Moral Dilemma

[Tunnelcat]

The couple took a test, the chorionic villus sampling or CVS test, to see if the child the mother was carrying at the time would be born with Downs Syndrome. If the test showed negative, in other words a normal child, they were going to have the baby. If the test showed positive for the abnormality, they were thinking of aborting the fetus. The test showed negative and they decided to have the baby. But, it turns out the hospital lab screwed up the test, which resulted in a false negative for the abnormality. The baby was born and quickly tested positive for Downs Syndrome. The couple sued and won a judgement against the hospital.

Should abortion be a viable option for eliminating a fetus found to have a serious birth defect that will in all likelihood cost the parents far more than they can provide or result in a life of misery for the child? 89% of women who have had this test went on to abort the fetus when the abnormality was indicated. Even more interesting and pure speculation on my part, would a religious-based hospital intentionally throw a test for a birth defect if they knew the couple would abort?

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... cy_he.html

[CDN_Merlin]

If you know you won't be able to handle a child with a sever disability, then I'm for abortion. I am pro choice. Not everyone can have a life with a child with a disability. It costs a lot of money and time and sometimes it's not possible.

[flip]

It's possible TC.

EDIT:Having a child with cerebral palsy I couldn't, but I wouldn't regardless. I know how it is to suffer for having an illegitimate child. I fought for 4 long years, ate an immense amount of crow(that's what saved me;)) and spent alot of money to get custody of my oldest girl. Abortion was never an option for me, but believe me, it would have been easier.

[CUDA]

IMO abortion is the ultimate in selfishness.

IBTL because this thread will end up like all the other abortion threads as a flame war

[Duper]

Should abortion be a viable option for eliminating a fetus found to have a serious birth defect that will in all likelihood cost the parents far more than they can provide or result in a life of misery for the child? 89% of women who have had this test went on to abort the fetus when the abnormality was indicated. Even more interesting and pure speculation on my part, would a religious-based hospital intentionally throw a test for a birth defect if they knew the couple would abort?

Despite all of this, the Levys say they have the same expectations for their daughter as they do for their sons: They want to help her reach her full potential. Deborah Levy said Karen Gaffney has been a role model. Gaffney -- a Portland area woman who has Down syndrome -- graduated from high school with a regular diploma, earned a Portland Community College degree and travels the nation speaking about overcoming limitations.

Good article!

It sounds like that despite the difficulty this will be, she (the daughter) will ultimately bring a lot of joy to this family in the long run. Life isn't easy no matter a person's limitations, real or imagined. There are of course varying degrees of Down's Syndrome severity.

As far as your last question TB, I don't think we can address that with any kind of legitimate accuracy. It's my musing that throwing a test deliberately would come down to a decision of the lab tech(s), or perhaps an administrator with their own agenda. I rather doubt that an organization such as Legacy (just using them for reference as they are the group in the article) would issue a corporate mandate to do such a thing. Can it be done? sure. Has it been done? I'm willing to bet that it has, given some people. Could you make a "Made for TV movie" out of the scenario? Most certainly.

My personal thought is that if you don't think you are up to the challenge of raising a Down's child, then you probably shouldn't have children at all. Raising kids is a tough Job. It Never ends. Well unless your children die. Then you'll have other things to deal with.. Kids dealing with divorce have easily as much to deal with emotionally as they would or any adult would with Downs. Life is hard. It isn't the circumstance that defines our life, it's how we react to those circumstances and the decisions we make in those moments.

As far as suing the clinic? I wouldn't have.

[Tunnelcat]

IMO abortion is the ultimate in selfishness.

