This illustrates why legislation surrounding the delivery of a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis is so important. A prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome comes with shock, as the expectations and assumptions of expecting parents are overturned. When you don’t know the person yet, the child can get lost under the diagnosis.The time, support and information given to this couple made such a difference in their experience when they received a prenatal diagnosis halfway through their pregnancy.
This story was generously shared with us by Will & Christina Dokter after they participated in a campaign started by the Down Syndrome Association of Ontario (DSAO). The DSAO is advocating for legislation that would give support and current information to parents faced with a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. It would also prevent a physician from recommending any medical procedure that perpetuates a negative stereotype of Down syndrome.
If you are an Ontario resident with a connection to the Down syndrome community, consider participating in this campaign by going here.
__________________________________________________________________________
We discovered that our baby boy had a heart defect at his 20-week ultrasound. We were offered non-invasive testing for Down syndrome, which we accepted. The results told us that our son had a 91% chance of being born with Down syndrome. This news was delivered in a neutral tone, with no apology or negativity. We met with the geneticist in London, Ontario, and she was lovely. She told us our son would do everything that typical kids do, just in his own time. She gave us resources and connected us with the local Down syndrome support group. We were told that we had the option to abort, but it was never pushed or even encouraged. We rejected that option immediately and it was never brought up again.
Despite the fact that we are staunchly pro-life, that we believe God has a purpose and a plan, that we loved our unborn son, and that we were connected with support, it was still a scary and stressful time. I had to accept the diagnosis before I was ready to accept the support that came with it. That took a bit of time, and for parents who are scared and vulnerable, a negative word from their doctor is tremendously powerful. I am amazed and appalled at some of the stories I’ve encountered online where parents have to fight to defend the value of their child constantly.
Once I was ready to reach out for help, other parents of little ones with Down syndrome were amazing. They were kind, encouraging and supportive, and they unanimously shared unqualified joy and delight in their special kids. I began to see that having a child with special needs is, in fact, a rare gift. Our son has opened up our eyes to things we didn’t know or see or experience before. He’s teaching his siblings empathy, joy, acceptance, appreciation for small accomplishments, thankfulness, and many other precious things.
He has been an expensive child, from a taxpayer’s perspective. He spent a week in the NICU at birth, 8 days in SickKids having his heart repaired at 5 months, endless weeks in the pediatric critical care unit dealing with complications that arose after his heart repair, and many other tests and appointments. He receives publicly funded therapy weekly, and is on a couple long-term medications which are covered as well. He will need support for the foreseeable future. Perhaps this is one driving force behind the push to terminate these little ones – financially, they’re hard on the system.
But the question is, who determines the value of a life? Do we only get to live if we tip the financial scales the right way? Is this what society is saying? Is it what they want to say?
Our son James is a fully human being, made in the image of God. His life is indescribably valuable. If he were not here, we would have lost the opportunity to learn so many things that only he could teach us. Experiencing life with an extra special person is to be enrolled in a school like no other.
People in the Down syndrome community are the first victims of the current state of affairs, but it is actually all of society that will lose if this continues. The value of human life cannot be measured on contributions, or on chromosomes. Thankfully, our story was one of support and encouragement to parent this child we were given. We want every family given an unexpected prenatal diagnosis to have that same experience.
We hear a lot about freedom of choice nowadays, including when the topic of abortion is raised. But what if a woman chooses to keep her baby, and pressure from others, be they parents, a boyfriend, or a husband, comes to try to convince her that her choice is wrong? What if the pressure even comes from her family doctor?
In 1993, I went for an appointment with my family doctor to confirm what I basically already knew; that I was expecting a child. Routine, I thought. I already had other children, so I knew the drill. Yes, I was expecting and, after a few calculations, my due date was announced: September 9. I’m thinking, cool, my 35th birthday is my due date! That is where the ‘routine’ ended.
My doctor immediately informed me that, since I was turning 35, he was legally obliged to inform me that I could get amniocentesis to make sure everything was fine with the baby, since the risks of complications increase after the age of 35. While I was aware of the age of increased risk, I answered immediately that I wasn’t interested in amniocentesis. I knew there were risks to the baby to undergo the procedure and, even if there was a problem, I wouldn’t choose do anything about it anyway in terms of aborting the baby. That’s where the pressure started.
It soon became clear that, for this doctor, he wasn’t just informing me of my choices because he had to. He was convinced that I should go ahead with the test and then consider “getting rid of it” if there was a problem. In the end, he seemed frustrated that he couldn’t convince me, then gave me the papers I needed to get an ultrasound. With my first children, ultrasounds were only done if the doctor suspected a problem, or twins, but they had become more common by this time as part of the routine checks.
