genetic testing, Down syndrome & abortion

Things happen in sets of three, don't they? 

Today I received my newsletter from the Edmonton Down Syndrome Society, reminding me that Nov 1-7 is national Down Syndrome Awareness Week.   I also caught a Washington Post article entitled:  The Abortion Debate No One Wants to Have.  It's about abortion based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome.  And an email from a colleague reminding me about a class on biothethics tomorrow, where the topic will be (go ahead and guess).

Now let me speak of some thoughts I wrestle with.  I am the father of a child with Down syndrome.  We knew of the likelihood of this diagnosis because of prenatal testing.  I wrote of that experience earlier.   I find it rather difficult to maintain the notion that we as a society will place value on persons with Down syndrome if it is permissible to have an abortion for no other reason than that Down syndrome is detected before birth.

The author of the article raises some tough questions in her analysis.  To what other identifiable group can we ethically promote such a policy of selective abortion?   "It looks like your son might be born left handed, I suggest you think about terminating the pregnancy".   What would ever happen if a genetic marker were positively identified for sexual orientation?   Would society permit parents to pre-select and abort according to their personal or religious preferences?  "Pastor Billy-Bob, it looks like your son might be born gay, I suggest you think about terminating the pregnancy".   Would there be a public/media reaction to such a scenario?

Tough issues, but they need to be looked at.

I'm just sayin', that's all...

Comments

[Winston Pei]

This is just the new, and scarier, incarnation of eugenics (sterilization so that only people with "good" genes could reproduce). While we're at it, let's stop the spread of Chinese genes -- no, I'm not serious, but there are some who would agree with that idea. Some links --
http://www.abheritage.ca/abpolitics/people/influ_eugenics.html
http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=4594

If you're looking for a 'gentler' introduction to the topic, we should have a screening of Gattaca.

[Winston Pei]

Now that my first comment is out there, I think I should probably clarify that I realize 'the right to live' and 'the right to reproduce' and 'the right to parent' are all very different issues. While the eugenics movement in Alberta resulted in enforced sterilization of the supposedly "feeble-minded," at least our government stopped short of simply killing them. Not every government has. And we do need to decide if this is anywhere near where we want to go now.

Meanwhile, our government does still regularly remove children from families where the 'parents' just aren't able to do the job. Are these situations where we should go back to trying to preemptively stop people from getting "in the family way"? Is enforced long-term birth control, for example, a different thing from enforced sterilization?

The underlying issue common to all, however, is who gets to decide and based on what criteria? Who gets to breed? Who gets to parent? Who gets to live? Who even gets to ask these questions?

And once the "right" person has decided, what do we want them to do about it?