SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:55PM (3 children)
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)
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
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
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.