Think about this CUDA. Americans in general are selfish. They want all the health care they can get to NOT DIE at all costs, but they never want to pay for anyone else's healthcare. Same goes for any child born with a genetic defect. Most people are horrified if a fetus is aborted for a genetic defect. But AFTER birth, it always becomes the parent's responsibility to deal with the mental stress and financial hardship required to raise that same child. It's always the "charity will cover the gaps" rationalization. How can we as a nation be so blind in that regard? We're focused on a child's right to life before birth, and yet, as for the raising part, we seem to ignore those same children as someone else's responsibility, until they're starved, abused, murdered or left homeless. I just can't fathom how a society can be so concerned about the life of a fetus, but them turn a blind eye to the life of the actual child. This from the same society that could care less about the lives of it's senior citizens too.

As callus as this sounds, before humanity came up with ways to keep children alive with genetic problems, they were usually just left behind for the predators because it was too much of a hardship on whatever tribe or group could reasonably deal with to survive in nature. Survival of the fittest ruled. So why do we now keep alive children that will never be able to contribute to the survival of the society?

My personal thought is that if you don't think you are up to the challenge of raising a Down's child, then you probably shouldn't have children at all. Raising kids is a tough Job. It Never ends. Well unless your children die. Then you'll have other things to deal with.. Kids dealing with divorce have easily as much to deal with emotionally as they would or any adult would with Downs. Life is hard. It isn't the circumstance that defines our life, it's how we react to those circumstances and the decisions we make in those moments.

But what if a family wanted children and tried to make plans accordingly, but knew they were in no financial position to raise a child that came along with a genetic defect or special needs? In this day and age, it can be quite an expensive process, especially a child with medical issues. It also comes with a high mental stress quotient. So do we come up with a parenting test to see if a couple can handle the worst case scenario? And what is their "out" if a couple does happen to have a "special child", which does happen from time to time by the way, despite their best attempts at testing before or after conception?

As for suing the clinic, someone screwed up, so someone needs to take personal responsibility (even a corporation should have the duty) and pony up the dough to raise this child for the rest of her life, no matter how long that may be. The parents did their due diligence, or at least tried to.

[Spidey]

As for suing the clinic, someone screwed up, so someone needs to take personal responsibility (even a corporation should have the duty) and pony up the dough to raise this child for the rest of her life, no matter how long that may be. The parents did their due diligence, or at least tried to.

Did someone screw up, or did the test just fail?

It’s this exact thinking that forces people in the industry to have million dollar malpractice insurance policies, raising the cost of health care.

Yea, thanks tc, I really needed to hear that….

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think we just witnessed the epitome of irony when TC claimed that paying to raise someone else's child, under any circumstance, was a matter of personal responsibility. No, the responsibility surely does not extend that far. ...They should probably demand a refund, though.

[CUDA]

IMO abortion is the ultimate in selfishness.

Think about this CUDA. Americans in general are selfish. They want all the health care they can get to NOT DIE at all costs, but they never want to pay for anyone else's healthcare. Same goes for any child born with a genetic defect. Most people are horrified if a fetus is aborted for a genetic defect. But AFTER birth, it always becomes the parent's responsibility to deal with the mental stress and financial hardship required to raise that same child. It's always the "charity will cover the gaps" rationalization. How can we as a nation be so blind in that regard? We're focused on a child's right to life before birth, and yet, as for the raising part, we seem to ignore those same children as someone else's responsibility, until they're starved, abused, murdered or left homeless. I just can't fathom how a society can be so concerned about the life of a fetus, but them turn a blind eye to the life of the actual child. This from the same society that could care less about the lives of it's senior citizens too.

As callus as this sounds, before humanity came up with ways to keep children alive with genetic problems, they were usually just left behind for the predators because it was too much of a hardship on whatever tribe or group could reasonably deal with to survive in nature. Survival of the fittest ruled. So why do we now keep alive children that will never be able to contribute to the survival of the society?

thanks for making my point

[Heretic]

Gattaca any one.

[Duper]

My personal thought is that if you don't think you are up to the challenge of raising a Down's child, then you probably shouldn't have children at all. Raising kids is a tough Job. It Never ends. Well unless your children die. Then you'll have other things to deal with.. Kids dealing with divorce have easily as much to deal with emotionally as they would or any adult would with Downs. Life is hard. It isn't the circumstance that defines our life, it's how we react to those circumstances and the decisions we make in those moments.

