All that above is to say that I wonder if some folks in Down Syndrome might actually prefer their status quo abnormal development?
Don't get me wrong, I think it'd be great if society could give these people more than poverty after their parents die, but as it stands, unless that person was born into wealth they are looking at misery when the state becomes their caretakers.
I have a child with a server mental disability, I love them pieces, but frankly what happens to them after I'm gone is one of my biggest concerns.
That's the hard reality I wish people hand wringing about the ethics of avoiding down syndrome would confront. It's one thing to call them a blessing, but are you going to push and advocate for government spending so these blessings don't end up in a hellhole when they are no longer cute children?
What are the ethics (and societal obligation) of supporting someone who’s had a severe stroke? Or how about a traumatic brain injury from a car accident? Oxygen deprivation from near drowning? If these are different from a congenital condition like DS, why?
If someone gets cancer, then yeah they should be covered such that they aren't made homeless because of their disease.
If someone has a stroke that leaves them unable to work, again a social safety net that keeps them from being homeless should be in place.
The ethics are pretty simple. It's reasonable for a good society to support those in need through force of taxation. Just like it's good for a society to keep the water clean through force of taxation and regulation. Everyone benefits or has the potential to benefit from such a universal system that protects them from circumstances outside their control.
I ask because segregation like that was considered standard of care decades ago, but has not been in decades now too, so if it was recent, it's not following current best practices, and if it was long ago, it's worth noting that this is no longer the standard of care, indeed because it wasn't helpful and people would not choose it.
I’m not arguing for either side of the treatment/screening debate here, but vehemently against an apartheid-like view on how people with disabilities should be treated, i.e. not as outcasts but as fellow humans.
Reality is that the vast majority of families don’t want a facility in their neighborhood. If downs could be prevented its an overall positive outcome. I wish nothing but happiness for those already affected
Maybe you’re right and this situation was terrible for everyone. Is this arrangement required? Is it the best we can do?
I don’t think most people would choose to live a life with many common afflictions. I certainly wish my lower back didn’t hurt all the time. That doesn’t invalidate my existence, and neither does my son’s Down syndrome invalidate his.
Also they had an ambulance or fire truck there at least once every couple months.
If that is not a benefit then I'm not sure what is.
That's a benefit.
- People who have DS: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3740159/pdf/nihms37...
- Siblings of people with DS: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.30101
Cochlear implants are reversible. A genetic disease is not.
They permanently destroy hair cells of the inner ear during surgery to make direct electrical contact, so removing them won't restore your pre-implant level of hearing.
It's usually a moot point if your hearing's bad enough to be a candidate for implants, tho.