After my ultrasound, I received an unexpected phone call from my doctor. I will never forget his words. After explaining that the ultrasound showed two suspicious bubbles in the baby’s brain that were often a sign of Down syndrome, he said, “Abortion is the only cure for Down syndrome.” I felt like I’d been hit with a truck…twice! Once with the news from the ultrasound, then again with his declaration that abortion was the only cure.
Shaking, I again told him I would not abort my baby. I was told to think about it, and he would set up an appointment for me with an obstetrician.
My obstetrician appointment was just an amplification of the pressure to abort. I was told I was “in denial”. I was “kidding myself if I thought the baby was okay”. The only “reasonable choice” was to get rid of it. I was asked, “Who would willingly give birth to a handicapped child?” I tried to make it clear that I was not in denial. I wasn’t assuming the baby was fine. I wasn’t being naïve. My baby was a life that needed to be cared for, not killed. My mother’s instinct to protect this defenceless child, no matter what, rose up so strong it was almost overwhelming. This family doctor and this obstetrician weren’t going to get anywhere near my baby.
After discussing the situation with some friends, I was referred to a different doctor who was a Christian, and very much prolife. I still remember him looking at my quite-pregnant state and saying, “How pregnant are you and why don’t you have a doctor?” When I recounted all that had been done and said, he was shocked at the way the two other doctors had pressured me. Here was a doctor that valued life regardless of ability, and who was willing to help me do what I could to prepare myself and my family for whatever this pregnancy might bring. What a difference!
A second ultrasound showed one bubble had disappeared and the other had shrunk. The final outcome was uncertain, but I read all I could about Down syndrome to help me be ready. I even dragged out my old calligraphy set and penned verses 13-14 of Psalm 139, framed them and hung them over the baby’s change table to remind me that this child was also a gift from God, just as my other children had been, and God doesn’t make mistakes.
Two weeks early, ironically not even making it to that fateful 35th birthday, a beautiful baby girl was born. We were prepared to welcome any child with thankfulness and love, and we received, also with thankfulness, a perfectly healthy child. All the concern, all the pressure had been for nothing. I won’t pretend that we were not very relieved that all was well. We all pray for healthy children, both physically and mentally. But, we also all know that that doesn’t always happen, and it is important to recognize that all life is precious and all life is a gift.
When I told my first doctor that I would no longer be his patient, he very smugly asked me to let him know how the baby was after it was born. His attitude was one of ‘you’ll see I was right’, ‘you’ll be wishing you had listened’. Part of me wanted to throw the news of a healthy baby in his face, but would he see that as proof that I hadn’t really wanted a baby with Down syndrome after all? How could I have convinced him that I would have loved this baby the same either way?
When my little girl had her 25th birthday, I sat down at the computer and googled that family doctor’s name. There he was, still practising in the same place all these years later. I typed out a letter to him. I told him that my baby had been born healthy in every way. That she had graduated with honours from university. That she had a beautiful family of her own now. Look what you asked me to kill! Look at the life you so easily dismissed as not worthy of living! And if she had had Down syndrome, who knows what her life would have looked like? But it still would have been a life worth living. How many other potential Down syndrome babies have you ‘cured’ over the years? How much blood is on your hands?
I gave myself a time-out. Made a cup of tea. Came back and deleted the letter. The experience never leaves me. Maybe it would have if I had pushed the send button instead of the delete button.
Do some doctors pressure their patients to get an abortion? Do they make it sound like that is the only option, and even the more loving choice? Yes, without a doubt.
This beautiful story comes from the Love Out Loud campaign, which celebrates motherhood in all its forms. The campaign has at its heart the message Cara defines this way: “As moms we have different journeys, but the one thing we share in common is the unconditional love we have for our children.”
Motherhood is a unique journey for every woman who walks it. Perfect families don’t happen unless we adjust our ideas of what perfect can look like.
As this story shows, how we speak and act as a society can also impact how supported or scared women feel facing motherhood, especially when their child is given a prenatal diagnosis that shakes their world. We can react to a difficult diagnosis by turning to abortion, or we can face it with love for life, even when that life may look different than we had envisioned.
Cara in this video states that her work as an ER nurse has taught her that “no one is promised tomorrow.” So let’s fight for them have the right to fully live their todays.
