Quote:
Originally Posted by psy
Am I the only one put off by the "better be dead than disabled" implications of these laws and cases? I can kind of see the reasoning for something like Tay Sachs where the lifespan is only a few years, but Down Syndrome isn't terminal (yes, I'm aware of the higher risk for heart deficits, early onset Alzheimer's, and leukemia, but those are still issues that, AFAIK, affect a minority of people with DS, and *everyone* is at some risk for those things, some moreso based on family history/genetics.).
|
I too am bothered by this. Just as it bothers me that the legislature felt there was enough need to make a law on this. Tay Sachs or Edwards syndrome I can kind of understand - at that point one might start weighing the risks in child birth to the mother versus a child with a very short expected lifespan and low quality of life.
The other thing that bothers me is that they could have checked this with the amnio, but there is a risk to the child with an amnio too.
Threaded Mode
