Iceland close to becoming first country where no Down's Syndrome children are born

TheKid55

All Star
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
1,179
Reputation
430
Daps
7,670
The country where almost no-one gives birth to a child with Down's syndrome anymore

istock-453048095.jpg


Iceland is close to becoming the first country where no-one gives birth to a child with Down's syndrome.

Pre-natal tests were introduced in the early 2000s, and the vast majority who receive a positive test have terminated their pregnancy.


While the tests are optional, all expectant mothers are informed about their availability, and up to 85 per cent choose to take it.

It’s called the Combination Test, and uses ultrasound and blood tests – as well as factoring in the mother’s age.

This determines whether the foetus will have a chromosome abnormality, the most common of which results in Down's syndrome.

The law in Iceland allows for abortion after 16 weeks if the foetus has a deformity, and Down's syndrome is included in this category.

On average, just one or two children with Down's syndrome are born in Iceland each year. Sometimes, this is as a result of an inaccurate test.

"Babies with Down's syndrome are still being born in Iceland," said Hulda Hjartardottir, head of the Prenatal Diagnosis Unit at Landspitali University Hospital, told CBS.

"Some of them were low risk in our screening test, so we didn't find them in our screening.”

Helga Sol Olafsdottir counsels women who are considering ending their pregnancy over a foetal abnormality.

She says she tells mothers: “This is your life. You have the right to choose how your life will look like.”



She told a reporter: “We don't look at abortion as a murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended.

“We ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication... preventing suffering for the child and for the family. And I think that is more right than seeing it as a murder -- that's so black and white.

“Life isn't black and white. Life is grey.”
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,331
Reputation
19,930
Daps
204,092
Reppin
the ether
Priorities have gotten mad confused in this world.

I've known people with Down's Syndrome, most were pretty damn happy most of the time and with modern advances their long-term health continues to approach that of other people. On the other hand, really smart people are far more likely to be depressed than the average person. Geniuses are famously lonely. If we really don't want people to live "miserable lives", maybe we should start testing for likelihood of high IQ and murk all of dem in the womb as well?

The unintended consequences of all this shyt are crazy. There's always going to be "some" mentally disabled or downs syndrome people because not everyone does this testing, so the remaining ones are going to be that much more isolated and ostracized. All of the medical advances and services that help them to live fulfilling lives are going to be pulled back. Instead of people with disabilities being looked at as a rich part of society that helps breed compassion, patience, and understanding in others, they'll just be seen as an annoying nuisance that should have been culled from the population. And the number of stories of people whose disability has led them to better appreciate another aspect of human existence, or be able to do something else surprising that a normally abled person never would have....all those will be gone.



Good news. No need to bring a child into this world with a disability if you don't have to.
Amen to that. We'd all be better off in a world without Stevie Wonder, Stephen Hawking, Michael J. Fox, Ray Charles, Helen Keller, Chris Burke, Pablo Pineta, FDR, Greta Thunberg, and Beethoven.
 

mbewane

Knicks: 93 til infinity
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
19,271
Reputation
4,261
Daps
55,690
Reppin
Brussels, Belgium
Priorities have gotten mad confused in this world.

I've known people with Down's Syndrome, most were pretty damn happy most of the time and with modern advances their long-term health continues to approach that of other people. On the other hand, really smart people are far more likely to be depressed than the average person. Geniuses are famously lonely. If we really don't want people to live "miserable lives", maybe we should start testing for likelihood of high IQ and murk all of dem in the womb as well?

The unintended consequences of all this shyt are crazy. There's always going to be "some" mentally disabled or downs syndrome people because not everyone does this testing, so the remaining ones are going to be that much more isolated and ostracized. All of the medical advances and services that help them to live fulfilling lives are going to be pulled back. Instead of people with disabilities being looked at as a rich part of society that helps breed compassion, patience, and understanding in others, they'll just be seen as an annoying nuisance that should have been culled from the population. And the number of stories of people whose disability has led them to better appreciate another aspect of human existence, or be able to do something else surprising that a normally abled person never would have....all those will be gone.




Amen to that. We'd all be better off in a world without Stevie Wonder, Stephen Hawking, Michael J. Fox, Ray Charles, Helen Keller, Chris Burke, Pablo Pineta, FDR, Greta Thunberg, and Beethoven.

Great points. This still sounds like eugenism to me. I mean I've never yet been in the position so I can't really judge, but this is still basically saying this or that baby isn't "fit" enough to live. How slippery is that slope? Now Down Syndrome, what next? There will always be some kind of disability or syndrome, and if you can choose to not have babies with Down Syndrome, why not be able to choose for other things? These lists are gonna expand, and lead to wanting "perfect" babies.

And like you said, as societies we should be working on ways to better integrate these people who yes are different, but still have every right to live and we as societies we should work to make it better for them, which in turn helps society as a whole. As opposed to wiping them out.

I'm pro-choice and all, but I def have an issue with this kind of reasoning.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,331
Reputation
19,930
Daps
204,092
Reppin
the ether
Great points. This still sounds like eugenism to me. I mean I've never yet been in the position so I can't really judge, but this is still basically saying this or that baby isn't "fit" enough to live. How slippery is that slope? Now Down Syndrome, what next? There will always be some kind of disability or syndrome, and if you can choose to not have babies with Down Syndrome, why not be able to choose for other things? These lists are gonna expand, and lead to wanting "perfect" babies.

And like you said, as societies we should be working on ways to better integrate these people who yes are different, but still have every right to live and we as societies we should work to make it better for them, which in turn helps society as a whole. As opposed to wiping them out.

I'm pro-choice and all, but I def have an issue with this kind of reasoning.
You made the options clear.

A. We keep eliminating all the people that we feel are "unfit" to live.

B. We keep better integrating everyone into our society.


Anyone really have any doubt which options will lead to us being better people and which one will lead to a completely fukked-up world?
 
Top