The US government is not one person or a small set of people with a coherent strategy making decisions based on cost-benefit analysis. It’s an extremely complex emergent system whose properties can only be understood by studying them empirically, not by appealing to arguments about what a human would think is worth it or would make sense.

It's hard to imagine a treatment cost so low that the USG would pay for it.

I don’t think I entirely disagree with your position. However, positioning my kid (and others with DS) in opposition to “normal” makes it hard to engage respectfully. As a parent of one typically-developing child and one with Down syndrome, I feel qualified to say they both come with quantifiable economic costs. Quantifiable economic benefits are pretty far in the future for both of them (they’re 11 and 8, if it helps ground my points).

the us government is often driven not by cost/benefit analysis, but by the horror of someone poor getting something without "deserving" it

> It's hard to imagine a treatment cost so high that it wouldn't be worth the USG paying for it.

Given that this is also true of universal health insurance and the US government also doesn't pay for that...

Do you really see that as a "norm" being met by a majority of the population today? I don't think most people's lived experience is anything like that.

I think of it as more of a probability question. There is a much greater chance of a person having two copies of chromosome 21 instead of three. "Normal" often carries some form of judgement but I guess technically you are correct to use the word.

>Today, the average life expectancy of a person with Down syndrome is nearly 60 years and continuing to climb. (https://www.nationwidechildrens.org/family-resources-educati...)

The mental impairment shouldn't be understated. We are talking about people that will perpetually need care and supervision.

Don't get me wrong, I think it'd be great if society could give these people more than poverty after their parents die, but as it stands, unless that person was born into wealth they are looking at misery when the state becomes their caretakers.

I have a child with a server mental disability, I love them pieces, but frankly what happens to them after I'm gone is one of my biggest concerns.

That's the hard reality I wish people hand wringing about the ethics of avoiding down syndrome would confront. It's one thing to call them a blessing, but are you going to push and advocate for government spending so these blessings don't end up in a hellhole when they are no longer cute children?

Cochlear implants aren't magical hearing restorers. If they were, you'd be right. But they aren't. There are limitations. Music is especially difficult to perceive properly.

No, that's not why ... it's because the comparison is bogus.

If you never interacted with the residents there, how are you so sure it was so bad? Nevermind the people in the group home — on what basis did you acquire the belief that the neighbors were “relieved” not to interact with them?

Maybe you’re right and this situation was terrible for everyone. Is this arrangement required? Is it the best we can do?

I don’t think most people would choose to live a life with many common afflictions. I certainly wish my lower back didn’t hurt all the time. That doesn’t invalidate my existence, and neither does my son’s Down syndrome invalidate his.

How long ago was this?

I ask because segregation like that was considered standard of care decades ago, but has not been in decades now too, so if it was recent, it's not following current best practices, and if it was long ago, it's worth noting that this is no longer the standard of care, indeed because it wasn't helpful and people would not choose it.

I know a guy who has down syndrome and he is the happiest guy I've ever met. Any time I see him, even if he doesn't see me, he is smiling and just looks like he loves life. When he sees me, or anybody else he knows, he gets the biggest grin on his face. When you talk to him, you can tell he is such a happy guy with no stress.

If that is not a benefit then I'm not sure what is.

There is absolutely no benefit to being many things that some humans are.

Surveys consistently indicate that people with DS, their family members, and people who know them consider their lives better because of it.

That's a benefit.

Cochlear implants are not technically reversible, iirc.

They permanently destroy hair cells of the inner ear during surgery to make direct electrical contact, so removing them won't restore your pre-implant level of hearing.

It's usually a moot point if your hearing's bad enough to be a candidate for implants, tho.

> Down Syndrome leads to an objectively worse outcome for the affected individuals. And their parents, I might add.

Please cite your sources and show your work.

My child with Down syndrome is a giant pain in my ass, I worry about him constantly, and there are days where I wonder “why me?”

The same is 100% true about my typically-developing daughter.

What is the objective standard? Subjectively, surveys consistently report that those who have DS and their families consider it a better outcome, so I'd like to know more about the details of an objective standard that ignores or overrides the reporting of those closest to the experience.

> And their parents, I might add.

Down syndrome has nothing to do with parent outcomes. Society refusing to actually provide support is the issue here.

I think the parent’s point was that “them” is referring to a group that is “other than normal”, and that that should raise caution. (Not agreeing or disagreeing, simply trying to infer the meaning.)

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. Regardless of ideology, that's not allowed here. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

p.s. This isn't a response to this particular comment, but to the account's overall pattern of behavior, which is way over the line.