Against the legal selection of people
Meschede, 21 March 2012 - On the occasion of the International Down Syndrome Day Manfred Libner, the CEO of the Yes to Life Foundation, says:
Our society must be judged by how it treats people with disabilities. Therefore in 1998, the Yes to Life Foundation started the campaign www.tim-lebt.de to draw critical attention to how the abortion laws make it permissible to abort children with Down syndrome. In 1997 Tim, the Oldenburg Baby, was diagnosed with Down syndrome in the 26th week of gestation. At the request of his mother Tim was to be aborted. Birth was artificially initiated. But Tim did not die after birth but lay for nine hours without care, until he was finally helped. Tim survived his abortion. In June, he will turn 15. He lives with a foster family that takes good care of him. Because of the abortion Tim suffers from several adverse conditions. But with the attention and efforts of many therapies and, last but not least, through the very successful dolphin therapy Tim not only walks but his coordination and concentration abilities have also strengthened.
The Yes to Life Foundation opposes the selection of people because of diagnosed impairments. It is important that the state and society help the affected families so that they are not left alone. As especially critical, we see the introduction of a new blood test that makes it possible to diagnose Down syndrome as of the 10th Week of pregnancy. This will lead, in our view, to the fact that almost no children will be born with Down Syndrome because they will be killed before birth. Therefore people with Down Syndrome and their families feel directly attacked by this new method. The social pressure on parents with a Down Syndrome child is likely to grow in any case. This inquiry seems to be only the beginning. Further testing of hereditary diseases is already in preparation. The new procedures from the company LifeCodexx are expected to be on the market by mid-year.
It is noteworthy that the development of this specific blood test received €230,000 in subsidies from the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) led by Anette Schavan (CDU).
Yes to Life Foundation - Meschede, 5 July 2010 "Tim loves people unconditionally " The "Oldenburg baby" is 13 years old
Tomorrow Tim will celebrate his birthday. Having survived his own abortion in 1997 in an Oldenburg hospital, he turns 13 years old. The case of the "Oldenburg Baby," who on the basis of a Down Syndrome diagnosis in the 25th week of pregnancy was to be aborted, attracted great public attention because the infant wrestled for his life for nine hours without any medical care.
Tim has lived in a foster family who lovingly cares for his health well-being since the first few months of his life. His foster mother is grateful to have Tim in their midst. "Tim loves people unconditionally," she says, "and I'm happy to see the progress he makes."
Made possible by donations, dolphin therapy was essential for several years to improve Tim's motor and communication skills. Thanks to the therapy, the boy can now run safely and attend a special school. The parents hope with this year’s next phase of therapy, also financially supported by Say Yes to Life Foundation, Tim will come a step closer to feeding himself.
The fate of young Tim points consistently to the still wholly inadequate abortion laws in Germany. Despite a legal regulation of late abortions, there is no decline in sight. The new law stipulates that a period of three days must be observed between prenatal diagnosis and an abortion. In addition, the diagnosing physician is obliged to inform the pregnant woman about psychosocial and medical aspects of a late abortion.
Compared with the first quarter of last year, the number of late abortions rose in the first three months of 2010 by almost 55 percent to 96. "Every day a child in Germany who would have already been viable outside the womb is being killed. The alarming increase in abortions taking place after the 23rd week of pregnancy shows that urgent action is needed," expresses Manfred Libner, the managing director of the Say Yes to Life Foundation. First of all, pregnant women whose babies have been diagnosed with a disability should be told about what the prospects for a life with a handicapped child are.
Moms as Genetic Outlaws
Some Women Resist Pressure to Abort the Less-Than-Perfect
PARRAMATTA, Australia, MAY 27, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Society increasingly demands perfection, and babies diagnosed with problems are aborted more often than not. Some women, however, resist the pressure and bear children who suffer disabilities.
The stories of a number of these women are brought together by Australian researcher and activist Melinda Tankard Reist in a book titled, "Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics" (Spinifex Press). First-person testimonies comprise the bulk of the book.
In her opening essay Tankard Reist, founding director of Women's Forum Australia, gives an overview of the women who confront a society fearful of disability and who decide to have babies without the genetic stamp of approval. "They are, in a sense, genetic outlaws," she states.
The experience of some of the women also raises doubts over the medical profession. Some received grave diagnoses regarding their unborn children. Later, these children were born, either without any problems, or with handicaps that were much less serious than predicted. Some doctors even refused to help women who refused to abort children who were diagnosed with disabilities.
