Slashdot Mirror
Y2K Bug Blamed For Miscalculated Down Syndrome Risk
Albanach writes: "The BBC are reporting in this story that the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield, England is blaming the Millennium Bug for getting wrong 150 tests for Down Syndrome with four mothers going on to give birth to affected children." The article actually idicates that four women were pregnant with Down Syndrome babies, and that two of them brought the pregnancies to term.
so because the age of the mother was calculated incorrectly, it fucked up the results? i find it hard to belive the doctors wouldn't notice a mistake such as that....
-teknopurge
Website Hosting
Defective humans were born before they could be murdered!
This is worse than the WTC attack!
This is the best effect of Y2K I've seen yet if it prevented two babies from being murdered.
I've worked with mentally handicapped kids, and believe me, they're glad they were born, they enjoy life, and they're a lot nicer than most people I know.
Anyone who has ever worked with Down's babies and children know that they are wonderfully special and deserve all the love they can get. Any mother who knows she is carrying a Down's baby and chooses the terminate shouldn't be a mother.
but should this be "y2k bug saves two lives"? It seems that (according to the article) the two mothers would have aborted their babies had they known they were going to have downs syndrom. I do consider myself pro-choice, but I don't think that aborting a baby just because it has downs syndrome is the right thing to do. I know many people with downs syndrome, including some family members, and there is no reason they can't live a happy life with parents that love them.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
Well, what do you know. A bug that actually saved lives.
There are 010 kinds of people. Those who understand octal, those who don't, and 06 other kinds of morons.
I guess they had to blame SOMETHING, and since Y2K got no respect, they nailed that.
The implications are interesting, though. Wait until the anti-abortion crowd gets ahold of that.
"Sorry. We screwed up on the test. You should have aborted that one. Maybe next time."
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
So what if a couple of selfish mothers didn't have a chance to abort their babies. This is a case where the millenium bug was saving lives, not ruining them. Hooray for the millenium bug!
>and that two of them brought the pregnancies to term.
Why is this important? If the parents want to try again, they can. It's not like it is all that difficult. And these two infants can still be terminated if their families think they will be seriously burdened by having to raise defective, high maintenance offspring.
"The article actually idicates that four women were pregnant with Down Syndrome babies, and that two of them brought the pregnancies to term."
Does this mean two of them were aborted? How many mothers had false positives on Down Syndrome diagnoses? I guess the Y2K bug was a real threat after all and had tragic consequences.
"Whoops! Sorry, Mrs. Flittersnoop, we just discovered that your twins would have been OK, after all. It was all because of that Millenium Bug that we neglected to fix. Now, isn't that silly!"
Next week....
"Sorry to bother you, Mrs Flittersnoop, I know you're still upset over the loss of your babies. We've just received back the re-checked test results for your husband, and we're glad to say he didn't have terminal cancer, as our computers had indicated. Unfortunately, the mail didn't get sorted in time, and we've already given him euthanasia. Now, now. Don't cry! There are bound to be bugs in any computer system. Now, Mrs. Flittersnoop, be very careful with that uzi. We don't want any more accidents, now... Mrs. Flittersnoop.... Will you please stop looking at me that way.... This really isn't helping.... The EULA clearly states that we're not responsible for computer errors.... If you don't put that safety catch back on, right now, I'll have to make a written complaint...."
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Because apparently, it's inconvenient and stressful to have give birth and raise a child with less than 50% of the mental capabilities of a healthy child. Gee, that must just suck that you're so inconvenienced. I guess those 'terminated' pregancies (i.e. - dead babies) will just have to join their wrongfully killed brethren from the WTC's too. Sometimes this world's hypocrisy makes me sick. Instead of this story being upbeat about how many babies were born WITHOUT Downs Syndrome, it's a story about how many false results resulted in inaccurate 'terminations.'
I have to condone /. editors for posting this. /.
/. audience more emotional.
Emotions are still running very high because of Tuesdays events, and this is just enticing a Prolife vs Prochoice troll war on
Lets take it easy people, we're all still a bit touchy, so don't start arguing about this.
