Friday, January 26, 2007
The "Monty Hall Morality" of Human Cloning
Joe Carter over at Evangelical Outpost has an interesting variant on the much maligned "slippery slope" argument as it relates to cloning and organ harvesting.
Last week Story Landis, the interim chair of the National Health Institute’s stem cell task force, testified before the U.S. Senate on President Bush’s policy restricting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Landis opposes the current policy and declared that “science works best when scientists can pursue all avenues of research.”
If the cure for Parkinson’s disease or juvenile diabetes lay behind one of four doors, wouldn’t you want the option to open all four doors at once instead of one door?
Landis' utilitarian view of ethics--the dominant view in the biomedical research community--seems to be some sort of "Monty Hall morality": If the potential for a cure lies behind any door, then we not only should open that path of research but should have the government fund it to the full satisfaction of the grant-writing researchers. Even if, like embryonic stem cell research, the potential for cures is more science fiction than science fact, we should throw open all doors – even if it means throwing obvious moral intuitions out the window.
Landis would, I presume, disagree with my moral qualms about killing human embryos since such entities are human beings but not human persons. Very well. Perhaps I should set aside my moral repugnance, follow the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning, and concede that we should follow all "avenues of research", including the one in which we harvest the organs of non-person clones.
If embryos (and certain fetuses) are not persons, and therefore are not entitled to either legal rights or moral concern, then we can use them in potentially creative ways. For example, in his forthcoming book, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, Francis Beckwith asks a question that logically follows from this view:
Joe then goes on to pre-demolish any plausible counter-arguments. I'm glad he's on our side...
Last week Story Landis, the interim chair of the National Health Institute’s stem cell task force, testified before the U.S. Senate on President Bush’s policy restricting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Landis opposes the current policy and declared that “science works best when scientists can pursue all avenues of research.”
If the cure for Parkinson’s disease or juvenile diabetes lay behind one of four doors, wouldn’t you want the option to open all four doors at once instead of one door?
Landis' utilitarian view of ethics--the dominant view in the biomedical research community--seems to be some sort of "Monty Hall morality": If the potential for a cure lies behind any door, then we not only should open that path of research but should have the government fund it to the full satisfaction of the grant-writing researchers. Even if, like embryonic stem cell research, the potential for cures is more science fiction than science fact, we should throw open all doors – even if it means throwing obvious moral intuitions out the window.
Landis would, I presume, disagree with my moral qualms about killing human embryos since such entities are human beings but not human persons. Very well. Perhaps I should set aside my moral repugnance, follow the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning, and concede that we should follow all "avenues of research", including the one in which we harvest the organs of non-person clones.
If embryos (and certain fetuses) are not persons, and therefore are not entitled to either legal rights or moral concern, then we can use them in potentially creative ways. For example, in his forthcoming book, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, Francis Beckwith asks a question that logically follows from this view:
[W]hat would be wrong in a developmental biologist manipulating the development of an early embryo-clone in such a way that what results is an infant without higher brain functions, but whose healthy organs can be used for ordinary transplant purposes or for spare parts for the person from which the embryo was cloned?
For a supporter of abortion or embryo-destructive research* the only logically consistent conclusion is that there is nothing inherently immoral about creating human clones for spare parts. In fact, we could argue that we have a moral obligation to create organ-donating humans clones.**
Joe then goes on to pre-demolish any plausible counter-arguments. I'm glad he's on our side...
Sunday, January 14, 2007
UK Catholics Starting to Carry "Do Not Euthanize" Cards
From The Guardian
Catholics fearing an increasing acceptance of euthanasia in Britain are carrying religious 'ID cards' telling doctors not to withhold liquid from the patient.
Tens of thousands have been sold on the website of the Association of Catholic Women. It reads: 'In case of my admission to hospital, please contact a Roman Catholic priest. I would like my nursing care to include fluids - however administered.'
A General Medical Council spokesman said it was unaware of the card, but insisted that staff and members would be referred to the GMC's religious and ethical guidelines in ensuring respect for patients' religious beliefs
Were I a Catholic Brit, I would not find that last paragraph the least bit reassuring.
Catholics fearing an increasing acceptance of euthanasia in Britain are carrying religious 'ID cards' telling doctors not to withhold liquid from the patient.
Tens of thousands have been sold on the website of the Association of Catholic Women. It reads: 'In case of my admission to hospital, please contact a Roman Catholic priest. I would like my nursing care to include fluids - however administered.'
