Fluff Piece

Here is a sad bit of writing - a lovely balanced article that really tries to look at the issues in a meaningful way It had me choking on my cup of tea this morning. I don't mind having the discussion. I'd even support prenatal testing to be available equally across the population not just to older mums if they choose to. What I found offensive was the absolutely clear implication that the purpose of making prenatal testing more widely (freely) available was to reduce the births of children with this 'incurable genetic condition'. Yup - this piece of trite crap is NOT what I call good journalism. The author should have stuck to weasling out petty gossip secrets for the tawdry tv series where she used to work if she is going to do hatchet pieces like this. What a lot of garbage . If you can be bothered you can read for yourself at http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/test-all-for-down-urge-doctors/2008/12/06/1228257383143.html

hehe you sound angered by the article, Shelley! I was curious so went to the story but can't get past the first paragraph:

Quote :

"AUSTRALIA urgently needs a national screening policy for Down syndrome, experts say, after international research showed it could halve the number of babies born with the incurable genetic condition."

We NEED to halve the number of babies born with DS?

I can't bear to read the rest.

Cas

I am writing a letter to the editor on this piece.

The recent article by Louise Hall, 'Test all for Down, urge doctors' NSW Health's policy '15 years out of date' is very out of date itself. The figures are closer to 75% of mothers who give birth to children with Down syndrome under the age of 35 and we never say 'Down syndrome baby', the correct expression is "a baby with Down syndrome" as they are individuals first and foremost, the syndrome does not define them. The article also fails to mention the increased incidence of miscarriage in the additional screenings tests such as CVS and amniocentesis which is around 2% and often means women who may have had difficulty conceiving will choose not to have the tests for fear they may lose their baby.

Most of all the article neglects to mention that babies born with Down syndrome are very much loved members of their families with a lot to offer society. The notion of defective people needing institutionalisation is very much outdated. Families of children born with Down syndrome take offence at the notion that more tests are a useful way to 'halve the number of babies born with the incurable genetic condition'.

Great letter Lorissa, the article just reinforces the poor "value" that is placed on people with DS by some of the Australian population. I wonder where such genetic selection will get us in the long run where people get to chose different aspects of their childrens genes in whatever way. At the moment an overseas country is allowing gender selection, I think it was with their IVF. I think it smacks of having "designer babies".
Coral

good on you Lorissa, well done.
reading Cas's post is enough for me

I agree with everyone else here that the article itself was very outdated and discrimitory.
But.........I'm one of those that actually support the need for new non evasive testing or actually offering everyone the opportunity to have any test done regardless if they are high risk or not.
Why........because i believe in freedom of choice, and as much as we advocate for our kids with Ds, the truth is that everyone is not like us and wouldnt be able to cope. I'd much rather see a baby with Ds that's wanted and loved.

Quote :

At the moment an overseas country is allowing gender selection, I think it was with their IVF. I think it smacks of having "designer babies".

We already allow designer babies, when choosing to use artificial insemination you get to read a history about the donor eg: hair colour, height, how brainy they are.
What about the parents that might carry a defective gene that only transfers to boys/girls and is fatel. If IVF could garantee that they wouldnt have to go through the death of a child then whats wrong with that?
I definately dont agree with being able to choose the sex of your child through IVF just for the sake of it, but then on the other hand if these parents have had to spend the thousands of dollars it costs for IVF why shouldnt they be able to choose too?

Very confusing

What we need is better education and support about disabilities etc to be given when a person chooses to have testing.
Its the attitudes and phobias that people have about Ds and other Dx's thats the problem, not the tests themselves,one day soon science is going to let us test for everything whether we like it or not.What started out as a simple ultrasound to check on a baby has grown to being given the choice now to know the sex of the baby.We cant stop progress.At the end of the day it is always a persons personal decision to have testing or not.
That's just my

I also agree with testing but my problem with the article was the attitude that babies with DS shouldn't be born and the lack of value placed on them. And if there is more testing the attitude of geneticists and the people that advise parents when they get a positive result needs to be looked in to and the DS Association also need to be able to offer the parents counseling as a matter of course.

Anyway they published it! It is in today's Herald. They spelt my name wrong but you can't have everything.

yeah that is great

theage.com.au (AUS) - 14 Dec 2008

Quote :

SOME obstetricians are calling for more extensive prenatal screening for Down syndrome, but those who call for screening can't have it both ways. They can't argue that greater screening enables greater choice while at the same time promoting halving the birth rate through abortion. That's not individual choice, that's eugenics.

read more...