Ethickz - Autism screening

[Salzella]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/12/autism-screening-health

 

interesting, mm? there was a larger spread in the full paper about the ramifications i think, but the news itsself will do i suppose.

 

in short - screening that can identify whether an unborn child will be autistic is much closer to fruition. and therefore, the accompanying debates about should we/shouldn't we abort babies based on that evidence and so on.

 

so. yay ou nay?

[Achilles]

I think it would spell certain doom for the future of our race if we began aborting the indigo children before they were born.

 

While I don't necessarily agree with Dr. Baron-Cohen equating Autism with Down's Syndrome, I guess I could see why he would want to start a debate on this now. I'm probably going to hold out on formalizing my opinion until I know more about how reliable the testing is and how early in the pregnancy they think they can detect the condition.

[Jae Onasi]

There's no way anyone can predict how bad the autism is going to be, just like there's no way to predict how bad Down's will be in any given child. There are plenty of people out in the world functioning at a normal or near normal level even with autism.

 

Edit:

The more complicated ethical issue would be that of treatment in the womb, she said. "You get to the situation where you have a very great difficulty if families say we wouldn't want to be tested. As a society, do we accept that people can refuse tests when the outcome can make a difference to that unborn child?"

So a woman is allowed to choose what to do with her body if she wants to abort, but she's not allowed to refuse testing? You can't have it both ways.

[Achilles]

The question mark at the end indicated for me that it was a question rather than a statement.

 

As for the question: I would point out that screening has been optional for other conditions for some time. If we want to raise that question of whether or not that's appropriate outside of an autism debate, we can do so, however do to so within the debate would seem to validate Jae's concerns about double standards.

[Jae Onasi]

The article actually brings up several ethics questions--can you abort based on autism screening, and if you can, should you because autism has a wide spectrum of functioning, and can you force someone to have testing/treatment to theoretically protect the unborn child.

 

Abortion isn't even an option for me so it's a no-brainer in my particular family. I consider it unethical to abort a baby except in life-threatening situations or in cases where the baby cannot live outside the womb (as in cases where the baby is missing a heart, lungs, or brain) and keeping the pregnancy going is only delaying the inevitable. Obviously others don't have that same ethics standard, and it's legal in the US and many other countries, so I live with the fact that others are going to make different decisions. I don't think we know nearly enough about autism itself, much less testing for it. The article notes the link between testosterone levels and autism, but we don't even know if the autism causes the testosterone levels to increase, or autism develops in an environment where the mother produces more testosterone than usual. I don't know how we can even consider making an ethical decision on this with so little information.

 

Nathanson asks the ethical question about testing/treatment, and I felt it was important to point out the double standard that requiring autism testing would create. Also, screening is 'optional', but practitioners can exert an enormous amount of influence, including refusing to continue seeing the mother, if they don't get 'their way' in making medical decisions. I was able to choose practitioners who would respect my views on abortion, so when I refused the triple screen because it wasn't going to make a difference one bit on whether I continued the pregnancy, they were cool with that. If autistic screening was available I probably would have declined that, too--amniocentesis is generally safe but it's not 100% risk-free--miscarriages and injuries to the baby can and do happen. Not everyone has that luxury of choosing understanding practitioners, however.

 

With UK's government run health care, the gov't has a vested interest in minimizing costs by minimizing births of children with major disorders like Down's and severe autism. In the US the insurance companies take on the task of being the bad guys by refusing to cover things instead (e.g. making the medical insurance premiums for a baby with autism or other major disorder so high that it's unaffordable, or just refusing outright to cover certain conditions). Cold and harsh? Sure. These ethics questions are not talking just about what's best for the mom, child, or family, it's also talking indirectly about what's best financially for taxpayers/stockholders, depending on your country's medical system.

 

So not only are we dealing with the ethics of aborting a child based on a screening test, but this article also brings up the point that it might not be ethically acceptable for socioeconomic reasons to refuse testing and treatment--that's fair game here, I think, though if you want to have a separate thread on if it's ethical to refuse prenatal testing and treatment, I'm fine with that, too.

