I wonder if Dr. Lejeune is sorry he found the gene, since the funding stopped when the establishment decided it was easier and 'cheaper', moneywise anyway, to just abort the children, rather than trying to cure them. How very sad. And I bet they'd do the same thing if an autism gene was found. But I have my doubts about that, because autism is much more complex than Down's syndrome, I believe.
Well I don't think it's fair to blame the discoverer anyway. A prime example is Dr Spock who'se infamous child rearing book sparked the self indulgeance and hooligan producing attitudes of so many parents today (happily, we're into the second generation, and some of them are observing for themselves the errors which arose; hopefully it won't get any worse?). The good doctor is reported to have said belatedly that the best use for "that book" was to hit your kids with it, which I suspect is apochryphal, but whatever, the book also addressed the need for discipline and setting limits on kids behavious at a sufficiently early age. The problem is that he put this in seperate chapters from his advice on letting children "express themselves" and "develop their own personalities", and put them at the back of the book; as a result, doting parents took note of what they wanted to read, and didn't go through the whole book!
A pity he wasn't as much an expert on parents as he was on children?
Well yes, thank you Nemidaelius (no, I'm not being facetious; I just tend to forget that few have even the limited knowledge I've managed to dredge up) but wouldn't it be sensible to start a thread explaining such distinctions?
I can't speak for everyone, but I would love to benefit from your erudition in (well all things really, but especially ) in this field!
Anyone? This guy is obviosly current; Amy, there must be a category for this stuff?
Yes that's so, but this guy has a source of up-to-date knowledge, and with a little encouragement from the admin?...
maybe he could do a thread or two?
I didn't know that some people had autism and down's. You'd think that Down Syndrome would be something that should definitley be cured, but.. I recently read Count Us In, which was written/dictated by two men with Down Syndrome who said that they would not want to be cured. One of these men appeared bright and the other stupid, but not ***, which raises the question: Is Down Syndrome more treatable than people think?
I know that when kids with Down's Syndrome are taught systematically to learn to speak, read etc. and doing exercises to learn to control their bodies better (they are clumsy), they can very often be fully integrated in school. And I don't mean the ABA type stuff, but lots of love and attention and not being written off as '***'. A lot of these kids (but not nearly all of them) can do quite well in a normal school setting.
But these people for some reason age faster, and therefore don't get very old. Starting at the age of about 30, they are like people in the general population who are at least 20 years older. Also, people with Down's Syndrome seem to be more likely to get Alzheimers, many of them in their 30s and 40s.
One thing I think is just horrible, that I read of quite a few cases where a Down's Syndrome baby is born with an intestinal blockage, which is fixable, but because the baby is a Down's baby, is just left to die, to 'save' him from a life of disability. Of course, it's saving the parents from having to look after the kid! Down's kids are usually very happy people, they don't seem to suffer from who they are. But they definitely are more likely to have health issues, which is another reason why they don't tend to get old on average.
One thing I think is just horrible, that I read of quite a few cases where a Down's Syndrome baby is born with an intestinal blockage, which is fixable, but because the baby is a Down's baby, is just left to die, to 'save' him from a life of disability.
The US federal government passed a law about 20 years ago to protect Down's babies with such conditions by requiring hospitals to provide care for them.
But of course, after that, most people just aborted them anyway. 
I wonder why there is such a huge prejudice against babies/children with Downs Syndrome. Like AS, it exists in degrees, and the child can be anywhere from very *** to hardly at all. Most seem to do well with extra attention and just tend to learn more slowly than other children.
Often, they have very delightful personalities. I used to see a beautiful young girl with Downs who used to travel on the same bus at me. She had a part time job, too.
I don't think abortion should be allowed if a fetus is found to have a possibility of Downs Syndrome. If the parents really don't want to bring them up, there are people who would like to adopt them. I think medical professionals often paint a really negative picture of their chances in life and this is what sways parents, plus maybe they are worried what others will think if they have a "*** child".
I think it would be a lot more tragic to have a child with haemophilia or muscular dystrophy or severe cerebral palsy but even then, I would have reservations about abortion in those cases.
I totally agree, I have friends who have a toddler with Downs Syndrome, and he had a heart defect that is common among children likehim, but was saved through surgery. He's almost 2 now and one of the sweetest kids I've known.
