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This discussion has been archived.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, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @12:09PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @12:09PM (#555242)

    Tney didn't eradicate down syndrome, if they had eradicated it there would be no need for continued efforts to keep prevalence down. Can't people involved in healthcare do anything without adding a little weaselly twist anymore?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Insightful=1, Overrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:16PM (3 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:16PM (#555315) Homepage
    Nobody said they had eradicated down syndrome, the headline says they've eradicated down syndrome births, which is different. However, as the test and abortion are optional, claiming eradication is indeed a bit strong. It can be brought back simply by some person saying "no".
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:29PM (#555323)

      Yes, I realize they say "eradicated births", that is not an appropriate use of the word eradicated (I am ignoring that they also say "nearly"). "Eradicate" means that no more effort needs to be expended towards that problem. This is just a little hype that was needlessly added in order to mislead people.

      I am sure if I look deeper there will be more problems (eg for every down syndrome birth that gets aborted there are 10k false positive tests that lead to abortions, etc), but why bother? At this point my default is not to believe anything I hear about health discoveries/advances. Did they come up with a model/test that can successfully predict the relationship between various variables in data collected after it was devised? This would show some progress is being made. If not, who cares.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Bot on Friday August 18 2017, @09:43PM (1 child)

      by Bot (3902) on Friday August 18 2017, @09:43PM (#556133) Journal

      AI suggestion: a global thermonuclear war would literally eradicate down syndrome births worldwide in a matter of seconds.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday August 18 2017, @10:03PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday August 18 2017, @10:03PM (#556143) Homepage
        Not provably. From what I've seen, we'll be lucky to wipe out more than about 95% of the world's population, unless we ramp up our arsenals. Even more indiscriminate warfare (dioxins upstream, or whatever) would be a possibility of course.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:20PM (6 children)

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:20PM (#555317) Journal

    Came here to say this. This is as much "eradicated" as the yearly flu is "eradicated": we take measures and get to a point where the symptom isn't present in society any more.

    Having said that, as long as these families are making their own decisions, not pressured by the government, I don't see a problem.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @07:10PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @07:10PM (#555510)

      i agree, except that the abortions are probably tax funded. i don't agree that i should pitch in on your abortion. your choice and your responsibility. no free school for your dumb little bastard (not referring to down syndrome babies, just in general) either. you breed em, you feed em.

      • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday August 17 2017, @08:55PM (4 children)

        by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday August 17 2017, @08:55PM (#555562) Journal

        pay for a few cells to be removed now, or pay increase premiums, and more, for ever.

        (Note to anti-"socialist" Americans: large companies, especially insurance companies, distribute costs across all people paying premiums. "Socialism" in action! (Yes, they also add enough to make huge profits)

        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:55PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:55PM (#555584)

          Here's Socialism:
          The collective ownership of the means of production by The Workers.

          Now, it's good that you at least put "socialist" in quotes.
          Maybe a smilie or a /sarc tag would have been appropriate as well.

          You are talking, however, about an insurance pool administered by a company whose main concern is maximizing its profits (not the wellbeing of its workers) and which surely has stockholders who do no labor within the company.

          There's nothing "socialist" about that.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday August 17 2017, @11:16PM (1 child)

            by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday August 17 2017, @11:16PM (#555612) Journal

            Pooled risk is something people seem to understand.
            Why they can't get the extension to collectivism is probably beyond explanation, alas.
            (Cultural imperative, incentivized indiviulaism, perceptions of success and failure, rampant corruption, greed-is-good, I-got-mine mentality.. )

            Yes, I could have put a /snark, but look at my nick - it would be redundant.

            --
            "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 18 2017, @02:05AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 18 2017, @02:05AM (#555671)

              Whether an action is voluntary vs enforced is an important distinction for some people.

          • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday August 20 2017, @02:26PM

            by FakeBeldin (3360) on Sunday August 20 2017, @02:26PM (#556687) Journal

            Around here, some insurers are cooperations. Basically, when you join you become a member, and the collective of members is the boss (i.e., gets to appoint management, approve plans, etc.).
            The main concern of a cooperation does not seem to be maximising profits, but providing decent insurance to its members for a fair price.