[Achilles]

The article actually brings up several ethics questions--can you abort based on autism screening,

Yes, provided the results were reliable.

 

and if you can, should you because autism has a wide spectrum of functioning,

As does Down's Syndrome and I believe we permit abortions for that.

 

and can you force someone to have testing/treatment to theoretically protect the unborn child.

Meh. I would be very interested in learning what an ethical argument for this would look like. I can't imagine one, but then again, I'm not trying very hard right now.

 

I consider it unethical to abort a baby <snip>

Unethical or against your religious beliefs? There is a difference.

 

I've been waiting for years for a ethical argument against abortion and have yet to hear a single one.

 

I don't think we know nearly enough about autism itself, much less testing for it.

It appears that some specialists think that they are on the cusp of precisely that.

 

I don't know how we can even consider making an ethical decision on this with so little information.

Agreed, but in a slightly different context, per post #2.

 

Nathanson asks the ethical question about testing/treatment, and I felt it was important to point out the double standard that requiring autism testing would create.

Yes, such a requirement would be a double standard. I don't think anyone has suggested there should be though.

 

Also, screening is 'optional', but practitioners can exert an enormous amount of influence, including refusing to continue seeing the mother, if they don't get 'their way' in making medical decisions.

Funny, I seem to recall making a similar argument in an abortion thread and you shoo'ed it away as though that kind of thing would never happen in a million years.

 

Provided my codeine-laced cough medicine allows me the motor function to do so, I might have to go digging for that a little later.

 

If autistic screening was available I probably would have declined that, too--amniocentesis is generally safe but it's not 100% risk-free--miscarriages and injuries to the baby can and do happen.

Waking up in the morning isn't 100% risk-free either.

 

{snip} Regardless of who is right or wrong, the forums are not the appropriate place to raise an issue pertaining to a member's professional obligations. And there is no necessity to always assume that others post here in bad faith - d3

 

 

With UK's government run health care, the gov't has a vested interest in minimizing costs by minimizing births of children with major disorders like Down's and severe autism. In the US the insurance companies take on the task of being the bad guys by refusing to cover things instead (e.g. making the medical insurance premiums for a baby with autism or other major disorder so high that it's unaffordable, or just refusing outright to cover certain conditions). Cold and harsh? Sure.

Are you thinking aloud or presenting an argument?

 

The latter seems like a slippery-slope if you're taking this where it sounds like you are.

 

These ethics questions are not talking just about what's best for the mom, child, or family, it's also talking indirectly about what's best financially for taxpayers/stockholders, depending on your country's medical system.

So socialized medicine = communist limits on child-birth ala The People's Republic of China?

 

So not only are we dealing with the ethics of aborting a child based on a screening test, but this article also brings up the point that it might not be ethically acceptable for socioeconomic reasons to refuse testing and treatment--that's fair game here, I think, though if you want to have a separate thread on if it's ethical to refuse prenatal testing and treatment, I'm fine with that, too.

I'm afraid I just don't see how we get to this conclusion without a lot of premises and a slippery-slope to slide them down.

 

Of course, if you could present some cases where people living in countries with socialized medicine have ever been forced to abort a child with Down's Syndrome or Huntington's Disease, etc, then I will have no choice but to stand corrected.

[Ferc Kast]

in short - screening that can identify whether an unborn child will be autistic is much closer to fruition. and therefore, the accompanying debates about should we/shouldn't we abort babies based on that evidence and so on.

 

so. yay or nay?

 

Before I state my view, there are two factors for me: myself & my beliefs. First, I have autism (under the Asperger's Syndrome spectrum) myself, so I think it would be important to find out if any given person has autism at as early as possible. Secondly, due to my religion, I don't believe abortions should be done (except in a few cases) at all. So, I think the screening should be done granted that results are accurate. But, we shouldn't abort even if they are autistic or not. Even though I'm considered autistic, I can function properly. Although, every autistic person is different from each other. But, in most cases, it rarely proves a challenge for living. So, I believe an abortion would be out of the question if the screenings (if reliable) show that the unborn child has autism.