A General Medical Council spokesman said it was unaware of the card, but insisted that staff and members would be referred to the GMC's religious and ethical guidelines in ensuring respect for patients' religious beliefs
Were I a Catholic Brit, I would not find that last paragraph the least bit reassuring.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Will You Still Need Me, Will You Still Feed Me When I'm 63?
Bill Starr is back in the news with this latest stunt in his crusade to kill his wife:
Maureen Starr (63) has Alzheimer's Disease and can no longer recognise her husband, Bill.
As exclusively revealed in last week's Dispatch, Bill (76) wants to end Maureen's life and is campaigning for a change in the law to allow voluntary euthanasia.
He said this week: "I want the Queen to see how a failure by her government to act has left my girl having to live on in a truly pitiful condition.
"This photo expresses my feelings more than I could in a thousand words. It is the face of suffering."
Bill has previously written to Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Lord Chancellor's Office and even Prince Charles to press his case.
Maureen has been a resident of Lowmoor Nursing Home at Kirkby-in-Ashfield for the last 18 months.
The events are related somewhat differently in this lastest account:
...last week, the Dispatch reported on a heartrending visit by Bill to the home with the aim of ending Maureen's life by mercy killing.
"I don't want to say how I planned to do it," said Bill. "But I took two changes of clothes because I was prepared for the police to come and arrest me.
"However a nurse told me my wife's brain is dying. That changed everything because she is now in the hands of God."
Bill stressed that he felt no bitterness towards the home for banning him from seeing his wife alone in case he might still try to kill her.
But he is planning a heartfelt appeal to all the country's general medical practices.
He wants them to withhold sending Alzheimer's patients to homes for the elderly mentally ill until two guarantees are put in place.
One is for the option of voluntary euthanasia and the other is one-to-one care to protect patients from "dangers seen and unseen".
From this addled narrative I've begun to suspect that Bill may in fact be a harmless crank in terms of being a direct danger to his wife. But the threat should be taken seriously for the sake of his wife's safety. And based on the tone of these articles there is a great danger to all the disabled and elderly in the UK that Bill will become the media star that helps usher in euthanasia. It's starting to seem inevitable.
Maureen Starr (63) has Alzheimer's Disease and can no longer recognise her husband, Bill.
As exclusively revealed in last week's Dispatch, Bill (76) wants to end Maureen's life and is campaigning for a change in the law to allow voluntary euthanasia.
He said this week: "I want the Queen to see how a failure by her government to act has left my girl having to live on in a truly pitiful condition.
"This photo expresses my feelings more than I could in a thousand words. It is the face of suffering."
Bill has previously written to Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Lord Chancellor's Office and even Prince Charles to press his case.
Maureen has been a resident of Lowmoor Nursing Home at Kirkby-in-Ashfield for the last 18 months.
The events are related somewhat differently in this lastest account:
...last week, the Dispatch reported on a heartrending visit by Bill to the home with the aim of ending Maureen's life by mercy killing.
"I don't want to say how I planned to do it," said Bill. "But I took two changes of clothes because I was prepared for the police to come and arrest me.
"However a nurse told me my wife's brain is dying. That changed everything because she is now in the hands of God."
Bill stressed that he felt no bitterness towards the home for banning him from seeing his wife alone in case he might still try to kill her.
But he is planning a heartfelt appeal to all the country's general medical practices.
He wants them to withhold sending Alzheimer's patients to homes for the elderly mentally ill until two guarantees are put in place.
One is for the option of voluntary euthanasia and the other is one-to-one care to protect patients from "dangers seen and unseen".
From this addled narrative I've begun to suspect that Bill may in fact be a harmless crank in terms of being a direct danger to his wife. But the threat should be taken seriously for the sake of his wife's safety. And based on the tone of these articles there is a great danger to all the disabled and elderly in the UK that Bill will become the media star that helps usher in euthanasia. It's starting to seem inevitable.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Doctors Starve Stroke Victim in UK
From The Times
HT: Wesley Smith
An elderly stroke victim begged for a beetroot sandwich and macaroni cheese in hospital but no attempt was made to feed her, an inquest was told yesterday.
Olive Nockels, 91, a former school matron, died after surviving for nearly a month on a subcutaneous drip that delivered only a quarter of the calorie intake specified by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as a short-term starvation diet.