What's really dumb is that there is cool articles that aren't being posted, like how Kim Schultz, famous German hacker turned internet millionaire is offering $10million to info about the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden. But instead we get something to make the
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
are you stupid? have you any idea the costs involved in raising a child with special needs? i realize as i type this you may very well know the exact dollar amount. and if thats the case, and you still hold this belief, you are more of a moron. i love my brother dearly, but would never ever ever ever chose to have another sibling with downs.
I thought that it was common knowledge that the older you are the higher risk you are to having a child with Downs. Most of the effected patients were over 35 which is when this becomes a real risk. Aside from that, how accurate is this testing (when it is calculated correctly)? I don't know about you, but even if the test said I was okay, I would still expect that risk.
It's about how such an important piece of code passed dec. 31 1999 without beeing tested against Y2k, specially when everybody involved with the code knew it uses dates to give the result.
I wonder how many lines of code are still there, untested, waiting for someone to run them and screw things up big time...
What ? Me, worry ?
Have we started the widescale eugenics program of aborting all handicapped fetuses already?
Sounds more like doctors fucking up a diagnosis and needing to blame some external force. Might as well invoke the "will of God" while we're at it.
Murder in the name of conveniance anyone?
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
So really, the problem is that the software designed to calcuate the risk of a given fetus having down's syndrome failed and told women that there was a smaller-than-actual risk, correct?
So worst-case is that some selfish woman (I won't bother to call her a "mother") decided to continue with the pregnancy instead of abort it, because of the incorrectly-reported low-risk and her child was born with down's syndrome.
While no computer error is good, at least it err'd on the side of life. It could have been worst and the software informed the women that they had higher-than-actual risk factor and caused more of the women to seek an abortion.
The Code Red virus saves a rainforest when idiots opening attachments trigger the massive forwarding of an environmentalist email petition?
Seen any BadMarketing lately?
Even if the bug miscalculated the age of the mothers, it would have to make them very old or very young. Both of these differences would have increased the odds of the baby having Down's Syndrome.
Why would it make the mothers' ages in a range where Down's is LESS likely (25-35 years old, I think?)?
The screening test does not tell you whether or not the fetus actually has Downs -- for that, you need further tests, such as amniocentesis. It's this chance for further testing that was missed.
the age stat was only one factor in determining the likelyhood (sp I know!) of that woman's child being born with down's syndrome. The people running this program did it for multiple NHS hospitals so they didnt realise how many 41 year old women were passed safe until they had done 158 tests or so and they started noticing the trends...
I would like to question the reason such testing is necessary in the first place. If a woman wants to become a mother doesn't the fact that she would consider termination of her pregency because her baby is "less than perfect" create some doubt about her ability to parent? We became parents because we loved children, not because we wanted perfect children.
My wife is a midwife (and previously worked with down's syndrome adults) and we are against most prenatal testing and find it offensive that a person who chooses to be a mother could reconsider because a doctor told her that her baby was damaged.
And no, we are not right to lifer's. We are liberal, UU's and pro-choice.
What is pirate software? Software for inventory of stolen treasure?
I do not know why they relied on the computer in the first place. If they knew the age of the subjects beforehand, they would have performed an amniocentesis in order to examine the chromosomes themselves. This is usually done on patients age 35 and over, who are at higher risk for Down's Syndrome.
More information on the complete screening process is a ds-health.
In a perfect world with mature people, we'd take the blame for the damage we cause and apologize for it. Even if it's a mistake, an honnest mistake is far easier to swallow than covering up and taking no responsibility or throwing the ball left and right. Taking the customer/client for a total retard, that is not only hard because of the mistake itself, but the added insult to the intelligence of the victim is really not needed especially in these cases.
If you're a doctor, you're supposed to be intelligent, if you fear something might be screwed up (Y2k was such an issue that you *CAN'T* claim you never heard of it), you take actions (paperwork instead of computer database for a short while, or even better, continue using the computer database while keeping a backup on paper and see if there's anything wrong comparing). I'm sorry but there's simply no excuses for this, oh you won't admit your mistake because you're scared you'll get sued? Well not only you'll get sued anyways, but you'll have a lot of media reporting your mistake AND your actions making you look not only incompetent (which you feared in the first place and tried to avoid), but also like an irresponsible immature child that will blame anyone but himself.
