Ethics of prenatal screening

[Canada 02]

Here’s a recent Danish headline: “Plans to make Denmark a Down syndrome-free perfect society.” The Danes want to promote aborting fetuses with Down syndrome, so their society will be free of such people around 2030. One bioethicist describes it as a “fantastic achievement.”

At least the Danes are raising this issue. In North America, it’s estimated that more than 90 per cent of unborn babies with Down syndrome are aborted.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2136096/

not surprised that it is happening, but shocked at the numbers. 90% in North America?!

[THE SCUD]

Won't they please think of the Corky's

WHO'LL SAVE THE CORKY'S NOW !?!?

[MarchHare]

Here’s a recent Danish headline: “Plans to make Denmark a Down syndrome-free perfect society.”

I find that headline hard to believe. The article's author does not name the publication, and I can't imagine anyone describing a society "perfect" solely by virtue of it being free of Down Syndrome. Absent of a citation, that headline is a poor translation at best or a fabrication at worst.

[Edit]
From the comments in the G&M link:

Very odd. I can't seem to find any such headline in a search of Danish media.

Perhaps Ms Sumerville would be so kind as to provide a citation.

[YYC in LAX]

I support

[TorqueDog]

I actually don't think this is a bad idea.

It'd be nice if we could figure out how to prevent it from happening in the first place. Only real knowledge we have where that is concerned is that the probability rises as the age of the mother increases.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

It depends what the screening is for.

I think Down's syndrome should be screened for in an effort to educate the parents. But screening for a whole bunch of somatic mutations (23andme and similar services) that describe increased "risks" that we can do nothing about is silly.

[Byrns]

Bring on the master race!

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2136096/

not surprised that it is happening, but shocked at the numbers. 90% in North America?!

Eugenics rises again.

[Traditional_Ale]

While eliminating a debilitating mental disease from the gene-pool is desirable, this is a very very slippery slope. What is next? Homosexuality? Bi-polar disorder? Predisposition to depression? Being too short/tall/skinny/fat?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

While eliminating a debilitating mental disease from the gene-pool is desirable, this is a very very slippery slope. What is next? Homosexuality? Bi-polar disorder? Predisposition to depression? Being too short/tall/skinny/fat?

How about we get rid of everyone who isn't blond haired and blue eyed? We could abort everyone who isn't genetically perfect, fitting a narrow definition of perfection according to societal norms.

After all, nobody with Downs has ever had a productive or happy life...

Would those in favour of selective abortion also be in favour of the sterilization of those with mental illness?

[Hockeyguy15]

I think we need more people with Downs. When the eventual Zombie epidemic hits, the Down's zombies will be much easier to escape from.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

How about we get rid of everyone who isn't blond haired and blue eyed? We could abort everyone who isn't genetically perfect, fitting a narrow definition of perfection according to societal norms.

There's a significant difference between what you're talking about and trying to prevent genetic defects.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Would those in favour of selective abortion also be in favour of the sterilization of those with mental illness?

Castration and sterilisation of violent sexual offenders is my personal favourite.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

There's a significant difference between what you're talking about and trying to prevent genetic defects..

I think you missed the point. There are some who would argue, especially in the disability community, that its not necessarily a "defect". So eliminating those with blonde hair is a stretch, its getting at the same idea.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

There's a significant difference between what you're talking about and trying to prevent genetic defects.

Castration and sterilisation of violent sexual offenders is my personal favourite.

What about violent thieves? Cut their hands off?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

What about violent thieves? Cut their hands off?

Because raping someone is the same as stealing something.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Because raping a woman or a child is the same as stealing something.

Can they not both be extremely traumatic, especially when they are violent?

Men can get raped, too, by the way.

[rubecube]

It's a touchy subject but the slippery slope arguments are akin to the same crap we heard about rampant polygamy and people marrying their cats from the anti-gay marriage crowd. HOZ sort of has a point with eugenics comment but this isn't really the same thing. Eugenics was based on a lot of misinformation and bad science, whereas we are now actually able to view these deficiencies shortly after conception. Mind you, the idea of completely ridding society of DS is rendered absurd by the fact that there will still be many parents who choose to keep their child regardless of any "deficiencies."

As for where I stand, I think it's still ultimately the woman's right to choose. If a woman does not believe that she has the means or capacity to care for a child with severe mental and/or physical disabilities, then who are we to decide for her? Another thing to note may be something like Cystic Fibrosis or any other number of diseases that are pretty much death sentences for the children diagnosed with them. I really don't have a problem with aborting the fetus, sparing the child from suffering through such an awful illness, and the parents from the prolonged grief and emotional turmoil.

[Shasta Beast]

Would you want to have that baby if you knew it had downs syndrome before it was born? It's a very hard thing to deal with.

I support pro-choice and I support a couples choice to give up a downs fetus and try again if they so choose.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

I think you missed the point. There are some who would argue, especially in the disability community, that its not necessarily a "defect". So eliminating those with blonde hair is a stretch, its getting at the same idea.

Pretty sure they're not the same thing at all. DS is a defect that sets people up at a disadvantage in life and a liability for their caregivers. I think it's reasonable to want to abort a baby with DS and it's not necessarily a slippery slope. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to establish guidelines on which conditions are abortable and which are not.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by traditional_ale

while eliminating a debilitating mental disease from the gene-pool is desirable, this is a very very slippery slope. What is next? Homosexuality? Bi-polar disorder? Predisposition to depression? Being too short/tall/skinny/fat?

dogs