 

In short, my answer is yes and no. Just my two cents.

[True_Avery]

Outside of the fact that average to advanced autism and the like can create monstrous medical bills, whats the advantage of attempting to take them out of the picture?

 

Fatal genetic diseases I can see being weeded out. Susceptibility to certain cancers I can see being weeded out.

 

The results vary, and I don't believe it is entirely genetic either. Most of the time mental disabilities just happen to be "mistakes" in the womb during growth of the brain. While autism in general is somewhat genetic, it also seems to be circumstantial, and environmental. Like, say, the mother drinks or does drugs while pregnant.

 

So, again, what is the long term benefit of screening out autistic and other such babies?

[Achilles]

But, in most cases, it rarely proves a challenge for living.

Source please?

 

Looking at the Autism Society of America website, they state that the annual cost of autism will be $200-400 billion in the next 10 years. That sounds like quite a bit of money for a condition which "rarely proves a challenge for living".

 

Outside of the fact that average to advanced autism and the like can create monstrous medical bills, whats the advantage of attempting to take them out of the picture?

If a fetus is diagnosed with autism, the parents have no way of knowing how severe it may be. They might not be in a mental, physical, or financial situation to provide for a "average to advanced" autistic child.

 

Fatal genetic diseases I can see being weeded out.

By "weeded out" do you mean "allowed to be eradicated via abortion"? How about encouraging potential parents to screen themselves for them before mating instead?

 

Susceptibility to certain cancers I can see being weeded out.

Meh. Maybe getting cancer (without knowing when) would seem to be a lot different than definitely being born with autism, down's syndrome, huntington's disease, etc.

 

The results vary, and I don't believe it is entirely genetic either. Most of the time mental disabilities just happen to be "mistakes" in the womb during growth of the brain.

Source please?

 

While autism in general is somewhat genetic, it also seems to be circumstantial, and environmental. Like, say, the mother drinks or does drugs while pregnant.

If we don't know what causes autism for certain, we should just accept that we don't know what causes autism for certain.

 

So, again, what is the long term benefit of screening out autistic and other such babies?

Allowing parents to be able to make informed decisions about family planning.

[Web Rider]

Considering that the level of autisim detected in the child, if they even develop it or just have the potential to develop it, can vary to massive degrees, I don't really approve of abortion children with autism. Now, I'm questionably supportive of being allowed to abort kids who a generally reliable test has proven that they will be massively debilitated and simply be a drain on their family and on society. I'm not sure, personally, I think people should be allowed 3 non-medical necessity abortions in a 10-year period(then it resets). If they want to have more, they need to learn birth control or just keep it in their pants.

 

I don't like abortion, but it's not my place to tell other people what to do, if someone wants to abort their kid 'cause they won't be pretty enough, well that's sad, but oh well. To be honest, kids are neither special nor unique, and if there are less in the world, then that's not a bad thing to me, our population will just shrink some. Could we miss out on the next Mozart? The next Picasso? Maybe, but lets be honest, we've got 6+ billion people on this world, if in a generation, two kids can't be born with some great talent, we might as well just all die now, because we've clearly failed as a race.

 

As for "indigo kids" I personally believe that's a load of pseudo-science BS that parents of mentally or physically disabled kids make up in order to justify their child's existance. Am I cold? Darn right I am, but lets be fair, we've got a lot of kids in this world, if you want one so bad, you don't need to breed one, especially if you're at high risk for genetic disorders. Will you not get to pass on your genes? Yup, but lets face it, you're genes aren't that good.

[True_Avery]

If a fetus is diagnosed with autism, the parents have no way of knowing how severe it may be. They might not be in a mental, physical, or financial situation to provide for a "average to advanced" autistic child.

True. Wasn't thinking small enough in this case.

 

People still do it though. Worked with mentally challenged kids for 3 years, and personally I'm amazed they can afford it.

 

On an off note, how much would health insurance, on average, pay for? Is there like, a plan you go into? Because unless you are rolling in the dough, I'm curious as to how you afford full time nurses, medication, and, depending, oxygen and other such things.

