ProWomanProLife

Another great column on what exporting abortions abroad is really about:

“Population control,” through the United Nations or otherwise, has always consisted of “breeding instructions for the blacks, browns, and yellows.” And this is precisely what Ignatieff is selling, to the sort of people who want to buy it.

So when we talk maternal health, let’s talk maternal health. It is cultural imperialism of the very worst kind to take some Harvard-educated feminist’s mantra of “my body, my choice” and export it to cultures where they don’t think of killing their unborn babies as a solution to problems.

Here’s a breakthrough: A simple blood test can reveal the gender of a developing fetus. Accurately. And as early as five weeks. It’s extremely cool, but a bit daunting, too.

University of Pennsylvania bioethicist and msnbc.com contributor Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., calls the techonology “very useful,” but points out that for most inherited disorders there are few therapies, which means “elective abortion is just about the only option in response to fetal testing.” While most doctors would discourage its use merely to select gender, its increasing availability “puts physicians in the position of offering testing that may lead to abortions for non-medical reasons,” making the test “fraught with ethical problems.”

There’s no stopping science. There’s only stopping ourselves from using it for the wrong purposes.

See, when we say we’re against state-sanctioned euthanasia (in part) because we worry about a slippery slope, this is what we mean.

A Dutch health researcher has called on the nation’s government to allow physicians to euthanize newborns based on foreseen suffering, rather than only actual suffering, reports the Dutch medical journal Zorgkrant.

Hilde Buiting, maintains that such an amendment would only conform the law to the current practice among physicians.

“The current guidelines state that there must be actual grave suffering on the part of the newborn,” she said, as quoted in Zorgkrant.  “In practice, physicians look not only to the actual suffering of the sick newborn, but also to the grave suffering foreseen in the future.  This reality should be included in the considerations in adapting the guidelines.”

_________________________

Andrea adds: This article points out that care for the terminally-ill in the Netherlands has declined since legalizing euthanasia:

Without elaborating, she admitted that medical care for the terminally-ill had declined since the law came into effect. She said more should have been done legally to protect people who wanted to die natural deaths. ‘In the Netherlands, we first listened to the political and societal demand in favour of euthanasia,’ said Dr Borst. ‘Obviously, this was not in the proper order.

Another article about disappearing Down Syndrome children. The author describes how his friend had a baby born with Downs and

once the dust settled it became clear that, despite the bleakness of the diagnosis, she was still a very proud, very committed, and very loving mother to a tremendous and joyful young child. …She even embraces the idea of having another child with Down syndrome.

He goes on to say this:

As current evidence would suggest, my friend is in the ideological minority.

And if he’s commenting on having Downs children, then yes, stats suggest most are aborted and keeping a Downs baby puts a woman in the minority.

But if he’s commenting on a mother embracing her child, even with a diagnosis of Downs then I’d hazard to say she’s in the majority.

It’s the abortion choice that robs a mother of the chance to love and embrace her child, no matter the difficulty. Which I think, once the initial shock is over, is the way things go. It’s getting there in face of this culture that devalues “imperfect” life that is the hard part.

A fine post by Paul Tuns. Especially this:

The problem is that pregnant women are routinely tested to see if their child has a genetic anomaly for which there is no treatment. Doctors, who can’t stand to do nothing, offer what they can: abortion to get rid of the “problem”. This leads to a vicious cycle; I’ve talked to doctors who are concerned that with fewer Down Syndrome children being born, there is less impetus to do the type of research which could enrich the lives of those who survive the womb for nine months because there isn’t enough demand. Future lack of resources to help parents of Down Syndrome children will only encourage more parents to abort such children in the future.

Testing to see if the child has some “problem” for which there’s no treatment is one of those “illusion of technique” traps – better living through science (except of course for those whose lives are cut short in the name of perfection). Expecting mothers, not all of whom are geneticists, are often made to take those tests as a matter of routine because that’s just what’s expected, especially if you’re an older expecting mother. But those tests that determine (that’s assuming the tests are accurate, not an altogether water-tight assumption) whether a fetus has a condition for which there is no treatment are not medicine.

_____________________

Andrea adds: This breaks my heart.

The Washington Post cites Skotko’s research indicating that 92 percent of women who learn they are carrying a baby with Down syndrome choose to abort the pregnancy. That is more than nine out of ten.