I will have to go and pretend all the statistics about how humans murder their own children in circumstances of population overcrowding do not exist, then.
Where are these statistics? Hong Kong and parts of Japan are very, very overcrowded and Japan has a relatively low crime rate and are not at all known for killing children, or even having a high abortion rate.
Yes because they arent statistics, which you had previously referred to.
Child deaths occur chiefly because of child abuse, and extreme poverty. That is not directly related to overcrowding.
What exactly are you saying? That parents should only have children that they want, and should not have abortions, therefore each person should only conceive when they want a child and are capable of looking after it?
But that doesn't happen as you know, so how does that relate to downs syndrome? :?
If you are sure your child will be severly impaired, and you know you cannot care for them, adoption is not always a good choice. People aren't exactly lining up for handicapped children.
A positive result on a Down Syndrome screening test does not equate to being sure that a child will be severely impaired. Most DS children can walk, talk, go to school, learn to read, and generally enjoy their lives.
And in fact, there are parents lining up to adopt DS kids. If you do a google search for Down Syndrome adoption waiting lists, you will find many news stories about parents who are waiting to adopt.
I don't know if you have ever had children, but when you are pregnant and feel the child kicking, to make a logical decision based on possible outcomes is not the same as writing it down in black and white on paper.
This is why some women with cancer still decide to have their baby even though it risks killing them.
btw Stephen Hawking.
I don't know if you have ever had children, but when you are pregnant and feel the child kicking, to make a logical decision based on possible outcomes is not the same as writing it down in black and white on paper.
This is why some women with cancer still decide to have their baby even though it risks killing them.
btw Stephen Hawking.
Yeah I can say Amy, that you're right on that, when you're pregnant it becomes a whole different issue especially where some women feel a bond to the baby from the first positive pregnancy test. I know I felt that way and I didn't care what the outcome would be, I'd deal with the consequences even if it meant only a short time to be with my child, I would take it and do what I could to make the child comfortable. That is mainly why I would never have done the Triple Screen/Quad Screen/AFP/CVS or Amniocentesis. The child would have been perfect in every way to me because he/she was given to me even if only for a short while to love and cherish in my heart. 
If my child were going to have Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, and spend his or her life wheelchair-bound, severely neurologically impaired, and engaging in severe and uncontrollable self-injury, I would abort.
If my child were going to have Tay-Sachs disease, and endure a painful, tortured existence only to die at the age of four or five, I would abort.
If my child were going to have Trisomy 13 or anencephaly or some other deadly birth defect, and be likely to die before or shortly after birth, I would abort.
If my child were going to have sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis, I MIGHT abort.
If my child were going to have Down syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, autism, epilepsy, Fragile X, achondroplasia, Treacher-Collins syndrome, or any disorder in which the child still has a good chance of having a decent quality of life, I would NOT abort.
As for muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, and other conditions that are severely physically impairing but usually not mentally impairing, I honestly don't know. I don't have much information on these conditions.
I have met plenty of people with disabilities who wish they were not disabled, but I have not, to date, met anyone with a disability who wishes they were never born.
With regard to forced abortions/sterilization in people deemed "unfit" as parents: My mother has schizophrenia which is under control through medication, and with some help from my grandmother (generally help with driving, money, and moral support) was able to raise me just fine. My childhood wasn't perfect, but it was far better than those of some of my friends with "normal" parents. I had to witness my mother being dragged off to the hospital a couple of times when she slipped up on her medication, but even during these rare episodes where my mother lost control of herself, I was never, ever mistreated, abused or neglected. Although she definitely couldn't have done quite as good of a job without my grandmother around, I certainly do not think my mother was "unfit" to raise me. I think making this kind of judgment call (and certainly schizophrenia would be very high on the list of conditions where the mother might be considered unfit) is extremely dangerous.
There are many of those diseases/disorders/syndromes that are equally as incompatible in some cases, doesn't mean that the short time with them isn't likely to be as wonderful. It's amazing how things can be so unpredictable and all when becoming a mother but a mother still in many ways has a bond to that child no matter how challenging that child's life will be... there are always exceptions to every rule there unfortunately and I feel bad for the kids that have to suffer because of ignorance.