Even that was stopped for four days when the hospital claimed that she was suffering from excess fluid.
Relatives told the inquest that doctors and the Norfolk & Norwich Hospital had no interest in treating Mrs Nockels after she was admitted in September 2003.
Her grandson, Christopher West, told William Armstrong, the Coroner, at the inquest in Norwich: “The only thing that was said most of the time, as the weeks went on, was that she hadn’t died yet.
“Immediately after her admission it became clear it was their intention not to treat her.”
Mr West, 34, obtained a High Court ex parte injunction on October 6, 2003, forcing doctors to reinstate artificial nutrition and hydration, but the next day Mr Justice Forbes varied the order on an application by David Maisey, a consultant.
In the amended version, nutrition and hydration were to be reinstated only “as far as medically possible”.
Mrs Nockels died on October 10, 2003 — three days after the amendments were made.
Mr West said that doctors told him that the quality of life of his grandmother would be so poor that “it would be in her best interests not to intervene and let her die”. He said: “You don’t just let someone die because you think it’s best for them. It’s inhuman. I would class it as starvation, actually.”
Mrs Nockels’s daughter, Ivy West, told the coroner that her mother’s hearing aid and dentures had been removed — for reasons given to her as comfort and safety. She denied that her mother, from Holt, Norfolk, was incapable of responding when she visited.
“I talked to her every day,” she said. “She would tell me she was cold and that she wanted something to eat. She told me she wanted a beetroot sandwich and some macaroni cheese. She could make decisions for herself.”
Even before they get legal euthanasia, it looks like the NHS is already adopting the "ward clearing" policies of the Netherlands...
HT: Wesley Smith
An elderly stroke victim begged for a beetroot sandwich and macaroni cheese in hospital but no attempt was made to feed her, an inquest was told yesterday.
Olive Nockels, 91, a former school matron, died after surviving for nearly a month on a subcutaneous drip that delivered only a quarter of the calorie intake specified by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as a short-term starvation diet.
Even that was stopped for four days when the hospital claimed that she was suffering from excess fluid.
Relatives told the inquest that doctors and the Norfolk & Norwich Hospital had no interest in treating Mrs Nockels after she was admitted in September 2003.
Her grandson, Christopher West, told William Armstrong, the Coroner, at the inquest in Norwich: “The only thing that was said most of the time, as the weeks went on, was that she hadn’t died yet.
“Immediately after her admission it became clear it was their intention not to treat her.”
Mr West, 34, obtained a High Court ex parte injunction on October 6, 2003, forcing doctors to reinstate artificial nutrition and hydration, but the next day Mr Justice Forbes varied the order on an application by David Maisey, a consultant.
In the amended version, nutrition and hydration were to be reinstated only “as far as medically possible”.
Mrs Nockels died on October 10, 2003 — three days after the amendments were made.
Mr West said that doctors told him that the quality of life of his grandmother would be so poor that “it would be in her best interests not to intervene and let her die”. He said: “You don’t just let someone die because you think it’s best for them. It’s inhuman. I would class it as starvation, actually.”
Mrs Nockels’s daughter, Ivy West, told the coroner that her mother’s hearing aid and dentures had been removed — for reasons given to her as comfort and safety. She denied that her mother, from Holt, Norfolk, was incapable of responding when she visited.
“I talked to her every day,” she said. “She would tell me she was cold and that she wanted something to eat. She told me she wanted a beetroot sandwich and some macaroni cheese. She could make decisions for herself.”
Even before they get legal euthanasia, it looks like the NHS is already adopting the "ward clearing" policies of the Netherlands...
Monday, January 08, 2007
Celebrating a Life Dedicated to Life's Defense
In last week's NRO Robert P George eulogizes Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. If as was the case with me, this farewell is also an introduction, then it will be an inspiring and poignant one.
Elizabeth Fox-Genovese was a scholar as notable for her bravery as for her brilliance. After what she described as her “long apprenticeship” in the world of secular liberal intellectuals, it was careful reflection on the central moral questions of our time that led her first to doubt and then to abandon both liberalism and secularism. Needless to say, this did not endear her to her former allies.