 

By "weeded out" do you mean "allowed to be eradicated via abortion"? How about encouraging potential parents to screen themselves for them before mating instead?

Can't we do that now? Doesn't seem to stop people.

 

With the "rah rah freedom" and all that, there is not a lot we can do right now to force people to screen. And even if they know they have something in the family, that has yet to stop people from playing the mating game.

 

And in the end, what do you screen people for? Due to our love to breed quantity over quality, almost everybody is born with something up with them. I can't pull up a source for that, but you've either got some genetic disease in the family, asthma, etc etc etc. Nowadays, being born seems to be a case of picking a slip of paper out of the hat. Least modern medicine is a great equalizer.

 

Meh. Maybe getting cancer (without knowing when) would seem to be a lot different than definitely being born with autism, down's syndrome, huntington's disease, etc.

Yes, the difference is quite distinct.

 

Source please?

Well, considering we don't know for sure, any source I pull up is pretty useless.

 

I'm talking less of autism and more of just the disabilities you can give your kids by drinking or smoking heavily while pregnant. Like, for instance, weaker heart, etc.

 

If we don't know what causes autism for certain, we should just accept that we don't know what causes autism for certain.

Sure.

 

Allowing parents to be able to make informed decisions about family planning.

Unless we can determine the severity in the screening, it doesn't seem to be all that "informed". Seems to be as much of a coin toss as the condition itself.

[Achilles]

I'm not sure, personally, I think people should be allowed 3 non-medical necessity abortions in a 10-year period(then it resets). If they want to have more, they need to learn birth control or just keep it in their pants.

Hehe, I think this is the first time I've seen someone suggest actual policy along these lines. That's pretty cool!

 

While I think the numbers could be debated, I think our time would be better spent on teaching young people how to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place by promoting safe sexual practices.

 

I don't like abortion, but it's not my place to tell other people what to do,

Well said.

 

if someone wants to abort their kid 'cause they won't be pretty enough, well that's sad, but oh well.

Wait, what?!

 

To be honest, kids are neither special nor unique

"Special" is subjective. "Unique" is not.

 

and if there are less in the world, then that's not a bad thing to me, our population will just shrink some. Could we miss out on the next Mozart? The next Picasso? Maybe, but lets be honest, we've got 6+ billion people on this world, if in a generation, two kids can't be born with some great talent, we might as well just all die now, because we've clearly failed as a race.

Gee, how about just trying to ensure that some smart people make it?

 

As for "indigo kids" I personally believe that's a load of pseudo-science BS that parents of mentally or physically disabled kids make up in order to justify their child's existance. Am I cold? Darn right I am, but lets be fair, we've got a lot of kids in this world, if you want one so bad, you don't need to breed one, especially if you're at high risk for genetic disorders. Will you not get to pass on your genes? Yup, but lets face it, you're genes aren't that good.

pshaw, have you seen my genes?

 

People still do it though. Worked with mentally challenged kids for 3 years, and personally I'm amazed they can afford it.

I'm sure some people do. Not everyone can though.

 

Can't we do that now? Doesn't seem to stop people.

For some stuff yes, but it's voluntary nonetheless. I imagine that getting your genome sequenced would be a lot better for this sort of thing, however that's pretty cost prohibitive right now. Price will come down with time, but it will still be voluntary.

 

And in the end, what do you screen people for? Due to our love to breed quantity over quality, almost everybody is born with something up with them. I can't pull up a source for that, but you've either got some genetic disease in the family, asthma, etc etc etc. Nowadays, being born seems to be a case of picking a slip of paper out of the hat. Least modern medicine is a great equalizer.

Yeah, but again, there's a big difference between a predisposition for diabetes when you turn 70 vs. definitely being born with something that is going to affect your quality of life from Day 1.

 

Unless we can determine the severity in the screening, it doesn't seem to be all that "informed". Seems to be as much of a coin toss as the condition itself.