That said, I blame and will sue the heck out of the tooth fairy for not pulling out my teeth that got me a painful root canal treatment!
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]: condone v : excuse or make allowances for; be lenient with; "excuse someone's behavior" [syn: {excuse}] Condone is actually more or less to encourage, and is not a negative word as many seem to think.
The article is a little bit misleading. It would lead you to believe that there were 150 WRONG conclusions drawn, when I believe in fact out of 150 that were calculated incorrectly, 4 turned out to be wrong.
This is just...sad.
I'm at a client's this afternoon for a meeting. When I'm done I'll go home to my wife and three daughters. Daughter #3 has Down syndrome.
There is no such thing as impartial journalism--the words a writer uses color the facts (and opinions) that he or she presents. In an article about a simple date validation problem the writer--and the hospital--manage to convey the idea that this simple computer bug is a catastrophe. After all--two children were born with Down syndrome.
Some readers might miss a point that isn't adequately made in the article: the computer program did not tell the mother whether or not the baby had Down syndrome--all it did was some simple calculation based on age (that's about the only significant factor) and project a statistical risk for Downs. A woman in the high-risk group would be informed that she might wish to have amniocentesis performed--there is no indication (or reason to believe) that the two mothers would have agreed to have the test, or if they had the test they would choose to dispose of their babies.
I submit that there's no moral catastrophe. But this article is an obvious symptom of a serious moral disease: use technology to select characteristics we like in children, and to dispose of children we don't want. Great heavens! A child who might have an extra chromosome, or a child who might have a predisposition to red hair. Egad--a child who might not have a Y chromosome (that would be a girl, if you slept through biology). Nope--terminate her, we'll try again.
The moral issue here isn't the software bug. (The bug, IMHO, is not that big a deal--any Ob/Gyn knows the risk factors. The program strikes me as a boondoggle.) The moral issue is the tone of the article--the obvious belief of the writer that families have been injured by having their children.
The article specifically mentions that these errors occurred as a result of whatever computer or program miscalculating the date when the year turned over to 2001, not 2000.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Yep I do something similar to that several times a week.
If you're not up to my standards, you are weak. I'm sure you wouldn't mind killing yourself.
I don't think self-sufficiency is very much to ask.
This is a good example of how software is not tested. According to the article the problem was due to the mother's age not being correctly calculated. My question is, were there any sanity checks on the mother's age in the first place? Probably not.
It seems logical that for a critical application you would try to have as much sanity-checking code as possible. It should be plainly obvious that no one should have a negative age or be giving birth if they are over 100 years old. And sanity checking code is easy.
The common excuse, though, is the ol' "garbage in, garbage out". Which is fine -- but what if you don't know you have garbage? The software -- if it can -- should at least give a warning.
This gets down to one of the basic questions for software testing: What inputs can you rely on?
Software engineers know by now (at least mostly) that all user input has to be checked and validated. But what about system data, especially something as basic as the date?
The only way to protect against unexpected bad data is to do sanity checking at all steps in the process. If you know even a little bit about the domain, you can usually set reasonable bounds.
Software isn't really engineered unless it makes these kinds of checks.
This is worse than the WTC attack!
True. The world would be a better place with fewer retards out there tarding shit up.
This is the best effect of Y2K I've seen yet if it prevented two babies from being murdered.
Well, if the parents are smart the kid will die from SIDs soon.
I've worked with mentally handicapped kids, and believe me, they're glad they were born, they enjoy life, and they're a lot nicer than most people I know.
I'd be happy too if I knew I was going to be cared for for the the rest of my life and not have to do shit. They would not be happy if the knew they were tards.
Wrong book; try Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.