At the heart of her doubts about secular liberalism (and what she described as “radical, upscale feminism”) was its embrace of abortion and its (continuing) dalliance with euthanasia. At first, she went along with abortion, albeit reluctantly, believing that women’s rights to develop their talents and control their destinies required its legal permission availability. But Betsey (as she was known by her friends) was not one who could avert her eyes from inconvenient facts. The central fact about abortion is that it is the deliberate killing of a developing child in the womb. For Betsey, euphemisms such as “products of conception,” “termination of pregnancy,” “privacy,” and “choice” ultimately could not hide that fact. She came to see that to countenance abortion is not to respect women’s “privacy” or liberty; it is to suppose that some people have the right to decide whether others will live or die. In a statement that she knew would enflame many on the Left and even cost her valued friendships, she declared that “no amount of past oppression can justify women’s oppression of the most vulnerable among us.”
Betsey knew that public pro-life advocacy would be regarded by many in the intellectual establishment as intolerable apostasy — especially from one of the founding mothers of “women’s studies.” She could have been forgiven for keeping mum on the issue and carrying on with her professional work on the history of the American south. But keeping mum about fundamental matters of right and wrong was not in her character. And though she valued her standing in the intellectual world, she cared for truth and justice more. And so she spoke out ever more passionately in defense of the unborn.
And the more she thought and wrote about abortion and other life issues, the more persuaded she became that the entire secular liberal project was misguided. Secular liberals were not deviating from their principles in endorsing killing whether by abortion or euthanasia in the name of individual “choice”; they were following them to their logical conclusions. But this revealed a profound contradiction at the heart of secular liberal ideology, for the right of some individuals to kill others undermines any ground of principle on which an idea of individual rights or dignity could be founded.
I wish I was familiar with her sooner, but her life is a testimony to both moral and intellectual integrity. It's a rare combination these days.
Elizabeth Fox-Genovese was a scholar as notable for her bravery as for her brilliance. After what she described as her “long apprenticeship” in the world of secular liberal intellectuals, it was careful reflection on the central moral questions of our time that led her first to doubt and then to abandon both liberalism and secularism. Needless to say, this did not endear her to her former allies.
At the heart of her doubts about secular liberalism (and what she described as “radical, upscale feminism”) was its embrace of abortion and its (continuing) dalliance with euthanasia. At first, she went along with abortion, albeit reluctantly, believing that women’s rights to develop their talents and control their destinies required its legal permission availability. But Betsey (as she was known by her friends) was not one who could avert her eyes from inconvenient facts. The central fact about abortion is that it is the deliberate killing of a developing child in the womb. For Betsey, euphemisms such as “products of conception,” “termination of pregnancy,” “privacy,” and “choice” ultimately could not hide that fact. She came to see that to countenance abortion is not to respect women’s “privacy” or liberty; it is to suppose that some people have the right to decide whether others will live or die. In a statement that she knew would enflame many on the Left and even cost her valued friendships, she declared that “no amount of past oppression can justify women’s oppression of the most vulnerable among us.”
Betsey knew that public pro-life advocacy would be regarded by many in the intellectual establishment as intolerable apostasy — especially from one of the founding mothers of “women’s studies.” She could have been forgiven for keeping mum on the issue and carrying on with her professional work on the history of the American south. But keeping mum about fundamental matters of right and wrong was not in her character. And though she valued her standing in the intellectual world, she cared for truth and justice more. And so she spoke out ever more passionately in defense of the unborn.
And the more she thought and wrote about abortion and other life issues, the more persuaded she became that the entire secular liberal project was misguided. Secular liberals were not deviating from their principles in endorsing killing whether by abortion or euthanasia in the name of individual “choice”; they were following them to their logical conclusions. But this revealed a profound contradiction at the heart of secular liberal ideology, for the right of some individuals to kill others undermines any ground of principle on which an idea of individual rights or dignity could be founded.
I wish I was familiar with her sooner, but her life is a testimony to both moral and intellectual integrity. It's a rare combination these days.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
No Euthanasia Case Too Shady for UK Press
If doctors are half as cavalier about euthanasia as journalists, this piece about a would-be elderly angel of death is a good example of why "guidelines" in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are worse than useless.
AN ANGUISHED ex-Hucknall man has pleaded with a nursing home to allow him to bring the life of his ill wife to an end.
Bill Starr (76) claims he has been told that his wife, Maureen, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, is now dying.
Hucknall-born Maureen (63) has been a resident of the Lowmoor Home at Kirkby-in-Ashfield for 18 months.
But she no longer recognises her husband and Bill told the Dispatch that he called at the home last week "with the sole intention of releasing my wife's spirit".