Please explain to me how this is any different than the screening that we already do for Down's Syndrome?

 

Screening tells you "yes" or "no". If the answer is "no" then nothing to worry about. If the answer is "yes", then you still have the proverbial coin toss that you mentioned. Some people might appreciate having the ability to make that "if 'yes'" decision with both eyes open rather than "Congratulations. It's a boy with Incurable Disease X. Have fun." out of the blue. Some people might be in a position to say, "No matter how severe the situation is, we can handle it". Others might have to say "Well, if it's any worse than Y, we're sunk. And if we have no way of knowing whether it will be more than Y or less than Y, the responsible thing is to end the pregnancy".

[jonathan7]

Due to a number of reported posts this topic is closed pending a review -- j7

[Jae Onasi]

This is a very controversial topic, and we have a good number of people in the community who have autism or are close to someone autistic. The reason we've had so many reports on this is because it really touches a raw nerve for some folks. I'll re-open it in the morning (since I don't want to leave it untended overnight)--however, we need everyone to take extraordinary caution in how posts are worded. Be aware that your buddy that you are talking to in this thread may have someone in the family who has autism, or has a version of the disorder themselves. It's quite a bit more common than most people would realize. Please consider carefully how you would talk to a good friend who had autism or Asperger's about this very topic, and try to keep that kind of tone in your posts.

 

For those of you who have objected to the topic itself--it's fair game, and there's nothing in the rules that forbids discussion of prenatal testing for autism and the ethics of dealing with possible results. If you dislike the very discussion of this topic, please excuse yourself from the thread entirely. There's no rule that says you have to read every thread in Kavar's--some threads aren't going to work for some people.

[GarfieldJL]

I'm going to say flat out that a lot of Autistic People consider this to be an attempt to commit another kind of holocaust, quite frankly I agree with them.

 

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt87421.html

 

I ordinarily will not post a link to another forum but this forum is where a lot of people with Autism end up gathering, and the topic came up in a google search.

 

http://www.patriciaebauer.com/2009/01/12/call-for-ethical-debates/

 

Autism awareness promoters such as NAAR and Cure Autism Now, which also fund eugenics research, shamelessly claim to be helping children. Cure Autism Now recently "helped" children with Rett syndrome, a condition related to autism, by funding the research of Dr. Huda Zoghbi to identify a genetic marker that is currently being used for prenatal testing worldwide to detect and abort Rett babies. (You'll have to copy and paste, because eugenicists are not getting any active links from me, but more information about Zoghbi's research is at http://cureautismnow.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bhLOK2PILuF&b=1289189&ct=1814251

-- autisticbfh.blogspot.com

 

This looks to me to be another holocaust.

[Astor]

While i'm not entirely sure what to make of the situation, and am currently siding with the 'against' camp, I think that 'Holocaust' is too strong a word - It might not be, but it seems a little premature to be labeling it as such.

[Achilles]

Yeah, I don't think anyone advocating the out-and-out automatic abortion of fetuses showing Autism should be listened to or taken seriously.

 

Of course, if such a conversation were taking place, it would have nothing to do with the OP or the topic itself and should probably be a separate thread. My 2 cents.

[Jae Onasi]

As does Down's Syndrome and I believe we permit abortions for that.

While I don't necessarily agree with Dr. Baron-Cohen equating Autism with Down's Syndrome

I'm a little confused since you don't agree with equating autism and Down's and then in a later post do compare the two. If I'm misreading it and you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.

 

Meh. I would be very interested in learning what an ethical argument for this would look like. I can't imagine one, but then again, I'm not trying very hard right now.

I can't think of any kind of ethical argument to force someone to have medical tests or procedures, either. I can think of socioeconomic arguments, sure, but not ethical ones.

 

Unethical or against your religious beliefs? There is a difference.

Infanticide is unethical. I fail to see how killing a full-term baby in the womb is somehow different than killing a baby out of the womb right after s/he's born, and thus how this becomes a religious issue vs. an ethical one. Infanticide is either ethical or not and religion has nothing to do with that. I was specific in my description in my previous post, however. Abortion, as wrong as I think it is in so many cases (not _all_ cases, however), is legal. I live with that. However, I choose not to have one myself unless it's a clear case of something like anencephaly.