Liberty in your lifetime
The test that was faulty was *not* used as the basis for termination. It was used as a basis to determine the necessity of *another* test, amniocentesis, which is risky for both the mother and the fetus. (This information is clearly outlined in the article)
In other words, getting this test wrong put 150 women at greater risk for a test later in their pregnancy. Obviously the test was eventually done, that's how the four women who had fetuses with down syndrome were informed of it.
Another reason to get this test right is so that the amnicentesis can be done much earlier in the pregnancy, preferrably during the first trimester when an abortion is a viable option.
Whether you agree with abortion or not, it is the mother's choice, and I can respect the desire to limit suffering in the world, especially for your children.
GenericJoe
But I personally would rather not spend the next 40 years raising a 3 year old. I've seen what parents of a "special needs" child have to go through, and would not want to inflict that on anyone.
Any mother who knows she is carrying a Down's baby and chooses the terminate shouldn't be a mother.
:p
People that have abortions, generally are NOT mothers. That is, after all, the point. Your statement shows your support for pro-choice and we all applaud it.
Three daughters? Jeez, you a rabbit or something? With parents as thick as you, no wonder the bitch is a spastic. Take her out and shoot her, you wouldn't want other honest Americans to catch Downs.
OK, now I realise that I'm setting myself up to be flamed here, I ask those people to grow up. I'm also hoping for some reasoned responses, which I eagerly await.
What, exactly, is wrong with aborting based on Downs syndrome as opposed to ordinary abortion? (I'm not talking about whether abortion as a whole is right, perhaps another thread should discuss that). A genetic test can be taken and decided upon long before the legal threshold, so what is the difference? If you are allowed to choose not to have a baby, aren't you allowed to choose not to have one based on the results of whether they have a very disabilitating genetic disease?
Sometimes life is not worth living if the quality is horrible.
It's a test to determine the risk of Downs Syndrome. This test is done to see if the risk of doing amniocentesis(which can kill the fetus) is warranted. Just to dispel the rumor, people are interested in knowing that a baby is going to have downs syndrome for lots of reasons, not just to abort the fetus. Knowing ahead of time gives parents an opportunity to make plans(for instance, daycare may not seem as good an option).
My other sig is extremely clever...
This brings up the question of who would be responsible. If the corporation that wrote the software is to blame, does that mean that the corporation can be arrested for manslaughter of the unborn?
If that happens, a lot more software is going to be tested if it is going into a potentially life threatening situation.
Also, if they used a library for their date functions, does that make the library author responsible too?
Travis
Thus, women who were at risk were told they were not at risk. The effect was that some women either didn't get the real Down's Syndrome test or didn't get it soon enough (it's not clear) and two babies were born with Down's Syndrome.
The error did not cause any pregnancies to be terminated; it may or may not have prevented terminations.
This story is providing a nice little showcase of how pro-lifers are so fixated on a single topic that they are incapable of grasping a reality with a broader context. Thanks, I've never been more confidently pro-choice.
Has anyone noted the article explicitely states that 2 pregnancies were terminated despite the false negatives?
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
This test is given to women who want to know there risks BEFORE getting pregnant.
The womens decsion as to whether they should get pregnant was , partially, based on these tests.
This mens that the women where actually thinking about the ramifications of being pregnent, and kudos to them.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's a poorly coded application that is reponsible for this bad results. Maybe it's not their fault, perhaps no one told them about the Y2K bug....
Kind thoughts do not change the world
Agreed! The problem I have is that people don't see that these "less than perfect" children can have a wonderful life and a life that positively affects those around them. These children are no less valuable. Let us not make "quality of life" judgements, rather let us value life.
*Sarcasm Mode Off*
Seriously, the number of erronious diagnoses is terrifying enough. The fact that people make life or death decisions, based on inaccurate data plugged into faulty & badly-maintained machines, is ghastly.
However, when you consider that the potential impact even one child can have on the world ("Lorenzo's Oil", "My Left Foot" both spring to mind, as does the drive to cure polio, smallpox, etc), directly, indirectly, or any combination thereof, it is crazy to automatically assume that hardships automatically rule someone out of revolutionising society.