But what if a family wanted children and tried to make plans accordingly, but knew they were in no financial position to raise a child that came along with a genetic defect or special needs? In this day and age, it can be quite an expensive process, especially a child with medical issues. It also comes with a high mental stress quotient. So do we come up with a parenting test to see if a couple can handle the worst case scenario? And what is their "out" if a couple does happen to have a "special child", which does happen from time to time by the way, despite their best attempts at testing before or after conception?

As for suing the clinic, someone screwed up, so someone needs to take personal responsibility (even a corporation should have the duty) and pony up the dough to raise this child for the rest of her life, no matter how long that may be. The parents did their due diligence, or at least tried to.

I think you missed my point TC. While I don't claim my statement as precept, I do think that a person needs to realize that raising a family (handicapped or not) is EXPENSIVE and STRESSFUL. The load isn't that much more when you average it all out over one's life time. Sure there are high points of stress that could crush someone, that's why you don't raise a family on a dessert island as an only parent. We NEED community; even if it's your immediate family. And for those that would say "I have a crappy family and they would never trust them...etc etc.. Plug in. find some friends ... MAIL ORDER some! ..er.. that IS what FB is these days isn't 21st Century mail order friends? ...just thinkin out loud there...

But really. And money? you take that risk every day you wake. You could slip in the tube in the morning, bust a pelvis and need surgery. Welcome to an instant 12K+ in the hole! THAT DOES happen every day btw. THIS is why I said you should ...what's I say?.... sec... "if you don't think you are up to the challenge of raising a Down's child, then you probably shouldn't have children at all." The reasons you gave are fears and don't muster. If money is TRULY and issue ...then gee.. WAIT! wait to have a family. You can't buy kids on credit cards. Or adopt. That, is an expensive proposition in and of itself, generally costing about 10K here in the states.... depending on the channels you're going through. And you could look to adopting out the child if you truly weren't up to the task of raising him/her.

In the article's case, it sounds like that family was part of the .3% where the test fails; be it due to mechanisms in the test or human error. That chance of error is still there. "Screwed up" implies negligence. and that I surmise is what the trail is determining. But LOL! ....

The attorneys called upon a series of medical experts with each side criticizing the others' experts as ill-informed.

gotta love law, eh?

Is this going to be easy? No. Do they and will they love their daughter? Yes. Would the though of raising a Downs syndrome child scare me? Oh hell yeah, but after the initial shock, I would regroup and prepare. There's lots and lots of info and online groups and such out there these days. Nothing like it was when our folks were starting out.

[snoopy]

1. What are the statistics on the accuracy of the test? I sounds like there was some human error involved.

2. One more thing to consider: if someone gives birth to a child (in general), raising the child is NOT their only choice. There are hundreds of families out there that are looking to adopt infants.

3. The Gattaca reference is one that I thought of, too. Once you open the door to aborting infants based on "defects" where do you draw the line? Right now it's basically limited by the technology that detects these defects... what will you do when they get to the point some day where they can tell you how susceptible your child will be to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or can tell you what IQ your child will have, or whatever else?

[Tunnelcat]

Did someone screw up, or did the test just fail?

It’s this exact thinking that forces people in the industry to have million dollar malpractice insurance policies, raising the cost of health care.

Yea, thanks tc, I really needed to hear that….

Who takes responsibility then if the corporation giving the test won't stand by it? This is a very expensive lifetime mistake to throw on someone, especially since the couple tried to avoid it in the first place. If no one want's to take responsibility, why even offer the test in the first place? I mean, if people are so against any kind of abortion, why have any prenatal genetic testing at all if thoughts of Gattaca pop into everyone's head? Has the medical system gone too far? The parents are going to find out after birth anyway, so why not drop the test and let whatever happen, happen?