It appears that some specialists think that they are on the cusp of precisely that.

I'm reading it as 'we can detect autism', but it doesn't say 'we can detect severe, debilitating autism and differentiate it from other types of autism.' That is a very different thing.

 

Yes, such a requirement would be a double standard. I don't think anyone has suggested there should be though.

Nathanson asked the question in the article if there should be such a requirement or not, so I gave my answer to her question. The very fact that she even raised the question raises a red flag for me, even if we may not do something like this at this time.

 

Funny, I seem to recall making a similar argument in an abortion thread and you shoo'ed it away as though that kind of thing would never happen in a million years.

I'd have to look at it--if I did say docs don't exert influence, that would be incorrect then, and I will retract that comment in advance if I did say it. Now, I may have said they shouldn't, but that's different.

 

Great framing here, Jae. I hope someone doesn't read this and interpret it as medical advice against the procedure.

I do not have a professional medical relationship with anyone here or anywhere on the internet, nor will I, since examining eyes over the internet is impossible. I would not presume to get in between the relationship a pregnant mother has with her practitioner, either. I was very specific in stating that it was my experience, partly for that reason. Yes, there is a small risk of miscarriage in 1 in 200 to 1 in 400, along with injuries to the baby, preterm labor, and other problems. That's a bit more than 'getting up in the morning', unless you're doing something dangerous enough to risk a 1 in 200 chance of death when you get up every morning. Small risk? Yes. Risk-free? No. Any woman who is offered amniocentesis is told about these risks prior to the procedure and has to sign a consent form for it. I had normal pregnancies and was healthy, and didn't have medical indications where the benefits of the test would outweigh the risks. There was no reason for me to have a medical test when I was going to do nothing about the results—that would have been a waste of my time and money. Other women are not so blessed, and for them the testing may well be appropriate, as it might have been for me if my situation had been different. Don't tell me I'm giving medical advice against a procedure when all I did was point out that I chose not to have the a triple screen and then an amniocentesis if it came back positive because I personally did not feel it was worth the risk of the procedure. You need to look up the definition of 'dispensing medical advice' because if you think that's what I did here, you are wrong. You further have made the false assumption that I was 'framing' my personal experience to dissuade people from getting what for them may be a necessary medical test. You are entirely incorrect about my intention in that post, and your false assumption has led you to a fallacious conclusion.

 

Since I'm sure you'll ask for data on the risk, here's one source.

Does Amniocentesis Have Risks?

 

Yes. There is a small risk that an amniocentesis could cause a miscarriage (less than 1%, or approximately 1 in 200 to 1 in 400). Injury to the baby or mother, infection, and preterm labor are other potential complications that can occur, but are extremely rare.

When there is a clear indication for amniocentesis, it's worth it--detecting intrauterine infection, determining if a baby's lungs are developed enough to deliver if a mother is having toxemia problems--these are situations where the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Having one with the attendant risks to show the baby is normal when the triple screen comes back with a false positive? That particular situation wasn't worth it to me.

Are you thinking aloud or presenting an argument?

The latter seems like a slippery-slope if you're taking this where it sounds like you are.

Probably more thinking aloud of where this could theoretically go. It's a possible result of this kind of thinking.

 

So socialized medicine = communist limits on child-birth ala The People's Republic of China?

I never said that. It doesn't mean the bean-counters aren't going to think about the cost impacts, however. An analyst in the Surgeon General's office said this:

In 1974, a former analyst in the U.S. Surgeon General's office was quoted in Fortune as predicting that with an investment of five billion dollars in producing a program to reduce the incidence of Down's syndrome by diagnosis and abortion, society could save eighteen billion dollars. Similar programs to reduce other genetic disease could save up to a hundred billion dollars. The analyst warned, "If we allow our genetic problems to get out of hand, we as a society run the risk of overcommitting ourselves to the care of and maintenance of a large population of mentally deficient patients at the expense of other urgent social problems."