"But those are so infrequent!", you might argue. I suspect that might be because the wall that all of us, myself included, put in front of people in such emotionally troubling circumstances is so tall that only a few can gather the strength to climb over.
But some do! Maybe, just maybe, we need to think about lowering that wall. See if more can cross this formidable barrier, and see if their courage in doing so, never mind any achievements they make, can inspire sourage in others.
I don't want to start a flamewar here, either, and I fully understand that there are going to be contexts in which all I've written above just doesn't apply, or where other considerations make any kind of alternative choice impossible. Some times we're faced ourselves with a wall that's just too tough to climb, or just not worth it to us. That's a personal, individual choice. Nobody else can make it.
My only concern is with "snap decisions" based on data which may (or may not) be wildly inaccurate, and which - even if accurate - may be misleading. Not all pain is bad, and not all suffering is evil.
We, who live in a world in which most suffering can be removed by a pill or with money, easily forget that. Too easily. Sure, pain isn't "nice", and nobody wants it, but it can lead to growth in a way that all the luxuries in the world can never do.
My single bone of contention in the entire issue is when people avoid -any- pain, simply because they blind themselves to the potential. Now, this is NOT the same as seeking pain. Those who seek pain should either receive treatment or go into politics. I'm specifically talking about the pain that accompanies learning, growth, wisdom and experience. Nothing else.
Facing that type of pain will result in gain. Any child, however "disabled" or genetically malformed, that somehow manages to accomplish that single feat, even if they barely survive the week, will have had a richer, more rewarding life than many.
If both parents -and- child achieve the impossible, work together to climb their respective walls, and survive the ordeal, at the very least, their lives will be richer than all the money in the world could ever dream of buying.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm mystified as to where you are finding the message in this article that suggests in any way that the author's issue is with terminating pregnancies. The article explicitly states that the issue is the mothers not getting the best information for her range of options - termination not even being mentioned - of as you note, choosing to have amniocentesis at the safest time. There is a clear benefit to knowing in advance if your child is going to have a serious medical concern of any time - it allows proper prenatal care and both practical and emotional preparation. The point, as the article states, is that they should have known they were high risk but were misinformed they were low risk.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
We need to weed out those intolerant basdards that subscribe to this "kill an infidel, go to paradise" shit. We need to wage a cultural war against these values.
We've already got a good start, but we need to start doing this intentionally. They need more McDonald's and Nike and the Declaration of Independence and Mtv and Madonna and Hollywood movies and the Magna Carta and Levis and the US Constitution and etc. We need to indoctrinate their children in Democracy, Capitalism and Consumerism until they are fit to live peacfully with the rest of the world. "No two countries with a McDonald's have ever gone to war with one another."
I'm sorta saying this as an ironic troll, but this is fundamentally true.
how the fFuck is this offtopic you moron???
No worries. Lots of tards smell like turds, so I can see where you would get the two confused.
And some become savants and really help the grammar/spelling comunitee.
Would you and you're wife had child #3 if you knew she would have down syndrom before you got pregnant?
As a parent I know how hard it can be to be impartial to that question when you see your beautifull child every day.
this is a serious question, and I am really curious.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There is no millenium bug. The code works as written. It was a conscious design decision to limit the year field to 2 characters to conserve memory when RAM was expensive. The article implies that the "computer" mis-calculated the womens age, clearly it was not checked for Y2K compliance which could easily have been done. The people at the hospital are idiots for not verifying there hardware and software when lives were at stake. Then again, most of the medical community skimps on computer technology in this country so why should the UK be any different?
If there were a moderation option "Banned: -1000", I would have used it on you.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
If age is the only significant factor why do they need a computer at all? It seems that a simple chart would do just fine.
Would have done found the problem earlier. If they would have only done some of the calculations by hand every few test this would have been found alot earlier. I also blame the doctors they should be able to look at the results and sense something was wrong. I hope everything turns out ok for these women.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, what if the children had been born Trolls?!!! People should be allowed to take action to prevent such travesties!!!
