It’s time to have the Down’s debate

By John Buckingham

Screening for Down’s Syndrome is a right to which all expectant mothers are entitled; at present, on encountering a positive test result, some 92% of parents choose to abort their child.

As a Special Educational Needs teaching assistant, I find this a troubling statistic: those with Down’s Syndrome can now expect to live to 60 years of age and beyond; some are able to get jobs, give birth and live independently; and all can form relationships, communicate in a variety of ways, continue to learn through life and experience a full range of emotions.

Certainly Down’s is a life-limiting condition which can carry with it a variety of health problems – but should parents be allowed the opportunity to abort solely on the basis of a learning and physical disability which still permits those who possess it to live full and pleasurable lives?

We would not conscience the right to ‘screen’ for homosexuality simply because its behaviours fall outside the norm, or because it’s associated with a higher risk of certain illnesses. Yet that is the nub of the issue: it is because the appearance, behaviours and aptitudes of those with Down’s are viewed to fall outside of expected parameters that we consider it acceptable to dispose of these children in the hope that next time around, the child will be more ‘normal’. That, to me, is a distasteful view of the nature of parenthood.

This is not, of course, an argument against parents’ ‘right to choose’; it is an argument against their right to choose on the basis of a single learning disability. To permit parents the opportunity to abort a foetus based on the presence of a manageable, highly variable condition that permits considerable longevity and prosperity appears, at best, discompassionate. We need to consider and discuss as a society whether parents should be allowed the opportunity to do so.

Abortion can be justified for a variety of reasons – but those reasons are generally related to the parents and their situation, and not to the attributes of the child. When abortion is justified on the basis of non-life-threatening aspects of the child’s make-up, it becomes a reflection on how society values those amongst us who have such disabilities. It implies that the value of such people to us is lesser than that of an ‘unblemished’ human specimen.

One cannot help but fear that as more conditions, diseases and behaviours are pinpointed on our chromosomes or become susceptible to testing, parents will be offered the chance to tailor-make their child still further, removing any inconvenient or distasteful features as suits their own morality or tastes. And that is one slippery slope we cannot afford to slide down.

Yes, the cost of care may be sizeable if more babies with Down’s are born, but early interventions to promote catch-up and independence can help those with Down’s lead more independent lives, and clearly more can and must be done to support parents and carers in their struggles.

What does it say about our priorities that we are unwilling to shoulder the cost of better care and support for such children, and would rather see foetuses aborted so that we can spend the money on ‘normal’ people instead? For that is the reality.

These issues are complex, but we need a debate as to whether screening for non-terminal conditions can be morally justified. The implications, whatever we decide, will be profound.