A world without Down's syndrome?

[Hulababy]

Anyone else watching?

Interesting so far

"Is there a particular reason why you don't want to believe what people are saying happened to them regarding ds testing and diagnosis?"

I don't disbelieve people. But I am very suspicious of this programme because the agenda of the presenter is so very clear. And I recognize so many pro life tropes. And I know that if I had that particular agenda, I could interpret my own experience as pressure, when, in my opiniom, it was simply HCP doing their job. And I know that people in all walks of life say crap and insensitive things- some senior medics appear never to have met a human being before, never mind interact with one. But it worries me that a crap and insensitive thing said by an individual may well be used as evidence to curtail women's rights. If we looked at the training that HCP receive and it turned out that it was geared towards termination for Downs pregnancies then I would agree that we have a massive problem. If it's "just" insensitive and crass individuals, then it's still a problem, but of a different nature.

Whilst understanding what you are saying, Bertrand, I would not want it to overshadow the concern over women being treated correctly by the NHS. Any bias, regarding women's choices, slipping over into practise by HCPs erodes women's choices. If this is not acknowledged, as I said in my last post, this could encourage people to campaign for changes in the law to ensure the type of choices they would make and people who think like them would make, were protected. Separately from choice, I also think the documentary validly addresses the perception of Down's in society and questions the direction of screening in the future. I think these are worthwhile discussions to have, concern over them does not preclude being pro-choice.

But it worries me that a crap and insensitive thing said by an individual may well be used as evidence to curtail women's rights.

Bertrand, so maybe we ought to be believing the women who have bad experiences with HCPs and address the problems with the care they have received? Because a denial or downplaying of their experiences do not make these problems go away. This plays right into the hands of those that do have an an agenda to reduce women's legal abortion rights.

How could one thing said by one crap hcp be used to curtail women's rights? I find it utterly bizarre that your PoV seems to be fear that one tiny thing in relation to ds terminations will result in all women being denied abortion. 90% of pregnancies with ds are being terminated - the opposite of what you appear to be so worried about happens every day.

Belittling other women's experiences and insinuating anyone who disagrees with you or agrees with something from the documentary is pro life just shuts down any discussion. I don't think anyone on this thread has said they are pro life, though some appear to think that women need to be persuaded to have an abortion for a child with ds, whether they want to or not because they think it is 'best' for them and for society. How that is any different to a pro life viewpoint in terms of women's rights to choose what happens to their bodies is beyond me.

"Belittling other women's experiences and insinuating anyone who disagrees with you or agrees with something from the documentary is pro life just shuts down any discussion. I don't think anyone on this thread has said they are pro life" I haven't insinuated that anyone is pro life. I have said very clearly that Philips is.
Incidentally, accusing people of belittling others because they don't agree with you is an excellent way of shutting down discussion...

I disagree that SP can be accurately defined as pro-life when she states clearly and repeatedly that she is pro-choice.

Women choosing not to carry their unborn child because they have a disability is not identical to women choosing a termination for reasons that would relate to a child in any kid of health. The former has huge implications for the make-up of our society and how we, as a society, respond to those of us who are more vulnerable.

bertrand I'm not sure what you're worried about. There is no question of withdrawing screening advances. What do you think might happen? Or are you just narked that someone with a different agenda got so much airtime?

Beautiful post benandemma

There seems to be a lot of leaping to the conclusion that the high numbers of women choosing to terminate are doing it because of biased or poor information or pressure from HCPs, rather than just choosing to terminate of their own free will. Why is that so hard to swallow?

FFS, there's no leaping to conclusions. There are some appalling leaflets from the NHS about DS being given to women who are contemplating termination for DS. (Ask bertrand - even she was horrified!). More importantly, women who have been on the receiving end of 'advice' have been vocal on this and other threads - and a lot of their reports have been negative. Why is that so hard to take in?

Anyone with a truly 'pro-choice' agenda (not me I must add) must surely be as concerned by misleading information that guides towards termination as they are by pressure not to terminate a pregnancy.

But I don't see much of that concern here. Instead, there seems to be a rather termination-happy contingent who feel that provided women are aborting, they must be doing it on their own say-so. And at any rate, they're escaping the down-trodden life of a parent-of-a-child-with-disabilities so it's For The Best.

