92% Of Prenatal Down Syndrome Diagnoses Result In Abortion

[Westside PUFAs]

"An estimated 92 percent of all women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate their pregnancies, according to research reviewed by Dr. Brian Skotko, a pediatric geneticist at Children's Hospital Boston."

http://abcn.ws/1tulYZd

Does this mean people are shallow?

 

[firebreather]

post 113515 "An estimated 92 percent of all women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate their pregnancies, according to research reviewed by Dr. Brian Skotko, a pediatric geneticist at Children's Hospital Boston."

http://abcn.ws/1tulYZd

Does this mean people are shallow?

That is so sad.

Do those mothers who have imperfections themselves ever wonder if their mothers would have aborted them if they knew about their imperfections

 

[Parsifal]

Gattaca. Brave New World.

 

[tara]

post 113515 Does this mean people are shallow?

I think it might mean that the women who would not have an abortion for this reason are less likely to get the diagnostic test done in the first place. No point in testing if you would definitely not act on it.

How much financial and practical support is there in the US for parents of children with learning differences etc?

 

[artist]

Very sad, as is all abortion

 

[Such_Saturation]

Well I imagine it's hard to only think about sparing suffering to the child and not also to yourself in that situation.

 

[Zachs]

Eugenics and euthanasia are the way of the future. We need some sort of pop control and weeding out weak genes and drains on resources.

 

[Such_Saturation]

post 114241 drains on resources.

Why, what is the purpose of all these resources that they steal?

 

[Zachs]

post 114245

post 114241 drains on resources.

Why, what is the purpose of all these resources that they steal?

Everything, but medical care is the big one.

 

[sweetpeat]

post 114245

post 114241 drains on resources.

Why, what is the purpose of all these resources that they steal?

Everything, but medical care is the big one.

Zachs, I can't tell if you're being serious or just provocative. But if you've read Peat and this board for any length of time, then you know that the waste of resources is the fault of bureaucracies and politics.
Many health problems that are bloating the medical system and using up resources could be improved, if not cured, with inexpensive products such as thyroid, aspirin, and methylene blue. Think of all the money that could be re-directed to things like birth defects if doctors could simply correctly diagnose hypothyroidism and treat it appropriately.

 

[Stilgar]

I don't think it means we are shallow.

Think about the suffering that some parents go through raising a child who, of course is not inferior, but whose difference warrants unprecedented attention, care and time. Some people are not born to be carers, and some people should never have had the children they had - disabled or not. The children they raise are uncared for in ways that stretch beyond feeding and clothing.

A child with Down's Syndrome can be beautiful, rewarding, profound and inspiring, just like any child, but just like any child it can be difficult.

It is a highly personal decision, and not one that most mothers would take lightly. Abortion can be horrendously scarring, traumatic, and oddly poignant. I spoke to someone once, who said her daughter had an abortion, and the only way she got over it was to say to herself that she murdered her child. Once she was so literal about it, she could accept it for what it was and move on. She never forgot, though.

Remember that most people too don't follow a Peat lifestyle, with its boundless energy and positivity. A lot of people don't believe they are capable of very much at all.

So I don't think it is shallow. I think it means we are human, that we make cost and benefit decisions (however harsh it may seem), and we recognize our incapacity to be selfless, especially if we are grossly under pressure to be so.

 

[Nick]

How is it shallow to want to avoid bringing unneccesary suffering into the world? On the contrary, this is the deepest moral and ethical imperative. One could in fact argue that it is immoral not to abort in this case. I have a feeling that only a religious fundamentalist ethic could come to any other conclusion.

 

[Brian]

Zachs, I can't tell if you're being serious or just provocative. But if you've read Peat and this board for any length of time, then you know that the waste of resources is the fault of bureaucracies and politics.
Many health problems that are bloating the medical system and using up resources could be improved, if not cured, with inexpensive products such as thyroid, aspirin, and methylene blue. Think of all the money that could be re-directed to things like birth defects if doctors could simply correctly diagnose hypothyroidism and treat it appropriately.

Very well said. Eugenics and genetic engineering are misguided because the roots of deformity, developmental disorder, and degenerative disease are very rarely truly genetic. A society focused on maximizing thyroid function and cellular energy especially during reproductive and early childhood years would be far closer to a utopia than any other society I can think of.