But really. And money? you take that risk every day you wake. You could slip in the tube in the morning, bust a pelvis and need surgery. Welcome to an instant 12K+ in the hole! THAT DOES happen every day btw. THIS is why I said you should ...what's I say?.... sec... "if you don't think you are up to the challenge of raising a Down's child, then you probably shouldn't have children at all." The reasons you gave are fears and don't muster. If money is TRULY and issue ...then gee.. WAIT! wait to have a family. You can't buy kids on credit cards. Or adopt. That, is an expensive proposition in and of itself, generally costing about 10K here in the states.... depending on the channels you're going through. And you could look to adopting out the child if you truly weren't up to the task of raising him/her.

Why should falling in the tub even bankrupt anyone? I thought that was what insurance was for. And even buying the insurance is bankrupting people.

As for wanting to have children, some couples are better at it than others, some couples can afford it more than others. Some couples make their choice rashly based on the spur of the moment, some try to take things into consideration, like long term monetary issues and possible genetic defects within the family. What's wrong with trying to not perpetuate a genetic defect if there is that possibility when it's known to run in the family? In some families there can be a 50/50 possibility of passing on a defective gene to the child. So if they really want a child, what to do? In this country and in this day and age, money is now the biggest problem whenever we have to deal with our medical system, and it shouldn't have to be that way.

[snoopy]

I mean, if people are so against any kind of abortion, why have any prenatal genetic testing at all if thoughts of Gattaca pop into everyone's head? Has the medical system gone too far? The parents are going to find out after birth anyway, so why not drop the test and let whatever happen, happen?

I'm perfectly fine with that.

As for wanting to have children, some couples are better at it than others, some couples can afford it more than others. Some couples make their choice rashly based on the spur of the moment, some try to take things into consideration, like long term monetary issues and possible genetic defects within the family. What's wrong with trying to not perpetuate a genetic defect if there is that possibility when it's known to run in the family? In some families there can be a 50/50 possibility of passing on a defective gene to the child. So if they really want a child, what to do? In this country and in this day and age, money is now the biggest problem whenever we have to deal with our medical system, and it shouldn't have to be that way.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to start sounding like a broken record here. For the family that knows that they have a 50/50 shot at passing some terrible disease to their children: why not adopt from the couple that rashly (or irresponsibly) got pregnant when they were just trying to have a little fun? When it comes down to it, it's egos and some archaic sense of needing to pass on "your genes" that keeps people stuck in the idea that children have to come from inside your belly to be yours.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Don't disagree at all with your suggestion, Snoopy. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But there is a difference between an adopted child and a child that is yours, and it shouldn't be written off as "egos" or "archaic". There's no reason at all an adopted child could not be like your own, if you have the heart for it, IMO, but there is an unavoidable difference.

[snoopy]

I want to pose another question. I feel that I need to prefix this with a statement about my intentions. I'm not trying to troll or flame. It may be be this takes the thread in that direction, but I'm going to try to pose this politely and clearly; and I genuinely want to know how you guys who are pro-choice respond:

From my perspective, four things have changed between the point at which the child would have been aborted:

1. Time passed
2. The setting changed
3. Some development occurred
4. The child's dependence upon his mother has reduced some

Setting the U.S. law aside, and looking at it from a moral perspective, I don't see how any of them changes the "human-ness" of the child.

1. Each person's life begins at an arbitrary point in time and ends at another point in time... I don't think anyone would argue that any point in time along the span somehow changes the nature of a person.

2. So, while within the mother, the child is obviously in an inconvenient place. I don't see how it changes the nature of the child... it just changes the convenience of the location to certain other people.

3. By the time that the child would have been aborted, he/she would have already had a brainwave and a heartbeat. Those are the two metrics (particularly the brainwave part) that you might be able to claim made a significant difference on the nature of the person. So, some growth has happened, but I don't know that can point to any particular developmental metrics that would change the nature of the child.

4. Upon being born, the child has to breath on its own and pass waste. It's still totally dependent for cleanup, transportation, feeding, and just about everything else. I wouldn't classify breathing or pooping as something that changes the nature of a person.


