Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday August 17 2017, @11:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-Am-Sam dept.

Iceland is close to eliminating Down syndrome births due to widespread prenatal screening tests and nearly 100% of women choosing an abortion in the case of a positive test for Down syndrome:

With the rise of prenatal screening tests across Europe and the United States, the number of babies born with Down syndrome has significantly decreased, but few countries have come as close to eradicating Down syndrome births as Iceland.

Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women -- close to 100 percent -- who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy.

While the tests are optional, the government states that all expectant mothers must be informed about availability of screening tests, which reveal the likelihood of a child being born with Down syndrome. Around 80 to 85 percent of pregnant women choose to take the prenatal screening test, according to Landspitali University Hospital in Reykjavik.

[...] Other countries aren't lagging too far behind in Down syndrome termination rates. According to the most recent data available, the United States has an estimated termination rate for Down syndrome [open, DOI: 10.1002/pd.2910] [DX] of 67 percent (1995-2011); in France it's 77 percent (2015); and Denmark, 98 percent (2015). The law in Iceland permits abortion after 16 weeks if the fetus has a deformity -- and Down syndrome is included in this category.

The Prenatal Diagnosis link in the summary was replaced with a working version.

National Review has a counterpoint opinion piece about the CBSN article. Snopes has a page debunking inaccurate headlines about the article.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:07PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:07PM (#556445)

    Yup. Excellent example.
    Clearly based on which agricultural products got the most subsidies.
    (Grains, to include animal fodder.)

    It's pretty clear that for hundreds of thousands of years our opportunistic species consumed mainly what they could easily grab and eat (fruits and veggies).

    .
    In the last month, I've heard that fossil-fuel-based utilities knew that what they were doing was wrecking the ecosystem, same as Big Oil knew. [google.com]
    Since USA.gov funds a huge portion of most research, it's unlikely gov't insiders weren't aware as well.
    ...but there's The Revolving Door for them to consider.

    Yeah, in so many cases, it's politics, with folks feathering their own nests and taking bribes from megacorporations to deliver the prescribed results--not the search for truth.

    ...then we have O'Bummer and the rest of them persecuting whistleblowers--while claiming to be all about transparency in gov't.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:41PM

    by Bot (3902) on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:41PM (#557952) Journal

    so you are ready to look at science with a critical eye because no matter the corruptions it is useful in its own domain, and you are not ready to do the same with religion. Interesting meatbags.

    --
    Account abandoned.