Government clearly has an interest in limiting the number of people with debilitating genetic diseases, and we should be cognizant of that.

Of course, if you could present some cases where people living in countries with socialized medicine have ever been forced to abort a child with Down's Syndrome or Huntington's Disease, etc, then I will have no choice but to stand corrected.

Case of coercion in UK.

The relevant portion of the article:

A baby born alive after a botched abortion at 21 weeks is among the worst cases reported in the UK.

 

The little girl, who had Down's Syndrome, lived for three hours after being delivered.

 

Her parents claim they were "coerced" into a termination by staff at Macclesfield District General Hospital.

 

They were later told that their baby had not "really" been alive, even though she was clearly breathing.

 

The couple, who do not wish to be named, already had a toddler, a teenager and a 12-year-old with learning difficulties and felt unable to cope with another special needs child.

 

The 44-year-old mother said: "If I had been given any idea that the baby would be born alive after an abortion I would never have gone through with it. They coerced me.

 

 

"I have seen how society treats children with disabilities and it frightened me to bring another special needs child into the world, but somehow we would have coped with it."

 

Two days before the abortion in March 2004, the woman was given tablets which she was told would kill the baby in the womb.

 

But to their distress the baby was still clearly moving.

 

They went back to hospital and were assured that the baby would die during labour.

 

Soon after birth, however, both parents saw it gasping for air.

 

Not specifically for genetic disorders, but coerced for various reasons:

Case of woman restrained by staff so the doctor could do the abortion after she requested an ambulance to go to the hospital. I hope the guy got nailed for gross malpractice, too.

Here's an even more offensive one: British soldier forced to have 2 abortions by army because of discrimination.

Indian woman with forced abortion.

Coercion to have abortions has happened, and not only in China, and we (in general, not specifically you and I) can't talk out of both sides of our mouth on this one.

 

@Garfield—prenatal testing in useful for learning about a major disorder prior to birth—some can be corrected in utero, and preparations can be made prior to birth to protect the baby during and after delivery. An infant with spina bifida may require a different delivery technique than a normal child to protect the spinal cord, for instance. A friend of mine has a Down's syndrome daughter, and since heart disorders often go along with the condition, they made sure to have a pediatric cardiologist on hand at the birth to make sure the baby's heart was strong enough and that she didn't need emergency cardiac surgery. Knowing about a disorder prior to birth doesn't automatically mean someone is going to have an abortion. Having medical and social services in place prior to the birth can be very beneficial in maximizing health and minimizing the negative effects of a disease.

[GarfieldJL]

While i'm not entirely sure what to make of the situation, and am currently siding with the 'against' camp, I think that 'Holocaust' is too strong a word - It might not be, but it seems a little premature to be labeling it as such.

 

I'm partially quoting other people, here but I quite frankly agree with them, it is genocide. Here is another article:

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=489

 

In a span of less than two years, Suzanne Wright's bigoted diatribes against autistic people have included promises to put us in the history books and exhortations to kick us to the curb. Oh, and she also claims that autistic children are "just not there" and can't be taken out to restaurants and movies. So I didn't find it at all surprising to see this unequivocal declaration of Autism Speaks' eugenic intentions in the Parade article:

 

 

"We’re now playing catch-up as we try to stem the tide and ultimately eradicate autism for the sake of future generations. If we continue our current trajectory, we’ll get there in my lifetime."

--http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com

 

As someone who studies history looks an attempt to cause another holocaust to me. And these "cure for autism" people have a tendency to try to silence people with Autism:

http://autism.about.com/b/2008/01/22/when-is-a-humorous-site-not-so-funny-autism-speaks-has-its-say.htm

 

http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/2006/05/never-again.html

 

 

@Jae

 

I'm not referring to potential birth defects that can be corrected surgically, or if there is literally no brain activity or something of that nature.

[mur'phon]

I don't really see what is wrong about aborting fetuses with authism, as long as they folow the standard procedeures (i.e the ones used to abort "normal" children). Of course, people should have the right to not screen themselves.