In a culture where pre-born children who even have a possibility of Down syndrome are increasingly being aborted, Gerber, a company branded with adorable, perfect babies, deliberately chose this adorable, perfect baby.
As John Stonestreet from Breakpoint says, though, we need to remember that,
“[C]hildren with Down syndrome aren’t valuable because they’re cute or even because they often bring so much love and happiness to their families, although both of those things are true.
Lucas, like every human being, is valuable whether he’s cute or not; both when he brings happiness and when he doesn’t. His value is intrinsic, not a utilitarian calculation that weighs the costs with the benefits. Such a belief used to be commonplace in our culture.”
Maybe Gerber’s choice can be one small step to reminding Western culture that the intrinsic value of life is not a concept that should be laid aside.
]]>For the past few days my colleague Colin Postma and I have been in Winnipeg, Manitoba attending the ‘Understanding and Answering Summit on Human Rights’ hosted by Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). The best part is that I’m in Winnipeg, in the summer, and I’ve only seen one mosquito.
Among other presenters and Christian apologists, RZIM also invited an atheist to the summit. Dr. Christopher DiCarlo, a professor in the Faculty of Human Biology and Philosophy at the University of Toronto, agreed to a dialogue with Dr. Andy Bannister, the Director of the Solas Center for Public Christianity at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. The theme for the dialogue was “Human Rights, by Design or Default” and it was attended by approximately 450 people, many of them Christian, but also many who were simply interested in hearing both perspectives.
The following day we were treated to a more intimate conversation on the same topic. The conversation meandered through various topics before the subject of artificial selection in utero came up. Dr. DiCarlo, who, incidentally, was a friend of Dr. Henry Morgentaler and even gave a eulogy at his funeral, acknowledged that this has occurred in the past and pointed out that it still occurs today. He referred to it as “systemic selection” and explained how fetuses are terminated based on sex and ability. When pressed as to whether this was right or wrong Dr. DiCarlo expertly made the case for how, at the point of fertilization, a new life has begun, and that to allow the life to develop was his preference. In fact, his words were, “Just leave it alone”. I thought I was listening to a pro-life apologist! He was speaking truth about pre-born children! That is, until he said, “But it is still a woman’s choice.” When the inconsistency of his position was pointed out, DiCarlo again emphasized a woman’s choice, and then the discussion had to move on.
I really appreciated DiCarlo’s response that as much as possible we should “just leave [the embryo] alone.” It was a response that revealed his heart. But, in spite of the emotional connection to the developing human being, he still came to the conclusion that abortion was solely a woman’s choice. I couldn’t help but think back to the dialogue at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights the previous night. In putting forward the “human rights by default” position, Dr. DiCarlo proposed a “Value Theory” whereby right and wrong are determined by neurochemical reactions within our brains which can then be transformed into community values. The logical extension of this is that because society has agreed that abortion is a woman’s choice then it must be that way.
DiCarlo and Bannister have had previous dialogues, and the respect they have for one another is admirable. Witnessing their conversations this week was to observe a striking contrast in worldviews; one based on ever-shifting sand, the other on the rock of Jesus Christ. I came away with a sense of sorrow for Dr. DiCarlo, indeed all Canadians whose worldview does not acknowledge Truth, even in the midst of speaking truth.
]]>
New developments in prenatal monitoring certainly can be seen as positive although this latest news from the United Kingdom is less than encouraging. As reported by LifeNews.com there has been a 34% increase in the number of abortions on babies with Down syndrome since a new genetic test became available in 2011. From the article:
Although most of the medical community praises the new screening, fetal medicine specialist Dr. Bryan Beattie, aired a different perspective on the testing. He said, “The real issue next, in around two or three years’ time, will be an ethical one – where do you stop? Do you screen for breast cancer genes, for Huntington’s – or taking it a step further, test for eye and hair colour?”
Canada is not immune to this either and we ought not deceive ourselves. This technology is being used as a tool for eugenics, in an attempt to “improve” society by eliminating less-than-perfect pre-born children.
LifeNews.com interviewed Hayley Goleniowska, a mother of a child with Down syndrome. She said, “I fear it will lead to a larger abortion rate of babies with Down’s. In quieter moments I weep to think of what we could lose. Women need unbiased information – it’s not the test that worries me, it’s how it is implemented.”
Events over the past one hundred years have shown us what happens when taking the life of another human being is justified under the guise of eugenics. If Canada is going to give human rights more than lip service, we can tolerate modern-day eugenics no longer.