He even took a change of clothes because he was prepared for police to arrive and arrest him.
He declined to say how he planned to carry out the mercy killing, which would have been illegal.
Because staff became aware of what Bill proposed to do, he has now been told he can no longer visit Maureen without supervision.
A campaigner for voluntary euthanasia, Bill says he will not be going to see Maureen any more in any case because he cannot bear to watch her condition deteriorate.
He visited the home this week to say his final goodbyes and he is now appealing for friends in Spiritualist churches to pray for Maureen's "early transition from this life".
In the meantime he has written to staff at the home to ask them to make sure Maureen receives a lot of tender loving care.
He says: "It was a heartbreaking decision not to see Maureen any more but I felt it was something I must do.
"I do not really care what happens to me now but I will carry on just for Maureen's sake."
He is quoted as saying in another report:
"My wife is deteriorating before my eyes and it is just heartbreaking to see her in this condition. I want to be able to give her euthanasia and help put her out of this agonising misery.
"I am very angry about this. I have no life and neither does she.
"If this was an animal you would be able to put it out of its misery and the same should apply to humans.
"Her brain is shrinking and it is just downhill all the way from now.
"There needs to be a change in the law to allow euthanasia to go ahead for all those who need it.
"There should be voluntary euthanasia for all those who need it and one-on-one care to protect those who need to be kept from the dangers that they face.
"It has put a massive strain on me but I am determined to remain strong for my wife."
Anguished. Heartbroken. Devasted. Yet angry. And finally...strong. For Maureen. Because really, it's all about her...
AN ANGUISHED ex-Hucknall man has pleaded with a nursing home to allow him to bring the life of his ill wife to an end.
Bill Starr (76) claims he has been told that his wife, Maureen, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, is now dying.
Hucknall-born Maureen (63) has been a resident of the Lowmoor Home at Kirkby-in-Ashfield for 18 months.
But she no longer recognises her husband and Bill told the Dispatch that he called at the home last week "with the sole intention of releasing my wife's spirit".
He even took a change of clothes because he was prepared for police to arrive and arrest him.
He declined to say how he planned to carry out the mercy killing, which would have been illegal.
Because staff became aware of what Bill proposed to do, he has now been told he can no longer visit Maureen without supervision.
A campaigner for voluntary euthanasia, Bill says he will not be going to see Maureen any more in any case because he cannot bear to watch her condition deteriorate.
He visited the home this week to say his final goodbyes and he is now appealing for friends in Spiritualist churches to pray for Maureen's "early transition from this life".
In the meantime he has written to staff at the home to ask them to make sure Maureen receives a lot of tender loving care.
He says: "It was a heartbreaking decision not to see Maureen any more but I felt it was something I must do.
"I do not really care what happens to me now but I will carry on just for Maureen's sake."
He is quoted as saying in another report:
"My wife is deteriorating before my eyes and it is just heartbreaking to see her in this condition. I want to be able to give her euthanasia and help put her out of this agonising misery.
"I am very angry about this. I have no life and neither does she.
"If this was an animal you would be able to put it out of its misery and the same should apply to humans.
"Her brain is shrinking and it is just downhill all the way from now.
"There needs to be a change in the law to allow euthanasia to go ahead for all those who need it.
"There should be voluntary euthanasia for all those who need it and one-on-one care to protect those who need to be kept from the dangers that they face.
"It has put a massive strain on me but I am determined to remain strong for my wife."
Anguished. Heartbroken. Devasted. Yet angry. And finally...strong. For Maureen. Because really, it's all about her...
No Euthanasia Case Too Shady for UK Press
If doctors are half as cavalier about euthanasia, this piece about a would-be elderly angel of death is a good example of why "guidelines" in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are worse than useless.
AN ANGUISHED ex-Hucknall man has pleaded with a nursing home to allow him to bring the life of his ill wife to an end.
Bill Starr (76) claims he has been told that his wife, Maureen, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, is now dying.
Hucknall-born Maureen (63) has been a resident of the Lowmoor Home at Kirkby-in-Ashfield for 18 months.
But she no longer recognises her husband and Bill told the Dispatch that he called at the home last week "with the sole intention of releasing my wife's spirit".
He even took a change of clothes because he was prepared for police to arrive and arrest him.
He declined to say how he planned to carry out the mercy killing, which would have been illegal.