Many people will doubtlessly abort because of authism, but I don't see why we should deny them that choice.

 

it is genocide.

 

If you disagree with abortion, sure, otherwise the "worst" you can call it is a genocide without deaths.

[GarfieldJL]

I don't really see what is wrong about aborting fetuses with authism, as long as they folow the standard procedeures (i.e the ones used to abort "normal" children). Of course, people should have the right to not screen themselves.

Many people will doubtlessly abort because of authism, but I don't see why we should deny them that choice.

 

Yeah because it's treated as a disease which it isn't.

 

 

If you disagree with abortion, sure, otherwise the "worst" you can call it is a genocide without deaths.

 

So forced sterilization would also be okay by your thinking because nobody died?

 

 

This is like aborting everyone with blue eyes.

 

Call it what it is I don't use the word holocaust lightly but that is essentially what this is.

[mur'phon]

Yeah because it's treated as a disease which it isn't.

 

If some people don't want to risk ending up with a disadvantaged child, then surely they should be alowed to abort the same way people who don't want a child at all are alowed an abort within a certain timeframe. Abortion in itself isn't the topic as far as I know.

 

So forced sterilization would also be okay by your thinking because nobody died?

 

I was only talking about the abortions people choose to have legaly because of authism, sorry for not making it clear.

 

This is like aborting everyone with blue eyes.

 

Which I see nothing wrong with as long as it is done freely and legaly.

 

@Jae: Society might save some money, but it would be political suicide for any politicans to make any laws advicing doctors to take such concerns when giving advice. That, and the medical union would flat out refuse.

[GarfieldJL]

If some people don't want to risk ending up with a disadvantaged child' date=' then surely they should be alowed to abort [b']the same way[/b] people who don't want a child at all are alowed an abort within a certain timeframe. Abortion in itself isn't the topic as far as I know.

 

You just demonstrated my point, and this is what ticks a lot of people whom have autism off to no end, myself included. We are not disadvantaged, we're just different, yet we get shunned as having a disease or not being as intelligent.

 

Face it people are misinformed, whether it is deliberate or not remains to be seen, but this is eugenics, genocide, etc.

 

I was only talking about the abortions people choose to have legaly because of authism, sorry for not making it clear.

 

And this is why abortion is so objectionable, because it's a start down a slippery slope, and devalues life. It is used as a legal means to exterminate people whom are different, by encouraging parents to have an abortion rather than having a child whom is different.

 

They say things like the child will never talk, the child will have no feelings, etc. All of that is a bunch of garbage and some of those people whom say that know it.

 

Considering I have Autism and I had a vocabulary of 900 words when I was 13 monthes old (most children whom don't have Autism do not have a vocabulary that large if they've even started talking yet at that age). I wasn't even diagnosed until I was in college because I didn't fit what doctors thought to be Autism.

 

Which I see nothing wrong with as long as it is done freely and legaly.

 

And I do have a problem with it, because it stigmatizes a portion of the population, and it is genocide.

 

@Jae: Society might save some money, but it would be political suicide for any politicans to make any laws advicing doctors to take such concerns when giving advice. That, and the medical union would flat out refuse.

 

And you also eliminate a lot of the people that make the advancements in science, many engineers and scientists out there are on the spectrum. As I said, we're just different from a neurotypical.

[Samnmax221]

If you screen out autism in the womb you're going to destroy the livelihood of people who manufacture hugbox's, think about that you monsters!

[The Doctor]

Garfield, you can't deny that people with autism are disadvantaged, if only because of the popular (and yes, errant) view of the disorder. Children born and diagnosed with autism will, without exception, be disadvantaged because of the diagnosis.

 

But I do agree with you, to a certain extent. Parents should not choose to abort a child solely because it will most likely be born with a brain development abnormality - doing so is, to be honest, narrow minded and selfish. However, a parent should have the right to abort a child if they believe they are unable to support the child - so long as they did all they could to prevent conception. Simply put, if you're gonna do the crime you should be prepared to do the time.