| ▲ | wyldfire 2 days ago |
| I don't know if it's the case for folks with Down Syndrome (I suppose it's likely not), but hearing-impaired folks have their own culture to the point that in the past it was seen as some as a betrayal to the community to seek out cochlear implants. I think having their own language does a lot to create unity among them. All that above is to say that I wonder if some folks in Down Syndrome might actually prefer their status quo abnormal development? |
|
| ▲ | scheeseman486 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Down syndrome has significant developmental effects beyond mental impairment, lifespans are considerably shorter and while that's improving that doesn't take into account quality of life, medical complications are almost inevitable. |
| |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-] | | 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? | | |
| ▲ | vtbassmatt 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This starts from an incorrect premise — that everyone with Down syndrome “will perpetually need care and supervision” — and then heads downhill. “Misery” and “ends up in a hellhole” are choices society has often made in the past for people with intellectual disabilities, but they aren’t a law of physics or fundamental moral law. What are the ethics (and societal obligation) of supporting someone who’s had a severe stroke? Or how about a traumatic brain injury from a car accident? Oxygen deprivation from near drowning? If these are different from a congenital condition like DS, why? | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The same, which is why I support universal healthcare and expanding healthcare to include nursing support/housing for the disabled. If someone gets cancer, then yeah they should be covered such that they aren't made homeless because of their disease. If someone has a stroke that leaves them unable to work, again a social safety net that keeps them from being homeless should be in place. The ethics are pretty simple. It's reasonable for a good society to support those in need through force of taxation. Just like it's good for a society to keep the water clean through force of taxation and regulation. Everyone benefits or has the potential to benefit from such a universal system that protects them from circumstances outside their control. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | loeg 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People are giving you shit because Down Syndrome sucks, but being deaf sucks too, and withholding hearing from kids of deaf adults is and was child abuse. |
| |
| ▲ | ksenzee 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | jibal 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, that's not why ... it's because the comparison is bogus. |
|
|
| ▲ | wonderwonder 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I used to live near a down syndrome living facility. Essentially a house converted into a care facility in a neighborhood. ~8 - 10 people with downs lived there. Very few visitors (parents), almost all the cars belonged to the nurses. Isolated from everyone they lived around and kept away from the neighbors (I'm sure to the neighbors relief). required constant care. I don't think its a life most would choose. |
| |
| ▲ | vtbassmatt 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | wonderwonder 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I was a neighbor...
I was friends with the neighbors.
I literally lived across the street from the home.
I'm sure the nursing staff was nice and they got as great a life as one could have in a group home.
I never claimed having downs invalidated anyone's existence, I simply stated that I don't think its a condition anyone would willingly desire if given an alternative. Also they had an ambulance or fire truck there at least once every couple months. |
| |
| ▲ | smeej 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | wonderwonder 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Last year?
Its just a house in a residential neighborhood. Neighbors obviously did not want to interact with them very often, limited to a wave if one of them was taking out the trash. The segregation is pretty much desired by the neighbors and understood by the nurses. No one raising a family really wants to have to interact with mentally challenged non family people every day of their lives. Keeping the interaction limited means complaints don't happen. | | |
| ▲ | danw1979 2 days ago | parent [-] | | My experience of interacting with people who have Down’s syndrome is that they are especially outgoing, preternaturally friendly and just generally lovely to be around. I’m not arguing for either side of the treatment/screening debate here, but vehemently against an apartheid-like view on how people with disabilities should be treated, i.e. not as outcasts but as fellow humans. | | |
| ▲ | wonderwonder a day ago | parent [-] | | I agree, reality is though that they have special needs and for the most part are unable to care for themselves. The people in the home were there because their families were either unable or unwilling to do it. Reality is that the vast majority of families don’t want a facility in their neighborhood. If downs could be prevented its an overall positive outcome. I wish nothing but happiness for those already affected |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | UltraSane 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is absolutely no benefit to Down Syndrome. |
| |
| ▲ | ImJamal 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | vtbassmatt 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is absolutely no benefit to being many things that some humans are. | |
| ▲ | smeej 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > cochlear implants Cochlear implants are reversible. A genetic disease is not. |
| |
| ▲ | KingMob 2 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | hankman86 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Most do not have the cognitive abilities for these kinds of philosophical debates. |