Because staff became aware of what Bill proposed to do, he has now been told he can no longer visit Maureen without supervision.
A campaigner for voluntary euthanasia, Bill says he will not be going to see Maureen any more in any case because he cannot bear to watch her condition deteriorate.
He visited the home this week to say his final goodbyes and he is now appealing for friends in Spiritualist churches to pray for Maureen's "early transition from this life".
In the meantime he has written to staff at the home to ask them to make sure Maureen receives a lot of tender loving care.
He says: "It was a heartbreaking decision not to see Maureen any more but I felt it was something I must do.
"I do not really care what happens to me now but I will carry on just for Maureen's sake."
He is quoted as saying in another report:
"My wife is deteriorating before my eyes and it is just heartbreaking to see her in this condition. I want to be able to give her euthanasia and help put her out of this agonising misery.
"I am very angry about this. I have no life and neither does she.
"If this was an animal you would be able to put it out of its misery and the same should apply to humans.
"Her brain is shrinking and it is just downhill all the way from now.
"There needs to be a change in the law to allow euthanasia to go ahead for all those who need it.
"There should be voluntary euthanasia for all those who need it and one-on-one care to protect those who need to be kept from the dangers that they face.
"It has put a massive strain on me but I am determined to remain strong for my wife."
Anguished. Heartbroken. Devasted. Yet angry. And finally...strong. For Maureen. Because really, it's all about her...
AN ANGUISHED ex-Hucknall man has pleaded with a nursing home to allow him to bring the life of his ill wife to an end.
Bill Starr (76) claims he has been told that his wife, Maureen, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, is now dying.
Hucknall-born Maureen (63) has been a resident of the Lowmoor Home at Kirkby-in-Ashfield for 18 months.
But she no longer recognises her husband and Bill told the Dispatch that he called at the home last week "with the sole intention of releasing my wife's spirit".
He even took a change of clothes because he was prepared for police to arrive and arrest him.
He declined to say how he planned to carry out the mercy killing, which would have been illegal.
Because staff became aware of what Bill proposed to do, he has now been told he can no longer visit Maureen without supervision.
A campaigner for voluntary euthanasia, Bill says he will not be going to see Maureen any more in any case because he cannot bear to watch her condition deteriorate.
He visited the home this week to say his final goodbyes and he is now appealing for friends in Spiritualist churches to pray for Maureen's "early transition from this life".
In the meantime he has written to staff at the home to ask them to make sure Maureen receives a lot of tender loving care.
He says: "It was a heartbreaking decision not to see Maureen any more but I felt it was something I must do.
"I do not really care what happens to me now but I will carry on just for Maureen's sake."
He is quoted as saying in another report:
"My wife is deteriorating before my eyes and it is just heartbreaking to see her in this condition. I want to be able to give her euthanasia and help put her out of this agonising misery.
"I am very angry about this. I have no life and neither does she.
"If this was an animal you would be able to put it out of its misery and the same should apply to humans.
"Her brain is shrinking and it is just downhill all the way from now.
"There needs to be a change in the law to allow euthanasia to go ahead for all those who need it.
"There should be voluntary euthanasia for all those who need it and one-on-one care to protect those who need to be kept from the dangers that they face.
"It has put a massive strain on me but I am determined to remain strong for my wife."
Anguished. Heartbroken. Devasted. Yet angry. And finally...strong. For Maureen. Because really, it's all about her...
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
More on Down's Syndrome Testing
Steve Ertelt's LifeNews featured the report of obstetricians pushing for more Down's Syndrome testing that I posted about yesterday. There was some fascinating analysis including this view from the UK:
Most British doctors who are treating pregnant women with unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome are telling their patients to have abortions. Official figures show as many as 94 percent of women with babies with Down syndrome are having abortions.
The story of this couple seems to be typical:
Green's obstetrician informed her that her child would grow up to be "mentally retarded," she told the London Daily Mail newspaper. But the 35 year-old rejected her doctor's advice to have an abortion at 35 weeks into the pregnancy.
Two weeks after the suggestion she have an abortion, she gave birth to a baby boy she named Harrison. He is now a much-loved son and the Daily Mail reports the two year-old just started nursery school.
Green described to the London newspaper what happened when she and her 33 year-old fireman husband Tim were given the news.
"The doctor said, "I have some bad news -- your baby has Down syndrome,'" she said. "We were both in total shock but this was considerably worsened when he said, "You can have a termination.'"