Family lines that appear to have horrible genes within a few generations of a pro-metabolic environment can transform into offspring with much improved development and expression of human potential. Look at history for examples of starving immigrants to a rich safe country with a drive for improving their lives through hard work and responsibility that within a generation or two are having children with peak health achieving and contributing great things to humanity.

Something else that can't be ignored is that the age of the mother at conception has a potentially very big impact on her child's health and chance for developmental disorders.

All this being said, I'm not against mothers deciding to abort a fetus with severe developmental disorders. I worked in developmentally delayed care for awhile and saw first hand how much it takes to sustain the life of a person who will never be able to care for themselves and have no family that is willing or able to provide for them. It costs the state at least $100,000 per year to provide for a single adult that requires 24/7 supervision. But I still hold that the larger focus should be on preventing developmental disorder through metabolic health as well as reliable birth control available for the poor and unhealthy.

 

[Such_Saturation]

post 114269

post 114245

post 114241 drains on resources.

Why, what is the purpose of all these resources that they steal?

Everything, but medical care is the big one.

No, I mean what would you use them for instead?

 

[Zachs]

post 114445

post 114269

post 114245

post 114241 drains on resources.

Why, what is the purpose of all these resources that they steal?

Everything, but medical care is the big one.

No, I mean what would you use them for instead?

The down syndrome and elderly? Well I suppose they could be used for free labor...

 

[tara]

While I'm quite open to the idea that too much focus is put on genetics and not enough on environmental and metabolic factors in general, as far as I know, Downs syndrome is reliably predicted by the specific genetic trisomy variation. There is also a lot of variation in what the syndrome entails, and you can't know a particular child's capabilities or lifespan, with or without Downs, until after the event.
Since the variation occurs more frequently in offspring of older mothers, I guess nutrition and thyroid function might affect the odds, but I don't know if this has been demonstrated.

post 114309
It is a highly personal decision, and not one that most mothers would take lightly.

:1

 

[mt_dreams]

As long as the parents were okay with it, I would much rather they choose to abort the child rather then have the child and not give it the proper amount of attention a child with down syndrome requires. This would fall into the very small category of somewhat proper abortions which also includes things like rape, though I'm not sure my brain could handle such an act if I was put in a position to choose.

I don't see how this is grouped in the same category as eugenics. I always think of eugenics as a way of controlling who can have a child, as a means of removing whatever "society defect" the parent has from the population. Case in point would be something like Alexander Graham Bell's attempt to make it illegal for deaf people to have children, due to the potential of bringing another deaf child into this world. Another could be that massive amount of sterile women coming out of Africa, eugenics clearly went underground after the WW2 fiasco.

With 3 people babies now being approved, it's only a matter of time before science totally takes control of the pregnancy process. We like to play God, and it appears that our own birthing process will not be exempt from this desire.

 

[jaguar43]

I highly doubt that Down syndrome rates drop because of the increase aborting fetuses of positive test results . Those so call "test" for testing down syndrome are not even reliable most of the time. I was suppose to be born with down syndrome buy my parents didn't want to abort me for whatever reason and I came out fine.

Statistically their could be many reasons why Down syndrome is declining. Less births rates altogether, less environmental pollutants, women waiting longer to have children( According to Ray Peat in Nutrition for women, really young and really old women have a higher chance of birth defects) Since people are waiting till their late twenties and early thirties to get married etc.

Its important to remember that the medical establishment is extremely inconsistent with anything they say or do. You have to really inform yourself before leading to conclusions about a certain topic.

 

[tara]

post 114624 I highly doubt that Down syndrome rates drop because of the increase aborting fetuses of positive test results . Those so call "test" for testing down syndrome are not even reliable most of the time. I was suppose to be born with down syndrome buy my parents didn't want to abort me for whatever reason and I came out fine.