I agree. And we need to seek revenge for the vicious attack on the Murrah building, in which hundreds of Americans lost their lives. I say we hunt down and kill *all* white christian male military veterans. They're all terrorists anyway.
You are thinking of Autism!
My other sig is extremely clever...
Personally, I can do about 200 ^H^H^H 250 push-ups and about 60 ^H^H 99 pull-ups. I can bench about 250 tons (on the Smith machine). I regularly run 1000 miles at a time.
If you're not up to my standards, you are weak. I'm sure you wouldn't mind killing yourself.
you big girly man...
So, I'm not really Pro-Choice if I disagree with someone elses decision to fly a passenger jet into a populated building?
Some people call me thick-headed.
However,
I have had a lot of dealings with challenged people (the mentally and physical handicapped) and have never once had one of them do any thing mean or unkind to me, as a matter of fact they were all very carrying and kind. (You may wonder why I deal with so many challenged people and it is because I was inspired by my younger brother who is challenged to become a Special Olympics volunteer and just recently became a certified Special Olympics track coach) So this begs the question why whish death unto challenged people if they didn't do any thing to you? It is clearly not out of empathy for them because they are usually very happy with their lives regardless of how simple they may seem to us. I would hazard a guess that it is because they are different. Disliking some one for no other reason then they are different if I am not mistaken is prejudice. I consider prejudice an extreme from of ignorance perhaps that just me. However if you will concede me the point that prejudice is a form of ignorance then I believe the world just got a wake up call to get more educated on Tuesday. It has been demonstrated through out history the prejudice is a very scary thing that ALWAYS leads to violence. Please instill in yourself the desire to become more educated about others beliefs you resulting lack of prejudice may just serve as an example to others.
oh sheeesh, camels are too tall, you need a ladder. Plus, they're smelly and illtempered. They're not soft and fuzzy like sweet young goats. Although, I've heard that many geeks have a thing for llamas too...
Not looking to either karma whore or be redundant, but since I've never seen a story so widely misunderstood here even by people who seem to be reading it, I'd like to lay it out as I understand it.
If I've gotten something wrong, please correct me.
The bug affected an initial screening process that used blood test results and the mother's age and weight to determine the risk of Down's Syndrome. It sounds to me (I'm unclear on this) like the error was caught and 150 women who had been told that they were in the low-risk group were actually high-risk. Four of them turn out (this is where I start to get confused -how?) to have had Down's Syndrome babies. Two of them (I guess) still had amniocentesis and aborted the babies and the other two had their babies.
OK, I'm realizing I'm confused about this too. Anyone have a clearer understanding?
eat sh!t and bark at the moon you f#cking pr!ck
Let me put it another way. The story is about mothers who want additional information about their babies prior to birth. Some of those mothers will use this information to prepare as much as possible for the fact that they're going to have a baby with special needs. Others will decide other options, possibly to abort the baby. Let's suppose that it's a different set of tests. It's a set of tests that you do after the baby is born to determine whether or not that child is going to be autistic. (To my knowledge no such test exists - this is hypothetical.) Wouldn't you be offended at the idea that some are running these tests for the purposes of trying to determine whether or not to kill their children?
The point is that you shouldn't jump down the pro-lifers throats because they think that a murder might be committed. That's what they think, trying to protect the person being murdered is a more than reasonable reaction. If you disagree with them, disuss why you think that it's not a murder. Discuss why you think it is a legitmate choice.
Can't we once and for all, address what the real issue is in abortion: Is a fetus a life? Every thing else depends on how you answer that question. So let's talk about that question.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
The moral issue is the tone of the article--the obvious belief of the writer that families have been injured by having their children.
I agree with your sentiment. However, I do not interpret the tone of the article in the same way that you are. When the article states that the hospital is sorry for what happened, I don't agree with your interpretation as "We're sorry you had to have a baby with Down's Syndrome." If that were the case, it would indeed be a depressing article.
