3 ms·

On the contrary; eugenics has been normalized. Iceland only sees 1-2 births with Down syndrome per year, and not because they've identified a way to prevent a

On the contrary; eugenics has been normalized. Iceland only sees 1-2 births with Down syndrome per year, and not because they've identified a way to prevent a full or partial copy of chromosome 21. They test and terminate. My personal experience (and that of many friends) is that western OBGYNs push prenatal testing and corrective action quite aggressively. (There is reasonable room to disagree about what their motives are, and the profit motive may be sufficient for such testing.) And many people want it. We can debate the ethical implications separately, but regardless of where one lands on that issue, eugenics has very much been normalized.

viraptor 6y ago
I've tried to find a definition of eugenics and it's very fuzzy. I feel like we could do better by adding some modifier that differentiates removing "undesirables" and terminating pregnancy which is likely to result in death or low quality life under constant care. Otherwise talking about eugenics in general becomes a bit silly. In the same way we have different words for murder and euthanasia. Bunching those together only seems to empower religious extremists who want to prevent any kind of abortion. (see Poland recently)
- Brian_K_White 6y ago
  RE: eugenics If you write your idea thoroughly and leave no room for misinterpretation, it's TLDR. If you write your idea as just the highlight of it's essence, people take the figurative/impressionistic words literally. I do not know how to avoid both conditions. I can only ever manage to avoid one (either one) at the expense of suffering the other.
saithound 6y ago
Base rate information: Iceland's health system sees about 5000 viable pregnancies per year. This means that we'd expect about 4 births with Down syndrome per year. We see 1-2, meaning that about 2-3 pregnancies are terminated in Iceland due to Down syndrome each year.
- handedness 6y ago
  Correct. Here's a somewhat larger set from Western Australia, showing Down terminations roughly tracking with diagnoses: https://1v1d1e1lmiki1lgcvx32p49h8fe-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/0818-Down-syndrome-pregnancies.jpg https://1v1d1e1lmiki1lgcvx32p49h8fe-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/... From: https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/08/17/down-syndrome-birth-terminations/ https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/08/17/down-syn... In the US, only 2% of expecting mothers have amniocentesis or CVS tests, but of those with confirmed positives the termination rate is 75%: https://www.kcdsg.org/files/content/termination%20rate.pdf https://www.kcdsg.org/files/content/termination%20rate.pdf
  - in_cahoots 6y ago
    That 2% statistic is a bit misleading. Those tests carry a non-negligible risk of miscarriage, so they are generally only prescribed if other tests show that a fetus is high-risk for one of various disorders. Furthermore, some women choose not to get the test even if they are high-risk, because they would never terminate. I’m not sure it’s possible to estimate the ‘true’ termination rate using these statistics.

viraptor 6y ago

I've tried to find a definition of eugenics and it's very fuzzy. I feel like we could do better by adding some modifier that differentiates removing "undesirables" and terminating pregnancy which is likely to result in death or low quality life under constant care. Otherwise talking about eugenics in general becomes a bit silly. In the same way we have different words for murder and euthanasia. Bunching those together only seems to empower religious extremists who want to prevent any kind of abortion. (see Poland recently)

Brian_K_White 6y ago
RE: eugenics If you write your idea thoroughly and leave no room for misinterpretation, it's TLDR. If you write your idea as just the highlight of it's essence, people take the figurative/impressionistic words literally. I do not know how to avoid both conditions. I can only ever manage to avoid one (either one) at the expense of suffering the other.

saithound 6y ago

Base rate information: Iceland's health system sees about 5000 viable pregnancies per year. This means that we'd expect about 4 births with Down syndrome per year. We see 1-2, meaning that about 2-3 pregnancies are terminated in Iceland due to Down syndrome each year.

handedness 6y ago
Correct. Here's a somewhat larger set from Western Australia, showing Down terminations roughly tracking with diagnoses: https://1v1d1e1lmiki1lgcvx32p49h8fe-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/0818-Down-syndrome-pregnancies.jpg https://1v1d1e1lmiki1lgcvx32p49h8fe-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/... From: https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/08/17/down-syndrome-birth-terminations/ https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/08/17/down-syn... In the US, only 2% of expecting mothers have amniocentesis or CVS tests, but of those with confirmed positives the termination rate is 75%: https://www.kcdsg.org/files/content/termination%20rate.pdf https://www.kcdsg.org/files/content/termination%20rate.pdf
- in_cahoots 6y ago
  That 2% statistic is a bit misleading. Those tests carry a non-negligible risk of miscarriage, so they are generally only prescribed if other tests show that a fetus is high-risk for one of various disorders. Furthermore, some women choose not to get the test even if they are high-risk, because they would never terminate. I’m not sure it’s possible to estimate the ‘true’ termination rate using these statistics.