Does anyone know when it comes to ultrasounds then, what is the point? Because I’ve always said I would not have one, period. But are there any conditions that can be viewed in utero for which abortion is not the answer? (As in, if you see something in the fetus early there is a bona fide treatment?)

______________________

Rebecca adds: “Does anyone know when it comes to ultrasounds then, what is the point? Because I’ve always said I would not have one, period. But are there any conditions that can be viewed in utero for which abortion is not the answer? (As in, if you see something in the fetus early there is a bona fide treatment?)”

I maintain that there is good reason to have these tests – maternal blood screening and ultrasound, which are non-invasive for the baby – even for people who would not consider abortion no matter what the result.  The major downside is false positives for problems, but a good obstetrician or radiologist will explain what are the odds of a false positive (and negative) to women being tested.  There are good medical reasons for finding out about problems in utero.  In some cases, babies can have surgery prior to being born, which can repair some otherwise fatal defects.  In others, when parents and doctors are aware of major problems, they can do a C-section and transfer the baby to immediate surgery; I know a healthy teenager who had a severely malformed abdominal wall, and since it was detected in utero, this is what happened.  If he’d gone through a vaginal birth, or not been taken immediately into a prepared operating theatre, he would likely be dead.  Down Syndrome in particular causes a higher risk of heart defects that can prove fatal at or shortly after birth, so it’s good to know if your child has this problem, so you can ensure optimal care at delivery.

The other big reason in my opinion is to prepare yourself psychologically.  Sarah Palin talked about being overjoyed when her son was born; she’d already come to terms with his medical condition, so the birth was a joyful occasion, not mixed with grief as it would be it were also the occasion on which you first learned your childhood had a lifelong disability for the family to cope with.  When major surgery is needed right after birth, it’s a lot easier on the family if it’s not a surprise, if they know what to expect and have made arrangements to help them all get through it.  Coping with a new baby is stressful and exhausting even when everything is perfect; coping with major surgery for your newborn would be a excruciating.  If that could be mitigated by some knowledge in advance of what the risks are and what’s likely to happen, I’m all in favour.

I fully support the choice to refuse prenatal testing if that’s what the mother wants.  But diagnostics themselves are not the problem, it is the mentality of the people within the system and how they use diagnostics.  These tools can certainly be used to mark some unborn children as unworthy of life.  But they can also be used to ensure best outcomes and the smoothest transitions even for babies with severe problems.  There is no inherent contradiction between being pro-life and being in favour of prenatal testing.

(I don’t discuss amnio because that, unlike maternal blood screening and ultrasound, does present a risk to the baby, with between .5% and 2% of amnios causing miscarriage, depending on when, how and where it’s done.  That’s a whole separate set of ethical issues.)

Further,”as commenters point out, there are other reasons that don’t involve defects or disease.  The reality of medicine today is that, while OBs rely less and less on manual palpation to evaluate pregnancies, it is not unheard of for a twin’s existence to go unnoticed until the birth.
Apart from the shock and logistics for the parents, this is medically
risky: for multiple births, it’s desirable to have extra supplies and attendants, as well as the ability to do an emergency C-section.  And less critically, ultrasound can be a great way of making a pregnancy seem real, and start a sort of proto-bonding.  I don’t know anybody who hasn’t teared up the first time they saw their baby on a scan, even if it’s still at the “peanut with a heartbeat” stage (6 or 7 weeks, if I recall correctly.)”

_____________________

Andrea again: Thanks for all the thoughtful comments. I like what Rebecca said about it being the mentality–not the tools. I have two friends who were offered testing in order that they might abort. (It was expressly stated.)

Sure thing. I’m sure this is how the new gene-replacement technology will be used:

The only way to treat these defects is to replace the genes,” he said. “This is gene transfer involving the germline, which is a concern, but we are pursuing it not for general use but for patients with mutations they will pass to the next generation. We believe this technology will prevent that.”

Just like abortion is only used in the most rare and extreme circumstances, and invitro fertilization is only used for patients who had to undergo chemotherapy… (Filing this one under “Eugenics” for your further reference…)

PWPL first posted about Annie Farlow here. Now her parents have taken a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal about the care she received (or did not receive) at Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto. The question remains of how a “do not resuscitate” order was issued without the parents knowledge. You can watch a bit of the story from CTV News here. Scroll down to the story called “Parents aim complaint at Sick Kids.”

Many today seem to live in the zone of personal choice, and having control–even over life and death. I don’t agree with this world view. But it seems pretty clear in this case that the Farlows were denied “the right to choose”–the right to choose life for their daughter.