Hi jag, you may be better informed about this that I am, but I had thought that there were several different tests that can give some idea of the likelihood of Downs. The standard test where I am is a low-intervention low-risk ultrasound that most expecting mothers have. I think this gives an indication of likelihood of some conditions including Downs, based on the appearance and measurements of the ultrasound images, but is not terribly reliable. There are other tests - eg CVS (chorionic villi sampling) and amniocentesis - that are invasive and involve risk to the foetus. These are not standard, but are sometimes used by women who are more at risk - eg older mothers. These tests look at the chromosomes, and I believe they have a much higher predictive accuracy. I don't know how long this technology has been around - I'm pretty sure it wasn't an option for my mother, but I think I'm older than you. Women who would not abort whatever the outcome would generally not take the risk of the invasive tests. I am not aware of people having the trisomy variant who do not develop Downs - but maybe you are? Don't post any more personal info than you want to, but I wonder what evidence your parents had to go by?

post 114624 Statistically their could be many reasons why Down syndrome is declining. Less births rates altogether, less environmental pollutants, women waiting longer to have children( According to Ray Peat in Nutrition for women, really young and really old women have a higher chance of birth defects) Since people are waiting till their late twenties and early thirties to get married etc.

You may well be right that there are other reasons than abortion contributing to the declining numbers - statistics can often miss relevant confounders. But my understanding was that there are a significantly larger number of 'elderly' primagravidas over 40yrs than there was a few decades ago, at least where I am in the wealthier parts of the world. Over forty is not considered very old here, but the odds of non-standard variants go up significantly.

 

[jaguar43]

post 114631

post 114624 I highly doubt that Down syndrome rates drop because of the increase aborting fetuses of positive test results . Those so call "test" for testing down syndrome are not even reliable most of the time. I was suppose to be born with down syndrome buy my parents didn't want to abort me for whatever reason and I came out fine.

Hi jag, you may be better informed about this that I am, but I had thought that there were several different tests that can give some idea of the likelihood of Downs. The standard test where I am is a low-intervention low-risk ultrasound that most expecting mothers have. I think this gives an indication of likelihood of some conditions including Downs, based on the appearance and measurements of the ultrasound images, but is not terribly reliable. There are other tests - eg CVS (chorionic villi sampling) and amniocentesis - that are invasive and involve risk to the foetus. These are not standard, but are sometimes used by women who are more at risk - eg older mothers. These tests look at the chromosomes, and I believe they have a much higher predictive accuracy. I don't know how long this technology has been around - I'm pretty sure it wasn't an option for my mother, but I think I'm older than you. Women who would not abort whatever the outcome would generally not take the risk of the invasive tests. I am not aware of people having the trisomy variant who do not develop Downs - but maybe you are? Don't post any more personal info than you want to, but I wonder what evidence your parents had to go by?

post 114624 Statistically their could be many reasons why Down syndrome is declining. Less births rates altogether, less environmental pollutants, women waiting longer to have children( According to Ray Peat in Nutrition for women, really young and really old women have a higher chance of birth defects) Since people are waiting till their late twenties and early thirties to get married etc.

You may well be right that there are other reasons than abortion contributing to the declining numbers - statistics can often miss relevant confounders. But my understanding was that there are a significantly larger number of 'elderly' primagravidas over 40yrs than there was a few decades ago, at least where I am in the wealthier parts of the world. Over forty is not considered very old here, but the odds of non-standard variants go up significantly.

I can ask my mother but which initial test they did, I am pretty sure that they wanted to do a amniocentesis when I was in utero, but mother declined because of the risk and she didn't want to stick a needle in me. She was about thirty years old. in the U.S.

I am in my early twenties so it wasn't to long ago. But my point is that its extremely important to take certain information that is posted in the mainstream and to reconsider the validity. Information is always being manipulated to promote ulterior motives.

I have no idea what trisomy variant is, and I don't now if I have it.

There wasn't much evidence, my mother told my father about the situation, he said that it doesn't matter its still a child so and if I did have downs they would still love me or whatever.

But I am not against abortion especially in that situation. But I am skeptical about the testing and validity.

Aren't you in Canada ? I really don't know much about Canada. I would need to look up the stats on pregnancy in the U.S though.


But here is a better question. Why are they only testing the mother ? The father also has a role in producing down syndrome as well. Here is what Ray Peat said.

Women who marry at 30 and 35, for example were found to have fewer Mongoloid babies than women of the same age who had married younger. The investigator suggested that long married couples so seldom made love that the chances were greater for the egg ( or egg and sperm both_ to deteriorate before being fertilized.

Nutrition for Women page 63

So if this is true than testing for down's should occur before conception and should include testing the egg and sperm,