]]>
When the horrors of the Holocaust became public in the 1940s, eugenics faded to the background. But once again we are witnessing science being manipulated in an attempt to create a more “perfect” society.
New developments in prenatal monitoring certainly can be seen as positive although this latest news from the United Kingdom is less than encouraging. As reported by LifeNews.com there has been a 34% increase in the number of abortions on babies with Down syndrome since a new genetic test became available in 2011. From the article:
Although most of the medical community praises the new screening, fetal medicine specialist Dr. Bryan Beattie, aired a different perspective on the testing. He said, “The real issue next, in around two or three years’ time, will be an ethical one – where do you stop? Do you screen for breast cancer genes, for Huntington’s – or taking it a step further, test for eye and hair colour?”
Canada is not immune to this either and we ought not deceive ourselves. This technology is being used as a tool for eugenics, in an attempt to “improve” society by eliminating less-than-perfect pre-born children.
LifeNews.com interviewed Hayley Goleniowska, a mother of a child with Down syndrome. She said, “I fear it will lead to a larger abortion rate of babies with Down’s. In quieter moments I weep to think of what we could lose. Women need unbiased information – it’s not the test that worries me, it’s how it is implemented.”
Events over the past one hundred years have shown us what happens when taking the life of another human being is justified under the guise of eugenics. If Canada is going to give human rights more than lip service, we can tolerate modern-day eugenics no longer.
]]>
The ongoing efforts of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society encouraging us to “See the ability” is a testament to that intrinsic value. These efforts are to be applauded, but there is much more that can be done to advance the rights of those with unique abilities; including changes in the law.
World Down Syndrome Day is an international event with a goal to promote the equal status human beings with an extra chromosome. In Canada it is clear that huge strides have been made in breaking down barriers and pricking the national consciousness with effective marketing campaigns. But is it really making a difference?
Although Canadian statistics on pregnancy termination are vague at best, international studies consistently report that as many as 90% of pre-born children diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. Obviously, some don’t see the ability.
This chilling slide towards eugenics – specifically, eliminating persons with certain unique characteristics – must be confronted. Canadian persons with Down syndrome have human rights that ought to begin before birth. The juxtaposition is abhorrent. At the same time as we are promoting the dignity and value of all human beings, no matter how perfect we are, we are allowing a legal and deliberate division of the population between one class of “valuable” citizens who have the ability to contribute to society, and another class who are less valuable and are perceived to be a cost to society.
The irony of a culture that promotes seeing the ability of those with Down syndrome while at the same time having the ability to terminate the majority of those with Down syndrome cannot be ignored. In our desire to create a perfect society we are supporting a legal construct that allows for the selective termination of those who we deem not perfect enough. It’s time we see the ability for the entire spectrum of human life.
Canada can correct this injustice by passing legislation banning prenatal discrimination. Such a law would provide much needed legal protection for many in the Down syndrome community. If Canada is going to give human rights more than lip service, we can tolerate modern-day eugenics no longer.
Mike Schouten is the director for WeNeedaLAW.ca, a public awareness campaign building support for the protection of pre-born human rights.
]]>Michael Coren facilitates a discussion between Rachael Segal and Christina Alaimo on the morality of abortion based on how perfect the pre-born child is. Rachael argues that killing is justified when the baby has Down syndrome and Christina counters this claim with the message that physical or mental ability is not just cause for killing anyone.
Christina does a fabulous job at bringing the discussion back to the pre-born child and the fact that Rachael is being intellectually dishonest. Watch the eight minute debate by clicking below.
It is only a short one hundred years ago that eugenicists in Britain and the United States began putting their ideas into practice. As they strove to create a perfect society, the weak, blind and disabled were sterilized and institutionalized to prevent them from pro-creating. These ideas soon proved fatal as the Nazis took eugenics to the next level by killing their own disabled citizens as a means of preventing weak genes from entering the human race.
When the horrors of the Holocaust became public in the 1940s, eugenics faded to the background. But once again we are witnessing science being manipulated in an attempt to create a more “perfect” society.
New developments in prenatal monitoring certainly can be seen as positive. But Canadians ought not deceive themselves. This technology is being used as a tool for eugenics, in an attempt to “improve” society by eliminating less-than-perfect pre-born children.
In the National Post, Chris Selley writes,
“Richard Dawkins is advocating something that people are already doing. But we’re not supposed to be talking about it.”
Events over the past one hundred years have shown us what happens when taking the life of another human being is justified under the guise of eugenics. If Canada is going to give human rights more than lip service, we can tolerate modern-day eugenics no longer.
]]>