Engineering the 'perfect' baby
Today's story that should turn one's stomach:
"Illustrating the complications of prenatal genetic testing, researchers reported Tuesday that some couples chose to terminate pregnancies even though the mutation carried by their fetus probably would not have resulted in serious health problems....Experts say the findings, published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association, raise questions about the appropriateness of screening for treatable or non-life-threatening diseases -- a practice that is likely to increase as scientists continue to discover the function of individual genes."
This raises that argument over the "quality of life" catchphrase, and serious questions about the rights of the disabled. Should we ever be in the business of deciding which baby is a worthy human being? It wanders into the territory of eugenics -- breeding the best in accordance with society's preferences. We now have parents filing suit for "wrongful birth," or blaming doctors for letting them get saddled with a disabled child:
"Should the court system legally devalue the life of a disabled person? An English court rejected a wrongful life case (McKay v. Essex Area Health Authority, 1982) on the grounds that recognizing the claim would 'mean regarding the life of a handicapped child as not only less valuable than the life of a normal child, but so much less valuable that it was not worth preserving.'...The human cost of this new litigation is terrible. Parents publicly tell a child that they wish he or she had never been born. Disabled children may penalize loving parents who cared enough to bear them, despite 'flaws.' And no one knows how many healthy children will not be born because legally savvy doctors urge parents to have discretionary abortions for fear of bringing a 'wrongful life' into the world."
The New York Times reported earlier this year on the gray area between those who favor abortion rights becoming uncomfortable with such selective abortions, and disability-rights advocates who wonder why the liberalism that embraces diversity would stop at embracing disabled babies. The story included this sobering statistic:
"About 90 percent of women who learn they are carrying a fetus with the extra 21st chromosome that causes Down syndrome choose an abortion. Studies have shown that many women choose to abort for diagnoses of less serious conditions."
I've always noticed the especially fierce love and affection that parents of Down syndrome children have for their kids. Now we see that's because they were brave enough to let them be born.
Comments
Great post, Bridget, thanks.
Posted by: Chris Weinkopf | September 19, 2007 9:54 AM
Anyone involved in the debate of Down children syndrome, should investigate one factor. What happens when Down childrens reach adulthood? And what happens to them when the parents die? Who will take care of them? Siblings? An institution? We hear very little of that problem and if this country does not have the financial capacity to give medical insurance to a large segment of its population, where is the money coming from to feed, support and maintain Down children? There is an excelent 2004 Italian movie that I recomend to everyone involved in this debate. The movie is called "THE KEYS OF THE HOUSE." It was Italy's official selection for the best Foreign Language Film Academy Award and the Academy rejected. Perhaps, the subject was too hot to handle, but, you should take a look and think. And leave God out of this.
Posted by: Dante F. Rochetti | September 19, 2007 9:57 AM
Glad you raised the subject, Dante. I worked for two years in a group home for adults with Down Syndrome and other mental handicaps. They where a cheerful, loving group, and all held jobs, even the lowest-functioning among them. My life was greatly enriched for each one of these friendships, and I can't imagine the world would have been better off had any of these people been snuffed out before birth.
The DS adults I knew were supported, to the extent possible, by parents and/or siblings. (As most DS patients don't live past their 40s or 50s, they often don't outlive their parents.) Those without families were supported by the state, and clearly if there's anyone the state should help, it's those who truly can't take care of themselves.
BTW, it was neither Bridget nor I, but you, who brought God into this -- right along with your cold utilitarianism.
Posted by: Chris Weinkopf | September 19, 2007 11:30 AM
Snaps, Chris! I worked in a day program for severely developmentally disabled adults (no Down syndrome in the group)... one of the guys was infatuated with Billy Ocean music (pure torture), and yet another one who could only babble (but with the same inflection like he was having a conversation, including proper hand gestures) still tried to pick up chicks at the mall. They were awesome.
Posted by: Bridget | September 20, 2007 3:50 AM
Allright, Chris, I did brought God into this "autist adults" subject because I noticed that often when people face a problem with no apparent solution, they always end the argument with "God will provide." Fine. Also, when I sent my blog I was not aware that that morning the Daily News had a front page article exposing the problem with autist adults. The same could have been written about Down Syndrome adults. Also, what happens when the adults with autism or Down Syndrome refuse to die past 40s or 50s? Will the State (as you say) provide for their needs? Well, I remember when Ronald Reagan in his first term as Governor of California, ordered (for whatever financial reasons) the closure of a number of mental institutions and in doing so he dumped in the streets hundreds of mentally hill people. With the right Governor in place and with the same or worse financial problem lurking around the corner can anyone guarantee that the same action will not be repeated? And, If you are still interested, I will gladly lend you (for one month) my copy of "The Keys To The House" the Italian film I mentioned yesterday.
Thank you for your time.
Posted by: Dante F. Rochetti | September 20, 2007 9:29 PM
Dante, you're speaking in non-sequiturs. Sure, "How can we take care of these people when they become adults?" is a worthwhile question. But that doesn't make "Better kill them in the womb" a legitimate answer.
Posted by: Chris Weinkopf | September 21, 2007 5:55 AM
Goof morning, Chris, being in contact with you is an education. First I had to look up "utilitarianism" and now I had to look up "non-sequiturs". To the first one I can only answer that, to me, being "realistic" would be a more appropriate classification and to the second one, how can you say that my question about what to do with Autistic or Down Syndrome adults is irrelevant? It would be non-sequitar, AKA, irrelevant if we conclude our discussion with "God will provide."
P.S. Are you sure you don't want to borrow my copy of "The Keys To The House?"
Posted by: Dante F. Rochetti | September 21, 2007 6:28 AM