Had a great conversation with a wise woman today.  This woman, 60-something , mother, grandmother, believer in the true strength of women, was talking to me about how things were “back in the day.”  We were touching on a variety of topics when, suddenly she paused and looked to the ceiling, as if something were written there.

She started again, “Why is it that we don’t see much of this anymore?  You know, all sorts of different people.  I went to school  with a girl who had a hunched back.  And another who’s legs were not the same length. She had to wear a special shoe with a platform.

“There was a family that lived two doors down, and the father’d had his legs amputated.  (I thought twins lived there, one tall and the other short.  I was no older than 4.  I couldn’t understand that sometimes he was wearing his prosthetic legs and sometimes he would walk around without them.)  Well, that family had a daughter, and she was missing that bone between the knee and the ankle.  She was older than me, so I never played with her.

“There was also a boy who would come to our house from time to time.  He had Down Sydrome.  He would come over with a man who worked with my father.

“And I can clearly remember, as a child, that none of these people were strange to me, or odd.  They were just people, like you or I, who simply had something particular about them.  But they were all around.

“Why don’t we see much of them anymore?”

“Well,” I started, “aside from some of the medical advances, many of these conditions are diagnosed during pregnancy.  Children with abnormalities are usually aborted.”  At this point, my eyes began to well up and I stopped speaking.

The wise woman sat back in her chair, as if soaking in the reality of what I had just said.  Her mouth opened, but no words came out.  She took a breath, exhaled, and stated, “That’s the problem with this generation.”  She had my full attention. “You can go to the store and buy a fridge.  For $100 more you can get a warranty.  Why risk it?  Get the warranty!  But people view their children in the same way; like so many commodities.  A man and a woman don’t get together and have a baby to create a family unit.”  She lifted her arms, as though tightly holding a large ball to her chest.  “They should love the family enough that, when they find out the baby is less than perfect, it’s OK.  It’s still their baby.  It’s still their family.”

I think this new test sounds like eugenics to me:

A new prenatal genetic diagnostic test may soon cause a substantial increase in the number of fetuses affixed with “syndrome” labels. The noninvasive test, called chromosomal microarray analysis, allows doctors to detect submicroscopic genetic abnormalities that no other test can find. Advocates of the technology say it is safer, faster and more accurate than invasive diagnostic procedures like amniocentesis. Despite the test’s benefits, however, some worry that it will result in a flood of prenatal genetic information of uncertain significance and will lead only to confusion and undue anxiety for expectant parents. Others question whether scientists should even be in the business of cleaning up the gene pool and have evoked the dreaded “E” word: eugenics.

The picture above is of a little girl, Katya, who has genetic abnormalities–trisomy 13. Let’s make this theoretical medical discussion real: It’s people like her we won’t–and don’t often, even today–see. Does that seem right to you? Doesn’t to me.

Remember this? That classy Dr. Lalonde, worrying Sarah Palin might cause fewer abortions? Well, this might too, and that’s why I gladly post it. (Sarah Palin address for the 2009 Idaho Special Olympics.)

______________________

Rebecca adds: What incredible grace. I understand how people can disagree with her politics. What I can’t fathom is the intense personal hostility so many expressed towards a woman who lives her values, no matter how difficult they may be, no matter how much easier a quick “solution” to a baby with DS or a pregnant teenage daughter would be. That’s admirable in anybody. If the Obamas or Bidens or any other big-government, post-modern squishy politicians on the left bore equal burdens with equal grace, I hope I would respect them for it, no matter how much I might abhor their political agenda.

_______________________

Andrea adds: Some disagreed with her politics, and on fair terms. Others had a visceral hostility because she made them feel bad (for being stronger). All those women who abort because of Downs–she tells them “you were wrong” without saying it. One last point–it is strong women who don’t abort, but I’d wager that most every woman can be that strong. Just one more reason why I think people working in abortion clinics are preying on a moment of despair and fear.

_______________________

Brigitte says: Joe Biden lost his wife and baby daughter in 1972 (car accident). He then raised his sons as a single dad, commuting every day from Washington D.C. to be with them as much as possible, for a few years before marrying Jill Tracy Jacobs in 1977. I am not a fan of Joe Biden, not at all. I dislike his politics, and I find him phoney and ridiculous (FDR on television after the Crash, remember that one?). But he didn’t give up even though he was tempted, and raised his children as best he could.