Sorry, Sally Phillips, but a woman should be able to know if her unborn baby has Down’s syndrome

[niyad]

Sorry, Sally Phillips, but a woman should be able to know if her unborn baby has Down’s syndrome
Hadley Freeman

A woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy is non-negotiable. Even if Phillips – someone I’ve long-admired – doesn’t like their reasons

?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=f0d95baa5de1d944b8886ecb6931c56e
‘Phillips and her online supporters insist that they’re not anti-choice – they just want women to make ‘informed’ choices.’ Photograph: Ken McKay/ITV/Rex Features



. . . . .

Which brings me to Phillips’ documentary, A World Without Down’s Syndrome?, which screened on Wednesday night on BBC2. There has been an enormous amount of publicity for this documentary, with praise for Phillips’ clearly heartfelt intentions. The actor has an adorable young son, Olly, who has Down’s syndrome, and one of her aims is to provide a counterbalance to the almost entirely negative depiction of Down’s syndrome in both society and the media. For this, she should be loudly applauded. True, her wholly positive depiction of her life with a child with Down’s syndrome is as partial as the wholly negative ones, not least because her son is relatively high-functioning and Phillips and her husband are able to afford help. Still, as I said, it’s a much-needed corrective, and hats off to her.


But that is not all Phillips and her film are arguing for. Rather, the documentary was pegged to the imminent availability of non-invasive prenatal testing on the NHS, which is a safe and more accurate method of screening for Down’s syndrome than the form currently available, and with no risk of miscarriage. This, according to Phillips, is “sad, it’s just horrible, really”. Later, she describes herself as “really quite angry” about it. Phillips makes no bones that she is coming at this subject from a deeply personal perspective, one that is occasionally blurred with tears during her film. This perhaps explains why such a bright woman repeatedly and determinedly conflated equipping pregnant women with knowledge about their unborn baby – that is, being screened – and the advice they are then given about it. No doubt some medical professionals have advised women to have terminations after receiving a positive test; there absolutely should be campaigning about how this kind of information is imparted to expectant women and mothers who have just given birth.


This, however, does not mean that women should be denied available information about their unborn baby’s health, and instead be unnecessarily surprised at birth with a situation for which they may be entirely unprepared. Phillips is right: rates of Down’s syndrome probably will decrease with the rise of easier, more accurate screening. But she is wrong to then draw the conclusion that women should therefore not be informed about the health of their in utero baby. Phillips did not know Olly had Down’s syndrome until he was born. But this, she says, was a good thing, because by having no choice she was compelled to see how much Olly benefits her family. “That made me wonder whether choice is always the wonderful thing it’s cracked up to be,” she says, a statement which casts something of a shadow on her description of herself as “pro-choice”. But while not having a choice has worked out wonderfully for her family, no consideration is given to women who do not have Phillips’ aforementioned privileges. A single mother with two jobs and three kids, for example, might not find similar benefits from a lack of choice. It is very difficult to see how compelling women who genuinely feel they cannot care for a child with special needs to give birth helps anyone, least of all people with Down’s syndrome.

. . . . .

And therein lies the rub: the idea that women should only have terminations for reasons someone else finds acceptable. How about if a woman feels too young to have a baby, or too poor, or doesn’t want to be tied to the man she conceived with for the rest of her life, or she doesn’t want a third baby, or any baby at all – are these permissible reasons for a termination? They are all pretty common ones. Or is it just a Down’s syndrome diagnosis that is deemed an unacceptable cause for an abortion? In more controversial areas, such as sex-selection abortion, the correct approach is to tackle the attitudes behind it, not ban abortion per se. Similarly, with Down’s syndrome screening what needs examining is the image around the syndrome and the way doctors discuss it, not the screening itself. It’s the attitudes, not the science, that’s the problem. Science is what gives women the choice. Which brings me to the nub of Phillips’ documentary.

. . . . .


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/06/sally-phillips-woman-unborn-baby-downs-terminate-pregnancy

[Daemonaquila]

1. Absolutely.

Like it or not, Down Syndrome does not have any positives for many people. All sorts of disabilities do not have any positives for many people. In the end, it's not anyone else's choice to judge, any more than it's someone else's choice to judge whether a woman should have a baby even though she can't afford it, or it's a child of an affair, or because of her health, or because it'll interfere with her plans. I have nothing but contempt for ANY kind of shaming of women for why they choose abortion, or restriction for ANY reason.

[niyad]

3. but, don't you know, women must make "informed" decisions, because, otherwise, they will

just toss a coin or some such nonsense. the absolute insult is annoying.

[katmondoo]

2. Why do you have to post everything three times?????????????????????????

[niyad]

4. it is called cross-posting, as you well know, and people do it. what fascinates me is that

the only objections seem to come to cross-posting about women's issues. there is no law that one must read cross posts, or respond to them in multiples.