fact you think this post should have been picked up upon and questioned, shows you want an explanation, as to the thinking behind it. So there it is, I can empathise but I don't necessarily have the same opinions as SP but then, I have had not had the same experience of having a child with DS as she has, either.

However, given that the material produced by the NHS itself is more balanced, it is more a question of looking at HCP attitudes than the NHS's formal policy surely?

I would say, probably, yes. Although people tend to be able to exert much more pressure than a leaflet. You can simply bin a leaflet but when you are face to face with a person they are much more difficult to ignore.

Talking about official policies, as I said upthread, some see this as a rather sinister move on the governments part. This new test has been made available at a time when cuts are being made to supporting people with disabilities, when more and more is known about those disabilities and how these people can have a good quality of life with the right support. In a time of austerity people have speculated that the government seem keen to invest money in a test which will, as they see it, result in less disabled people being born rather than invest in support to enable better outcomes for people with disabilities. Which is an unsettling thought.

Pro-choice is about abortion, not continuing a pregnancy.

You're twisting terminology to suit what you're trying to say. If any person makes a decision against medical advice, they will be told that it's against advice. It's not "eroding a legal right to have a disabled baby" or whatever nonsense you're talking about.

Many mothers decide to continue with pregnancies, only to have their children taken from them by social services. There is no such thing as a right to have a baby in any circumstances.

The idea that the government has funded this test to justify cuts for services for disabled people is paranoid and ridiculous.

Ah, there we have it Ambivalent. Your definition is quite different to my own and I suspect many other's. The meaning is quite different. Although children may be taking away by SS, shortly after birth in some cases, they are not routinely aborted.

The danger with your way of thinking is, it is this lack of automony being offered to women, that may encourage them not to seek treatment and have a potentially dangerous 'free birth'. Just as worrying as 'back street abortions'.

There is no lack of autonomy being offered to women. HCPs are checking that they are in possession of the facts. Having a disabled child greatly increases risk of PND and many parents are in denial of potential consequences.

There is no machiavellian plan to destroy disabled babies or "erode women's choice".

Consent is re-assessed constantly throughout the course of medical treatment because peoples' understanding is fluid, and the way someone feels about something changes over time.

HCPs are checking that things have not changed, because the earlier an abortion can be done the easier it is on mother and foetus.

Women often refuse medical treatment and have "free births" because they are distrusting of medical professionals. If they have autonomy, what right have you to tell them that's dangerous? I thought you were all for women doing what they want. If they don't want treatment, who are you to force them into it?

"Pro-choice is about abortion, not continuing a pregnancy"

That is simply not true.

Oh for gods sake. Pro-choice is not about abortion, it's about the right to choose what happens within your own body. The clue is quite literally in the title.

I probably would not choose to abort for DS - we have family friends whose child has DS and she's awesome, and I know I could turn to them for guidance, and we are financially secure enough to afford help with additional needs. I am, however, 100% behind other women's rights to choose not to continue a pregnancy should they wish. THAT is pro-choice.

Women often refuse medical treatment and have "free births" because they are distrusting of medical professionals. If they have autonomy, what right have you to tell them that's dangerous? I thought you were all for women doing what they want. If they don't want treatment, who are you to force them into it?

Ambivalent

My 'line in the sand' is that women should be offered information (which they can take up or not, as they see fit) and not harassed over the decisions, which are legally their's to make, they have already made.

You sound as if you think all Down's children should be aborted at a positive foetal diagnosis.That HCPs should be able to repeatedly harass a woman over her decision to continue with a pregnancy, where a foetus has been diagnosed with Down's. I, most emphatically, do not agree with this.

There are, I think, about 25 unassisted births a year. And some of those are not intentional.

Hardly "many"..........

Sorry- that should read "25 unassisted births in the UK"

I didn't say there were 'many' free births in the uk Bertrand. I thought it was a risk connected with considering pro-choice as being about being able to choose abortion rather than being about being able to choose to continue with a pregnancy, becoming the prevalent perspective amongst HCPs.