Delete. Wrong Thread.
I'm not a doctor, but I would think that the tests of a fetus with a severe case of down syndrome would be easier to detect than one with a milder form. If this child is more severely affected (which seems to be the case), perhaps the jury found that the doctors didn't detect the obvious because of their mistakes--meaning they're negligent.
And I will not judge these parents. People don't give birth simply for the sake of creating life. No one is looking to have children who will forever need care and be dependent on them.
An article with more details explains that the woman had two ultrasounds at the health system (the same one where the CVS was done) in the weeks following the CVS; both ultrasounds showed possible Down Syndrome characteristics, but she was reassured each time that she didn't need further testing and that her baby would not have Downs.
I think that I'd have been pretty upset, too if it really happened this way.
There is a huge difference in my book between loving a disabled child with all of your heart and "signing up" for one. I can understand where the parents are coming from, and I can't judge them.
Even when you have healthy children, it's no guarantee. Both Sweets' grandmother and my grandmother are taking care of severely ill adult children who had serious mental and/or physical breakdowns as adults -- one in her 20s/30s and one in her 40s/50s. Sweets' grandmother is 89 and still a full-time caretaker.... It's just the luck of the draw sometimes.
The child in this current case has siblings who hopefully will be willing and able to take care of their sister after their parents can no longer do it.
This is not true of all, and of course children with special needs require specialised services, but many can grow to be self sufficient and live outside of their parents' home. Being a parent is a stressful, demanding, full time job, regardless of whether the child is special needs or not. I know of several Down's adults who earn money gardening at local government schools. One works at a state library. I know several NGOs who find positions for adults with special needs, so they can be independent. One local MP has a Down's man working in her office. It's not done as charity, either, they can do they job required. My mother is blind and has a full time job, people still say "wow" when they hear that. My sister is blind, and she works too, and is married with three kids. That gets an extra "wow" - I've never really got it. Having a special need, regardless of its nature, does not equal helpless, and it doesn't equal dependent. The kids I work with are *kids* and still the people who need the most work are the adults, because even them, as parents, think that their child needs more looking after than they really do. Independence can be taught, but you have to teach it, the same as with non-special needs kids. The teachers who first taught my sister thought she should learn a skill like basket weaving - I kid you not. They didn't see her ever being able to be at a mainstream school, but in fourth grade, my mum fought hard for it. She plays the piano, flute and cello, and sings. She's independently earning and, along with her husband, provides for her family, and doesn't take the disability allowance the government offer her.
The biggest problem in Australia (and I would say it's world wide) is that people automatically equate having a special need with not being able to be independent, whereas many of those with special needs can actually have a higher degree of independence than most people think.
Last edited by Angelskates; 03-10-2012 at 08:21 AM.
Where's the mitigation? Why didn't they give the baby up for adoption?
But I think this case comes down to the fine print of the agreement. If a couple would have aborted a child based on the results of test, and test was faulty, then perhaps they have a case.
Perhaps giving the child up is an option that will weigh into the legal proceedings.Originally Posted by manhn
But I doubt that babies with Downs are high are any potential adoptive
Mr. Japanfan works with special needs adults and I've had occasion to observe the parents of his clients. It is a whole lot more demanding that dealing with an average child. And it never stops - unlike an average child who grows out of the terrible twos.Originally Posted by Angelstates
Those parents are saints IMO. I don't think I could do it myself.
I think you are looking at the high functioning kids and assuming that's most of them but I worked in a program specifically designed for the kids who were severely handicapped and you get a completely different picture when you see those kids every day. Now, I loved those kids, but there was no way they weren't going to need a babysitter 24/7 for the rest of their lives. They couldn't even be left alone for a few minutes let alone live in a group home and hold down a part-time job.
Anyway, I think what it comes down to in this case is that there was negligence on the part of the medical people and legally that makes them responsible, no matter what you think about how we should deal with people with disabilities.
Delete. Wrong Thread.
Just a note about the wrongful birth laws--there has been a slew of legislation passed in OK trying to make abortion more difficult to obtain. The Center for Reproductive Rights regularly challenges those laws in OK (and elsewhere, though with the number we pass, they should just set-up shop here permanently), and recently one was overturned by the courts.
Anyhow, I mention that because the law that was overturned was passed alongside the bill mentioned earlier about doctors being able to withhold information from pregnant women if it might lead to an abortion. The Center for Reproductive Rights chose not to challenge that bill and instead focused on the other one related to ultrasounds. The rationale as I understand it for not challenging the withholding of information is because it's basically a tort reform law designed to overturn wrongful birth lawsuits. The pledge doctors make to care for patients was apparently seen as sufficient (along with already present malpractice law) to ensure women would get the necessary information they needed, and the only real impact for withholding information would be to prevent wrongful birth lawsuits by parents in the future.
So I guess the question would be would this fall under gross negligence? I suspect it wouldn't legally, but hard to say.
Last edited by IceAlisa; 03-10-2012 at 08:22 PM.
"Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."
from Speedy Death
Since DNA analysis is cheap and quick these days, I wonder why they don't routinely also type the mom, since then it would be clear whether or not they had cells from the infant in the CVS or amnio testing. If the two results are a match, you got the mom, and need to go back for fetal cells. (Note you're not trying to analyze the mom -- just id whether or not the captured cells from the CVS/amnio are fetal.)
The reality is that special needs children, whether Downs, autistic, physical disabilities, etc. and are on all levels of the spectrum from highly functioning to low functioning. Parents are worried about what will happen when they are dead or at least no longer able to care for the child themselves. Group homes do help with person with disabilities to be cared for, however there are parents who are unwilling to use them.
We do live in a society where people are looking to blame someone for anything that is imperfect or not what you want it to be. When my daughter was stillborn, several of my nurse friends wanted me to sue the doctors. AFAIK, it was not the fault of the OBs or their practice, it was something that happened. I've spent lots of time wondering if I could have done something different, but never questioned that my physicians didn't do the right things given the circumstances.
Here is one article from a few years back- I'm sure that there are others.
I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned.
(Edna St Vincent Millay)
It is POSSIBLE to love your child while still acknowledging that you didn't really want them to begin with.
Delete. Wrong Thread.
ETA: I thought this was in PI.
Last edited by Civic; 03-11-2012 at 02:46 AM.