So... It makes me wonder... why not just kill the thing when the later test revealed the problem? What's the scientific justification behind drawing a distinction between the earlier and later cases?

[Foil]

What's the scientific justification behind drawing a distinction between the earlier and later cases?

As recently suggested in the Journal of Medical Ethics, there is no real distinction.

...and I agree, in a sense. The line between "it's okay to terminate the life at X" and "it's not okay at Y" doesn't belong at birth.

[Tunnelcat]

WOW! They're essentially for postpartum abortion! A fuzzy line indeed foil.

For the record, I'm not for aborting a fetus that has a genetic defect. I do have some humanity.

All I'm trying to point out is that people are too focused on the rights of a fetus before it's birth, then they'll do a 180 and step back from any moral responsibility after that birth has happened. They'll place it square in the mother's lap, saying; "Well, it's her problem now" like they've washed their hands of the "problem". What happened to societal responsibility? After a child is abused, starved or murdered because the parents were "bad", people will invariably cry and wring their hands asking "why wasn't something done to help sooner", well after any intervention would have helped.

We also seem focused on getting rid of "problem children" by either dumping them in the street or imprisoning them. Why is that humane either? There are a lot of homeless children in little old Corvallis, but they're usually treated as "pests" instead of children that need help.

[CUDA]

WOW! They're essentially for postpartum abortion! A fuzzy line indeed foil.

For the record, I'm not for aborting a fetus that has a genetic defect. I do have some humanity.

All I'm trying to point out is that people are too focused on the rights of a fetus before it's birth, then they'll do a 180 and step back from any moral responsibility after that birth has happened. They'll place it square in the mother's lap, saying; "Well, it's her problem now" like they've washed their hands of the "problem". What happened to societal responsibility? After a child is abused, starved or murdered because the parents were "bad", people will invariably cry and wring their hands asking "why wasn't something done to help sooner", well after any intervention would have helped.

We also seem focused on getting rid of "problem children" by either dumping them in the street or imprisoning them. Why is that humane either? There are a lot of homeless children in little old Corvallis, but they're usually treated as "pests" instead of children that need help.

O! M! G!4 times . I'me beginning to think your actually turning conservative TC

sent ya a PM

[snoopy]

All I'm trying to point out is that people are too focused on the rights of a fetus before it's birth, then they'll do a 180 and step back from any moral responsibility after that birth has happened. They'll place it square in the mother's lap, saying; "Well, it's her problem now" like they've washed their hands of the "problem". What happened to societal responsibility? After a child is abused, starved or murdered because the parents were "bad", people will invariably cry and wring their hands asking "why wasn't something done to help sooner", well after any intervention would have helped.

Here's a point on which I'd tend to side with the "liberal" crowd more than the "conservative" crowd. IMO the "conservatives" are too good at telling people what they should do, doing nothing to help them, and then condemning them when they didn't have a resources to make it happen.

If we're going to make a big deal about getting rid of abortion (which I think is the right thing to do), then we, individually, need to also make a big deal about helping other individuals both avoid situations where abortion would have been a common choice (encourage birth control, fight to get rapists off the street, etc.) and also pitch in to help when people do get into those situations (support childcare agencies, open your home to foster children, etc.) instead of just walking away with a "sucks for you." I don't think that the government should be the driving force behind all of that (my libertarian showing through), but the problem here and now is that there aren't enough people stepping up to the plate, and there are too many people being irresponsible about getting pregnant.

I've had two kids go through my home so far (hence me sounding like a broken record), and have a third little girl who's probably going to be leaving sometime this summer (don't ask)... I don't know that I gave them a perfect home while they were with us, but they certainly didn't get treated like pests.

