|
|
This is based on an article that appeared in Westminster Mencap's Newsletter Feedback in August 1994 .I have updated it |
|
|
|
This is based on an article that appeared in Westminster Mencap's Newsletter Feedback in August 1994 .I have updated it |
The article below written in 1994 and revised in 2003 is as relevant now as it was then The new NIPT test could lead to even more people with Downs Syndrome being aborted, unless prospective parents are given balanced, accurate , non judgmental information
I wrote this article in response to the then new screening test developed by Dr Soothill of University College Hospital, London. I believe that then, as now medical research seems to be concentrating its resources not on preventing babies from being born with a disability but on preventing babies with a disability from being born which is quite different. The belief is that having Down's Syndrome is a capital offence-if you are unborn.In China , it is taken one step further with disabled children being killed at birth, while in Nazi Germany people with Downs Syndrome were executed .I do not intend to discuss the arguments about abortion in general in this article ,because most people have strong views about it based on their personal principles.I am only concerned with the arguments used to justify the abortion of babies with Downs Syndrome.
Before arguing the case for the defence, let megive the three reasons why people attempt to justify termination for Downs Syndrome.The first is that people with high support needs are expensive to the tax payer.the second is that having a disability means you have a miserable life, and the third is that having a disabled child is an intolerable burden for the family
Far too expensive
The financial argument was put forward in "An economic appraisal of screening for Down's Syndrome in Pregnancy using maternal age and serum alpha fetoprotein concentration"in the Journal of Science Society and Medicine, Vol 24, No.9 ,1987.This referred to work done at Bart's Hospital and examined the benefits if the screening programme were to be extended. "The researchers costed their screening method and estimated that it costs 38000 pounds (at 1987 rates) to avoid one Down's baby"The cost of detecting and terminating each fetus would be 5614 pounds.The life time costs of caring for a child with Downs Syndrome were estimated to be 120,000 pounds.
As the mother of a daughter with Down's Syndrome, I find these remarks very offensive-no human being should have a price tag.The calculations which produced the figure of 120,000 are questionable and suspect.A lot of assumptions were made. I will give just three examples. Firstly, it assumed a situation of life-long dependency,where the person concerned would never pay taxes, never earn a living and never contribute in any way to society.The article states "the individual with Downs Syndrome are assumed to have no financial output in adult life". The costs also include unrealistic assumptions,For instance, it assumes that the child would have a home liaison teacher 40 times a year from ages 1 to 4, and an assumptiom that all children would attend special schools.Even in the 1980's children with Downs Syndrome were beginning to attend mainstream schools and the upward trend has continued.It assumed loss of parental income an over consumptiom of goods and services relating to their mental handicap and the assumption that they would all need nursing care for dementia when the reached the age of 45.These all regarded the child with Downs Syndrome as a drain on the exchequer. However how wouild the sum of bringing up a child with Downs Syndrome compare with the costs of sending a child to Eton and then to Oxbridge, then entering a profession like law or medicine which all would require major outlay from their parents and from taxpayers.Yet this may well have been the costs of bringing up some of the consultants who did this research!