Rubbish/

Bertrand, I have to correct you on something you posted earlier. About no one claimed that they'd been pressurised to abort, on the programme. That's incorrect. The speech quoted many women, who are on the downs support group, direct quotes.
My close friend had those exact things said to her, that they'd book her in for a ruination the next day.
I believe those things are said by HCP's. Don't you? I'd bet a lot of money that they have been.

Ruination?
Classic autocorrect there. Sorry. Meant termination!

I disagree that SP can be accurately defined as pro-life when she states clearly and repeatedly that she is pro-choice

I can say that I'm a horse but I'm really not.

Ludicrous comparison to make I know, but just because SP says she's pro-choice, that doesn't mean it's true. Nothing she said during the documentary suggested she was genuinely pro life. Ditto the accompanying interviews.

So why did she say she's pro-choice? Because she knows better than to "come out" as pro-life.

So why did she say she's pro-choice? Because she knows better than to "come out" as pro-life.

You're wrong IMO. She said she's pro-choice because, aside from the issue of whether a child has DS, she believes women should have the choice to terminate or not. So basically 99% of the time, she's pro-choice.

Even in the DS scenario, she technically believes they should have the choice but she doesn't like the social and medical context in which these choices are currently being made.

So does maybe restricting women's choices 1% of the time make you 100% anti-choice? No more than a horse with a skin graft grown on a pig would be a pig...you're right, it was a stupid comparison :)

"Bertrand, I have to correct you on something you posted earlier. About no one claimed that they'd been pressurised to abort, on the programme. That's incorrect. The speech quoted many women, who are on the downs support group, direct quotes. "

I had actually forgotten that. I was so utterly horrified at the way that woman was exploiting her own child that I forgot anything else.

" So basically 99% of the time, she's pro-choice."

What does that mean?

I think there are degrees to being pro-choice. You could be pro-choice, beyond the law, as it exists now. Saying that it is a woman's right to abort, using any method she chooses, for the whole duration of a pregnancy - which would be an absolute. Or you apply certain criteria regarding the circumstances where abortion is an acceptable option to choose/be offered - as within the (current) law. SP whilst questioning the existing legal abortion criteria can still be pro-choice but not absolutely pro-choice. I'm not sure how many people are absolutely pro-choice, as outlined above.

Pro choice means that a woman has an absolute right to an abortion for whatever reason within the law. That's just what it means. There is no ambiguity.

Bertrand ok, if that is how you define it, it is not an absolute concept. It varies from country to country, as abortion laws vary between countries. It changes over time, as laws are changed. And then, with your definition how do you go about producing a set of laws which are are 'pro-choice'? With your definition, in a country with abortion laws which offer very limited choice, pro-choice would mean something very different to what it does here.

I''m sorry, but that is not my definition of pro choice. It's what choice means. It means that a woman can choose whether or not to continue her pregnancy without having to give a reason.

My post did not mentioned reasons. I talked about criteria. It fits in this country, as a woman can abort for any reason she chooses but only within a certain time criteria except for certain exceptions. A foetus identified as having Down's can be aborted up to being full term. Equally women cannot use any method she likes to abort - it has to be carried out by a qualified practitioner. Otherwise, such as a case where a woman administered drugs obtained from the Internet, to herself, to induce a miscarriage, she was acting against the law.

Surely SP is questioning the criteria of the abortion laws here. I think, namely, the one where a foetus with Down's can be aborted legally up to full term.

Pro choice means that a woman has an absolute right to an abortion for whatever reason within the law. That's just what it means. There is no ambiguity.

You declare this with the authority invested in you by whom? :)

Rock, that's not true. We don't have abortion on demand in the UK. A woman has to have two doctors sign to say that a pregnancy would endanger her physical or mental health. It's still entirely possible, and happens, for a woman to have her access to a termination restricted by an awkward GP. We have fewer abortion rights than you think.

I couldn't remember where I heard it, might have been in the doc but I'm not sure, that termination after nipt in the trial was less than 90% for ds and that was perhaps due to the extra training hcp had had about speaking to parents.

I've tried searching online but couldn't find it. I did find a different research paper that suggested the misgivings people expressed on the doc and on here as possible ethical issues with nipt. I also didn't realise that nipt can already be used to screen for lots more things than trisonomies.

three we do have abortion on demand. Turn up to a Sexual health clinic, say you're to stressed by being pregnant and you get referred. Or often you can contact BPAS direct. In the real world, whatever the law says, we have abortion on demand.