One person’s “cognitive impairment” is another’s empathy enhancement.
That's a very zero-sum way of looking at this.
Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome
301–310 of 520 posts
Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, that is a legitimate argument to make in a cruel, uncaring (most of the time) world. No, it isn’t. “I wish you didn’t exist because your existence inconveniences me,” is a step away from “I should be able to kill you because you inconvenience me.” You will likely think that I am being hyperbolic (“We’re just talking about if it was a good idea for these people to exist, not saying we should be able to kill the…
Yes, I do think you’re being hyperbolic. We’re waging a life that doesn’t exist yet against two parents and possible a healthy child that could be. Accommodating for a human that exists, if suffering, is clearly a moral obligation. Doing so when it’s not a human but a husk still is not, and deciding in favour of the very human parents—who also have a right to happiness—is definitely ethically valid. In a related disc…
So what if one doesn't exist yet and another could be? Then both are possibilities. Your sentences look superifically logical but they make no actual sense.
Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some bioethics experts are concerned I do have to wonder what goes on in the minds of these people. My sister-in-law has a child with Down's syndrome and the situation basically ruined her life. She can no longer work, so they now struggle on a single income, if her husband were to leave her she would be completely screwed. To what end is that in the continuance of ethics?
Many ethicists value the continuation of someone's--anyone's--(literal) life over the continuation of anyone else's life style. I'm not arguing whether you should or shouldn't agree with them, nor saying anything about in which cases. It's just one of the primary things going on in the minds of those people, and you said you wondered.
I love animals, I love people, I love dancing Down-syndrome people.
The question is who is responsible for them and what it means to those or society.
Let those ethicists take care of a Down-syndrome person one year, then ask them again.
About lifestyle and such.
Ethicize can everybody. The real questions are more down to earth. Pun not intended.
By the way, my partner and I are of different views and because of her I know there are very different types, some are totally self sufficient and work.
As always, truth is somewhere in between. Do not eradicate, let people choose. There will be people who terminate, others will not. Let those people pay a share who take the risk and then put their child to social care. But be human and society should help and pay a big ahsre too.
How much? I have no idea. We would need the exact numbers, other social projects, a good discussion forum, tests before people comment. I probably have no ida about Down syndrome and still, I am just being commenting.
I think generally a big misunderstanding that there is one solution and one way. We should always just find a middle way, listening to each other, learning, voting, discussing. Keeping freedom of choice and responsibility of own choices in balance.
Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's a form of eugenics, however far down the spectrum it may be. edit: I mean to imply here that the overton window is shifted, basically.
Correcting what is essentially a developmental defect (albeit a defect that occurs in the germ cells rather than in the womb) isn't eugenics. It's not caused by any genes carried by the parents, it's caused by a failure in the development process, specifically meiosis. Would preventing fetal alcohol syndrome be eugenics? It's caused by changes in gene expression from alcohol exposure after all.
Are you suggesting that by aborting a fetus with Down Syndrome, the fetus is then cured of Down Syndrome? You’re not really correcting the developmental defect insomuch as eliminating the fetus that had the defect.
Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there’s a difference between appreciating those among us who have it for their perspective and differences and wishing it upon your child. I admit I was absolutely relieved when pre-natal screening was negative for it, both times. But if that was the hand we were dealt, then I’d take it. But that doesn’t mean I want it.
My friends baby tested positive for down syndrome in one of the early screenings. They suggested termination. When my friend asked what the chances were they said on that test they had a 1 in 100 chance of down syndrome. That baby did not have down syndrome and is now a happy seven year old.
We were given 1 in 21 from the nuchal transparency on the 12 week scan, then we did CVS testing to find out for sure.
Terminating on 1/100 without any further testing seems crazy to me. Of course, our scans and screening were all 'free' on the NHS, so there was no cost to getting extra data.
Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some bioethics experts are concerned I do have to wonder what goes on in the minds of these people. My sister-in-law has a child with Down's syndrome and the situation basically ruined her life. She can no longer work, so they now struggle on a single income, if her husband were to leave her she would be completely screwed. To what end is that in the continuance of ethics?
I understand where they're coming from, but I believe it comes from a place of local and specific concern (the child with Down's syndrome) and not the wider impact. The way I think about it; 10-20% of known pregnancies (and a larger number of all pregnancies) end in miscarriage, the majority of which are due to genetic errors and chromosomal abnormalities that, unfortunately, mean the fetus wasn't viable to begin wit…
It is a sound pragmatic logic (ignoring few corner cases), but people deciding things in such hard situation often don't decide purely on logic, if at all.
Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
My friends baby tested positive for down syndrome in one of the early screenings. They suggested termination. When my friend asked what the chances were they said on that test they had a 1 in 100 chance of down syndrome. That baby did not have down syndrome and is now a happy seven year old.
Wait, am I reading this wrong or did they suggest abortion to avoid a mere 1% risk of Down syndrome?
[deleted]
Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think people with Down syndrome can’t “achieve independence and a life of their own”? And what makes you think they, or their families, see their existence as suffering?
> Why do you think people with Down syndrome can’t “achieve independence and a life of their own”? Based on the anecdotes here. 5 in support, 3 against as of now. I wasn't expecting such a spread, so I did a bit of research. The cognitive problems, though possibly quite severe are not so as frequently as I had assumed. Whereas the medical complications tend to be commonly nasty. As for independence there's a lot of a…
> I'm sorry, what? Those with Down's Syndrome are people, with all the emotions and experiences that entails. If they are supported, nurtured and loved then they'll lead correspondingly happy lives.
Heartily agree! My question was a reaction to the last line in the parent comment:
> If a child can't achieve independence and a life of their own, why let all parties suffer through that ordeal?
I’m sorry that I didn’t make that as clear as I could have.
* * *
I’ve seen the negativity on Reddit and, now, here. Some of that is based on historical reality: the standards for medical care and early intervention have dramatically improved outcomes for people with DS even just in my lifetime. It turns out that if you don’t believe a child is capable of, say, reading, then you don’t bother teaching them to read. This becomes a self-fulfilling diagnosis. And not too long ago, many kids with DS had inner ear damage from undetected ear infections, leading to hearing loss and difficulty communicating. As we learn more about what’s possible and what needs monitoring in kids with DS, long-term outcomes get better and better.
This recent (~last 20-40 years) improvement means there’s still a visible cohort of people who didn’t receive that level of care and probably are less independent. But I’d also suggest that there’s sample bias in anecdotes on Reddit. Like with product reviews: the vast majority in the middle don’t bother to post, and negative experiences get more emotional traction than positive ones.
The range of associated medical conditions is long and scary. But no individual gets all, or even many, of those conditions. And a lot of the scariest/most complicated stuff is correctable early post-natal (heart surgeries are common) or end of life (early appearance of dementia is unfortunately still the likely outcome for most people with DS). Medicine continues to make progress, and I think outcomes will continue to dramatically improve.
Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s alive as a zygote, so without even looking at the paper I don’t disagree. The person you responded to said “hardly a life” though, so I don’t think they literally mean is it a cell that’s alive.
It's a unique living organism. A life. Different from a skin cell which isn't a unique organism.
I have a different opinion than yours. So what if that's some, very narrow definition of life? If I develop a tumor is it also a life? It certainly behaves so.
World is full of human life. West (and not only) manufactures failed wars that killed millions of civilians without a blink of an eye (Vietnam, Iraqs, Afghanistan just to name a few) and sends its own people to death. Where are those life-at-all-costs defenders?
Such people are the last to force their own viewpoints on protecting life unto literally everybody else. Yet they feel the most righteous due to whatever fucked up morals they have to spread them and attack everybody who dares to think differently.
Another story - very similar people (to the point of calling them often the same) have huge mental barriers unplugging their relatives from life support, in situations when there is 0 chance for any sort of recovery and brain is heavily damaged. Wife is a doctor and most of them are religious freaks, ie italian where we live (nothing against you guys, apart from this). They let their closest people suffer horribly (within the limits of their state) for months or even years, put a massive financial burden on whole society just because they don't feel like signing papers for unplugging already dead person, its just some parts of their body is sort of kept alive. Absolutely deplorable weak 'humans', I have no nice word for those. Suffice to say wife saw her share of such folks during her years in hospitals and it was one of the reasons she moved to private sphere.
Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think societies somewhat naturally wax and wane on most topics, probably because it seems we're simply unable to maintain a middle ground on anything. We always end up taking things to an extreme which, regardless of what that extreme may be, tends to lead to unpleasant scenarios which causes society to start bouncing back in the opposite direction only to repeat the cycle in the equal but opposite direction some t…
[flagged]
[flagged]