[Tunnelcat]

All I'm trying to point out is that people are too focused on the rights of a fetus before it's birth, then they'll do a 180 and step back from any moral responsibility after that birth has happened. They'll place it square in the mother's lap, saying; "Well, it's her problem now" like they've washed their hands of the "problem". What happened to societal responsibility? After a child is abused, starved or murdered because the parents were "bad", people will invariably cry and wring their hands asking "why wasn't something done to help sooner", well after any intervention would have helped.

Here's a point on which I'd tend to side with the "liberal" crowd more than the "conservative" crowd. IMO the "conservatives" are too good at telling people what they should do, doing nothing to help them, and then condemning them when they didn't have a resources to make it happen.

If we're going to make a big deal about getting rid of abortion (which I think is the right thing to do), then we, individually, need to also make a big deal about helping other individuals both avoid situations where abortion would have been a common choice (encourage birth control, fight to get rapists off the street, etc.) and also pitch in to help when people do get into those situations (support childcare agencies, open your home to foster children, etc.) instead of just walking away with a "sucks for you." I don't think that the government should be the driving force behind all of that (my libertarian showing through), but the problem here and now is that there aren't enough people stepping up to the plate, and there are too many people being irresponsible about getting pregnant.

I've had two kids go through my home so far (hence me sounding like a broken record), and have a third little girl who's probably going to be leaving sometime this summer (don't ask)... I don't know that I gave them a perfect home while they were with us, but they certainly didn't get treated like pests.

Right as rain. But you know how it is getting individuals to together on some kind consensus with something that's important for the good of everyone as a whole. About as easy as herding cats, right after they say it's "Socialism".

[Top Gun]

We once had a speaker on our college campus who presented a talk titled, "The feminist case against abortion." Part of it, and the main focus of the organization she's a part of, was the idea that, no matter what your stance on the issue is, there's a lot that needs to be done for women who do choose to give birth, especially those in trying circumstances. There's not really much of a "choice" involved if a woman winds up having an abortion because they have absolutely no support system that would let them carry the pregnancy to term, and it's something that both sides of the debate can get behind.

[Tunnelcat]

Republicans are all for "family values", but they utterly fail at actually coming forward with concrete ideas on how to help support struggling families, or gasp, single women, that need it. If Republicans were sincere in the sanctity of life, they'd be for preventing unwanted pregnancies whenever possible, ie, contraception, not just the old saws of abstinence, religious bullying, or mandated state control over a woman's uterus. And they'd be better off working with the Democrats on finding ways to help those that accidentally do end up pregnant and in dire straits with more humane ways to deal with these situations, for the betterment of all of our society.

[CUDA]

And the Democrats are always crying about Human rights, but that all changes if you're not able to breath on your own,

"Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other."
--Malcolm Muggeridge, British journalist

"We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures. We
succeeded because the time was right and the news media cooperated. We sensationalized
the effects of illegal abortions, and fabricated polls which indicated that 85 percent of the public
favored unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5 percent. We unashamedly lied, and
yet our statements were quoted [by the media] as though they had been written in Law."

--Dr. Bernard Nathanson
Co-founder of National Abortion Rights Action League
Today, Dr. Nathanson is a pro-life activist

[Jeff250]

"Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other."
--Malcolm Muggeridge, British journalist

The problem is that neither Republicans nor Democrats treat life as sacred in all cases; they just disagree on which cases.

[CUDA]

AGREED that's the point I was trying to make. guess I didn't elaborate enough

[Tunnelcat]

So why does each side keep on digging their heels in the mud instead of coming to a workable consensus? Are we stuck being so polarized that we can't sit down and agree on something for once?

You blame the Dems CUDA, and rightly so, but Republicans have been moving further and further to the right, making it nearly impossible for liberals to want to work towards a "center".

[CUDA]

You blame the Dems CUDA, and rightly so, but Republicans have been moving further and further to the right, making it nearly impossible for liberals to want to work towards a "center".

I don't need to blame the GOP, you do enough of that for both of us

[Tunnelcat]

Oh, I've done my share of blaming the Democrats since Obama got elected. That's why I'm not a Democrat. How about you with the GOP and their craziness this election?