"My baby was fully-formed and his name was decided. I was appalled," she told the Daily Mail.
Green accused the doctor of pressuring her to have an abortion by telling her only negative things about having a mentally handicapped baby.
"The doctor urged us to think about the termination and how having a baby with "mental retardation" would affect our lives," she said. "He listed only the potential negatives about Down syndrome, without giving us any information to read for a more balanced view."
"The midwife tried to interject and offer us some leaflets but he talked her down. The frightening thing is, had we been told by the same doctor about Down syndrome earlier in the pregnancy, there is a chance we might have decided to abort," she said.
Still, Green has no regrets about her decision to keep Harrison.
"We don't know what we'd do without Harrison - he's so adored," she said.
Most British doctors who are treating pregnant women with unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome are telling their patients to have abortions. Official figures show as many as 94 percent of women with babies with Down syndrome are having abortions.
The story of this couple seems to be typical:
Green's obstetrician informed her that her child would grow up to be "mentally retarded," she told the London Daily Mail newspaper. But the 35 year-old rejected her doctor's advice to have an abortion at 35 weeks into the pregnancy.
Two weeks after the suggestion she have an abortion, she gave birth to a baby boy she named Harrison. He is now a much-loved son and the Daily Mail reports the two year-old just started nursery school.
Green described to the London newspaper what happened when she and her 33 year-old fireman husband Tim were given the news.
"The doctor said, "I have some bad news -- your baby has Down syndrome,'" she said. "We were both in total shock but this was considerably worsened when he said, "You can have a termination.'"
"My baby was fully-formed and his name was decided. I was appalled," she told the Daily Mail.
Green accused the doctor of pressuring her to have an abortion by telling her only negative things about having a mentally handicapped baby.
"The doctor urged us to think about the termination and how having a baby with "mental retardation" would affect our lives," she said. "He listed only the potential negatives about Down syndrome, without giving us any information to read for a more balanced view."
"The midwife tried to interject and offer us some leaflets but he talked her down. The frightening thing is, had we been told by the same doctor about Down syndrome earlier in the pregnancy, there is a chance we might have decided to abort," she said.
Still, Green has no regrets about her decision to keep Harrison.
"We don't know what we'd do without Harrison - he's so adored," she said.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Obstetricians Push to Expand Down's Syndrome Screening
From The Examiner
There's a big change coming for pregnant women: Down syndrome testing no longer hinges on whether they're older or younger than 35. This week, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists begins recommending that every pregnant woman, regardless of age, be offered a choice of tests for this common birth defect.
The main reason: Tests far less invasive than the long-used amniocentesis are now widely available, some that can tell in the first trimester the risk of a fetus having Down syndrome or other chromosomal defects.
It's a change that promises to decrease unnecessary amnios - giving mothers-to-be peace of mind without the ordeal - while also detecting Down syndrome in moms who otherwise would have gone unchecked.
The new guideline is published in the January issue of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
Naturally the article has the obligatory disclaimer to show it not just all about aborting Down's Syndrome babies:
It's not just a question of whether to continue the pregnancy. Prenatal diagnosis also is important for those who wouldn't consider abortion, because babies with Down syndrome can need specialized care at delivery that affects hospital selection, he added.
Uh-huh...
The profession of obstetrics is well on it's way to eradicating Down's Syndrome in our time.
There's a big change coming for pregnant women: Down syndrome testing no longer hinges on whether they're older or younger than 35. This week, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists begins recommending that every pregnant woman, regardless of age, be offered a choice of tests for this common birth defect.
The main reason: Tests far less invasive than the long-used amniocentesis are now widely available, some that can tell in the first trimester the risk of a fetus having Down syndrome or other chromosomal defects.
It's a change that promises to decrease unnecessary amnios - giving mothers-to-be peace of mind without the ordeal - while also detecting Down syndrome in moms who otherwise would have gone unchecked.
The new guideline is published in the January issue of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
Naturally the article has the obligatory disclaimer to show it not just all about aborting Down's Syndrome babies:
It's not just a question of whether to continue the pregnancy. Prenatal diagnosis also is important for those who wouldn't consider abortion, because babies with Down syndrome can need specialized care at delivery that affects hospital selection, he added.
Uh-huh...
The profession of obstetrics is well on it's way to eradicating Down's Syndrome in our time.