In fact, with increasing frequency women's desires are ignored. Tankard Reist recounts the case of one woman who didn't wish to be informed of any possible problems before she underwent an ultrasound procedure. On taking the image home she found on the image, nevertheless, a series of annotations of possible abnormalities. The baby was later born free of any of the conditions mentioned.
The upshot, the researcher states, is that prenatal screening, instead of giving women more power -- part of the rhetoric of the "right to choose" -- in practice puts pressure on them to conform to social prejudices against the handicapped.
Also looming is another, more insidious, danger with genetic testing. Screening and abortion become merely a part of the routine prenatal program, Tankard Reist argues. Prior to prenatal testing the possibility of abortion might not even be mentioned and when problems are detected a full explanation of the options available might not be given.
Such was the case of Natalie Withers. Her fourth baby was diagnosed with heart problems and other conditions. She told Tankard Reist that the term "abortion" was not even mentioned; there was merely talk of "inducing birth" -- at 20 weeks gestation. Only when Withers was in labor was she informed that the baby might either be stillborn or die immediately. Not until after it was all over -- the baby didn't survive -- did Withers discover that children born with her daughter's condition can survive and do well if they receive the right care.
Women, then, can become victims after innocently going along with the attitude of "doctor knows best." Only too late do they discover that their own interests and preferences are passed over in favor of the conventional wisdom of perfect children, says Tankard Reist. And once they wake up to what is going on, even well-educated women can find the going difficult if they choose to go against the preferences of medical experts.
Often the information given to women is slanted in such a way as to encourage abortion. In many cases parents are not directed to groups that would help them to understand better the nature of the disabilities involved. That in turn makes it difficult for them to know how their child might fare or what support is available.
Other difficulties involve coping with the trauma and anxiety of test results that show possible problems. Tankard Reist cites a number of studies showing that many woman who are told their children suffer from defects suffer from serious shock, distress and panic. These psychological pressures can even affect the mother's well-being, and that of the unborn child.
The dangers involve physical risks too. Some observers question, for example, the frequent use of ultrasound machines without an adequate evaluation of the negative consequences. And amniocentesis, in which a sample of the amniotic fluid is taken from the mother's womb for analysis, can lead to the loss of the baby in 1 in 125 pregnancies, according to one meta-analysis cited in the book. Another study showed that this procedure caused up to four healthy babies to be miscarried for every abnormality detected.
Sometimes the tests are simply wrong. A study of 300 fetal autopsies found that the prenatal hypothesis concerning problems was confirmed in only 39% of the cases.
The eugenic mentality behind the practice of aborting handicapped children is sometimes more blatant. One survey of obstetricians in England and Wales, for example, found that a third of them require a woman, even before she undergoes prenatal diagnosis, to agree to abort a pregnancy if the child were found to have a problem.
Behind such a practice lurks the belief that allowing these children to be born would burden them with second-rate lives and bring misery into the world. This gives rise to a form of new eugenics masquerading under the appearance of health concerns, Tankard Reist warns. People who follow such a line of reasoning, she adds, might end up acquiescing to the selection and elimination of less-than-perfect children, a sort of infanticide.
Such a mentality mirrors the increased desire for perfection in today's society. Other manifestations of this trend include excessive dieting and the ever-spreading use of cosmetic surgery. A number of prominent geneticists and ethicists, including figures such as James Watson and Peter Singer, openly favor the use of genetic techniques to design more perfect babies.
Ever-higher health costs also contribute to the pressure on mothers to abort the handicapped. Parents who decide not to abort imperfect children are sometimes made to feel irresponsible for "burdening" society.
Tankard Reist cites Australian geneticist Grant Sutherland, who reckoned that preventing the birth of a child with Down syndrome saves the community a million dollars or more. He has urged governments to set up public clinics to screen pregnant women.
This financial pressure extends to other areas, such as the increasing difficulties faced by people with genetic defects in obtaining life insurance, or permission to adopt children.
A report in last Sunday's London-based Telegraph newspaper highlighted the relevance of the problems raised in "Defiant Birth." Lisa Green was 35 weeks pregnant when her baby was diagnosed with Down syndrome, and she was offered an abortion by doctors.
The doctor, recounted Green, only disclosed the negative aspects of giving birth to the child. She rejected the advice, and two weeks later gave birth to a baby, named Harrison, now 2 years old. He is, said the newspaper, a "happy and healthy" child, according to the mother.
In an editorial published the same day, the Telegraph referred to the practice of aborting babies in a very late stage of pregnancy. "It is very difficult," it said, "if not impossible, to explain what makes these 'terminations' different from the killing of children." Such killings will continue, so long as the new eugenics mentality prevails.