A San Diego based biotech company, Sequenom, has just introduced a new test procedure for detecting the presence of Downs Syndrome in the fetus that is 98.6% accurate. Unlike previous testing procedures, the most common being the extraction of amniotic fluid from the mother, this new procedure is a noninvasive blood test and poses no risks of miscarriage. It can be administered as soon as 10 weeks after conception, as well, with the same level of accuracy.
While many women who are in an at risk group of having a baby with Downs, especially women over the age of 35, have availed themselves of existing testing procedures to detect the genetic defect, the noninvasive nature of this new test, along with the relative affordability (about $235 if you have medical insurance, $1,900 without) will no doubt prompt many younger women to consider having the test performed.
Currently, about 92% of the women who discover that their baby has Down Syndrome opt to have an abortion. While no one expects that percentage to increase as a result of this new test, the raw numbers of abortions will no doubt rise as more women choose to make use of the procedure. Most women who decide to test for this are older, the group most at risk, yet most babies born with the defect are born to younger women...simply because they opt out of the testing procedure. Time Magazine even published an article recently that asks "Are Kids With Down Syndrome on the Road to Extinction?"
http://healthland.time.com/...
It is a provocative article, and while they don't come out and use the word "eugenics", the misgivings they describe by some and the ethical questions posed by the new test are clearly based upon this notion.
My sister waited until she was about 39 before deciding to have a baby with her husband. She had a career, and while she wasn't averse to having a baby, her husband (Catholic, and 8 years her junior) was rather more desirous of having a family. It wasn't so much that she heard her biological clock ticking as it was simple, Midwest practicality...if we're going to do this, then we better do it now. Sure enough, her pregnancy resulted in a fetus that tested positive for Down Syndrome. They discussed the situation, and made a difficult decision to abort the baby and try again. About a year and a half later they had a healthy baby girl that is now in her second year of college.
Nobody, myself included, is privy to the difficult discussions they must have had leading up to their decision to abort the first child. Who can say what they would have done had it been them? It is such a personal matter.
I must admit that, before reading the Time piece, I really didn't know much about Down Syndrome. I can remember just one classmate in elementary school who had the defect. I always assumed it was primarily a developmental condition...a form of mild retardation, if you will. But as I read up on it some more, I learned that there are a constellation of other medical problems associated with it.
Down children often are born with serious heart defects. They are more susceptible to infections, respiratory ailments, gastrointestinal problems. There is a predisposition, as well, to skeletal problems such as spinal curvature and weak joints. While medical technology has made great strides in prolonging the lives of those born with the extra chromosomes that mark this birth defect (in 1929 the avg life expectancy was just 9 years, compared to about 55 yrs now), there are still associated medical problems that make it almost a certainty that parents who choose to go forward with the pregnancy will face significantly higher medical care expenses compared to those with non-Down children.
The Time article points out that many parents who have children with Down Syndrome, while admitting that it has been taxing emotionally at times (both with respect to marital relations and also in terms of the greater family), and expensive medically, they don't regret their decision to have their child. It even suggests that some Down parents are leery of this new test because they fear that, to the extent that future incidences of Down babies decrease, it may reduce the level of attention and resources provided by society to addressing the needs of these children.
Others, predictably, come at this from the same starting point as they do with any question about abortion. The baby has a right to life that supersedes parental choice, and all life is intinsically valuable and divinely protected. Those people, who often have attacked abortion as an "after the fact" method of birth control, now are loading the charge of eugenics into the chamber of their gun.
I don't think it is so much that couples want to only have "perfect babies", as some charge in this new debate. One can't help but consider the other, significant, medical challenges faced by children born with Down Syndrome. As a country, we still haven't figured out a way to provide health care insurance to a significant portion of the public. Who wouldn't consider the medical bills associated with raising a child with this defect? I guess the same people who all too often accuse and demean poor people for having children they can't afford would.
As for the eugenics accusation...while I must admit that a decision to abort a pregnancy based upon the known presence of some birth defect does lend itself to such an accusation, at the end of the day I am not bothered by it. It is, in the end, none of my business, nor any of yours. It is the sole province of the parents involved to sort out those ethical questions, as well as the practical considerations. In unrelated news, the economic downturn has led to such an increase in the number of men showing up at sperm banks to sell their seed, that it's reported that many sperm banks have hung up the "red heads need not apply" sign on the front door. Too few couples, it seems, want a red headed child. One could argue that that is a form of eugenics as well.
I don't argue that that Down children are incapable of becoming productive members of society. I don't suggest that a parent cannot find just as much joy in a Down child than a perfectly healthy child. I do suggest that there are many reasons a woman and/or a couple may choose not to go through with a pregnancy. A serious birth defect might be one of them. The economic ramifications of raising a child with predictable medical needs might be another. If both parents are career minded, the simple time demands may be a consideration. Studies show that parents with Down Children must take significantly more time off from work over the course of his or her childhood to address various issues, most notably visits to the doctor.
Eugenics, to me, is more about selecting for specific traits...blonde hair and blue eyes, for example. Perhaps that is too narrow a definition for some, but it isn't for me.
The Time Magazine article, if you haven't read it, it a good read. It does raise some interesting questions. Predictably, it doesn't answer any of them. But neither, I suppose, have I. Those answers are for the individuals involved to find for themselves, I contend. And impugning their motivations or labeling their decision with a word that conjures up obvious negative connotations isn't helpful. I know that Time didn't use the word "eugenics", but it clearly hints that that is what the "ethical questions" raised by this new test are founded upon.