Caroline Mansfield, Suellen Hopfer, Theresa M. Marteau (1999). "Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review". Prenatal Diagnosis 19 (9): 808–812. PMID 10521836

Disgusting!!!!!

Good Lord!!

Down's Syndrome is straightforward and easy to test, and you either have it or you don't.  Autism is endless shades and even if we find the genetic cause it'll certainly be too complicated to terminate any fetus with impunity.  I imagine the best you'd get would be 'this child has a X percent chance of having severely disabling autism and X chance of having a less serious spectrum disorder and X chance of coming out NT"

But I think many parents would abort the child all the same.

Not actually true, there are degrees of Down Syndrome just as there are for Autism. Most of the truly disabling aspects of DS is in co-morbids that can be operated on (such as heart and tongue defects). A properly supported education deals with the rest. Most people, when they hear the word "Autism" have the same reaction to it as you appear to do to DS; they imagine the worst-case scenario, because that is what is publicised by the 'charities'.

There are false positives and false negatives for all pre-natal tests.

What worries me most about pre-natal testing is the heartless language used by the researchers; e.g.

(My emphasis)

In other words, prenatal testing is not to prepare the parents for a less-than-perfect child, but to prevent the child being born at all.

By 'hitherto preventable' they mean that older, more accurate but slower tests would detect more children with genetic differences and therefore more would be killed.

I criticized the prenatal test for Down's and one woman pointed out to me that she would never consider an abortion.  She said that the positive Down's diagnosis helped schedule a surgery that her daughter needed.  But really the "preparing" for a child with Down's is just a coverup.  Necessary surgeries can always be scheduled just as some doctor's schedule cesarian sections at their convenience.  

Newborns are routinely screened for hearing problems and other ailments because I suppose that our society values those people more than others.  There should be nothing wrong with a post natal test for Down's.  

I do not support with prenatal testing for autism.  "Time to prepare for a child with autism" is just a coverup.  

We actually starting talking about something more disgusting than Jenny McCarthy's behaviour.

Whilst that is certainly true, M, her behaviour comes from the very attitude that leads to this sort of thinking. I'd be willing to bet that if she was pregnant with a Downs kid, she'd abort. John Best Junior's wife would as well IMO.

Ok, so substitute 'Down Syndrome' for 'trisomy 21' in that post and what I said is true; and they're technically the same thing.

no edit buttonblah.

By 'easy to test for' I meant compared to autism.

I was offered a pre-natal test for Downs which I refused. My view was that why would I undergo a test which increases the risk of miscarriage and is less than 100% accurate in telling me something that I would find out anyway when the baby was born!

Time to prepare is nonsense in my opinion.  It may be though, that I am less idealistic or optomistic in such situations than others are.  All through my pregnancy I took one day at a time on the basis that "there is many a slip twixt cup and lip".  In other words, I knew there is no guarantee of a successful pregnancy and healthy baby.

As it happened I had to go into hospital a month early to have my son who spent the first month of his life in the Special Care Baby Unit.  Lots of people said that was so sad and not what I must have expected or dreamed about.  But I hadn't expected or dreamed about anything...I just took things as they happened.

I seem to be unusual, though, in having that attitude.  Many people seem to visualise a perfect baby, followed by a perfect toddlerhood and so on.  If you expect everything to be perfect, maybe that makes you more likely to look for a pre-natal test and have an abortion based on the results.

Sorry - bit rambling...

But maybe parents who expect everything to be perfect should get their heads out of the clouds.

That's blunt, I know.  But there is no such thing as the "perfect" baby.  Everyone has something and should be loved for who there are.

Exactly!  Well said!

I wrote in response to one parent here who was asking for people's opinion is she should have another child because she had already one or two on the autistic spectrum.  I told her that anything could happen to her normal child and she would not want them dead.  She responded that I was "very rude".  If she had just asked what were the odds of having another child with autism, it would have made me feel better.  I was angry.  Do people all think we wallow in self pity about our autism?

Life is about taking risks and dealing with unexpected outcomes.  Why do people join up to some cult that believes they "attract" what they will from the universe.  They think they can plan their whole life.  They say to me "you would have a job if you didn't put out so much negative energy to the universe.  You must be attracting all that bad luck".  Is this why there is a lack of philantropy in America?

I would say The Secret is a bunch of bourgeois nonsense (and since no one is likely to make me read that sentence aloud, I can say it.)  A useful philosophy for whiny middle-class people so long as they only apply it to themselves.

As to 'perfect babies,' I can see where people would want their offspring (who are, in part, a continuation of themselves) to have at least all the advantages they did, more if possible.  Also, raising a disabled child would be difficult (though raising a regular child could easily be just as difficult, possibly more, but most parents probably don't take this into account.) I don't agree with this, but it's useful to see where the other side comes from.