My interpretation: (reread the article so you can see where I get this). Regardless of a woman's stance regarding abortion in these situations, it is always going to be traumatizing to discover that your child may have Down's Syndrome. The point of the article, and the reason the hospital extends its apologies is that many women were told that there was no risk. Later, the verdict was changed. They were told that there is a significant chance of their baby having Down's. This gives them much less time to prepare mentally for whatever alternative they might choose. Worse yet, it is now so late in the pregnancy that the absolute test for the syndrome puts both mother and baby at risk!
These women deserved the apology they got, with no moral reproof towards the hospital or journalist.
You should run for president. I'd vote for you on that platform.
Although I had never met the boy, I went to the memorial service to support my friend. It was a very informal event. His family, friends, teachers and therapists were all present. One by one they took the podium to say a few words about how Michael had enriched their lives with his joy, enthusiasm, and love. Not a single person in the room -- and certainly not his parents -- regretted having known him, or begrudged him their efforts on his behalf. As far as these genuinely good people were concerned, the rewards for having done so far outweighed what it cost them, and Michael's presence in their lives was a gift from God. It was extraordinarily moving.
Having made the choice myself, together with my wife, to maintain life support for a very prematurely born infant when we were given the choice to terminate it, knowing full well that he would likely be severly disabled, I cannot regard the decision to abort a potentially disabled child as anything but evil. They really are gifts from God. Raising them makes you a better person. Throwing them away as if they were nothing more than organic trash is sick. The fact that society seems to assume that anyone would want to do so is a sign of a very sick society.
In other matters, I suspect the reliance on a computer program to diagnose risk factors is a consequence of the UK's wonderful national heath system. Yes, a living, breathing OB/GYN certainly would have known the risk factors for Down Syndrome and other diseases without the aid of a computer. But I suspect that MDs are dispensed with for routine pregnancy counselling and diagnoses in order to save money, being replaced with relatively untrained personnel running expert system. Disturbing as the implications of this story are, it's a good example of why this is a rather bad idea.
And the brethren went away edified.
I'll give you my view. My wife and I have a three-year old son with Down Syndrome.
If I had known before the pregnancy that our youngest would have Down Syndrome, I doubt we would have gone ahead with the attempt. If I had known before or during the pregnancy, I would have been filled with doubt and fear, because I would not have known what to expect. We made the decision not to have an amniocentesis performed because we would not have elected to have an abortion.
Doubt and fear are natural when faced with the unknown. Most people have some idea what it is like to raise children that are born without handicaps. Most of us do not have any idea what it is like to raise a child with handicaps before we are thrust into the situation.
I am glad I did not know that our son would be born with Down Syndrome, because if I had, I might have let my doubts and fears make me miss one of the most wonderful, rewarding, and fulfulling experiences of my life. Sometimes, too much knowledge is a bad thing.
Actually, I suspect they are so few because they're retarded. Don't go blaming society because retards are slow. Blame the parents with defective genes.
The article explicitly states that the issue is the mothers not getting the best information for her range of options
Really? So what? The Taliban leadership has explicitly stated that Mr. bin Ladin doesn't have the capability to crash airliners into buildings.
The hijacker explicitly stated the crew would not be harmed.
Saying "this is not what I think" does not make it so.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
Consider this:
The problem is not for the parents, the problem is for the children who were murdered. I'm pro-choice: I think that the children should be consulted and given their rightful choice before anything drastic is done to them.
Babies have survived ``miscarriage'' at less than 18 weeks and grown up to be healthy adults. Babies as young as 8 weeks from conception have demonstrated some awareness of invasive abortion procedures, and made what any sane observer would classify as attempts to live. A baby is a baby from the start, not a blob.
Before anyone trots out that fish-stage recapitulation crap, remember that it has been known to be a fraud for over 100 years but is still used as an excuse to murder children today. Why? Why lie?
My sweet and cheerful little Downes-syndrome niece, Joey - now 11 but with a mental age somewhere near 5 or 6 - would be dead if my sister wasn't pro-choice like me. Maybe you would be dead too, if someone had decided that the odds of you being Downes were too great.
It's not ``terminated,'' Coward, it's killed. Are you interchangeable? Can I kill you if I don't like you, and make a replacement, no worries? Are you sure?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Japanese culture of a century ago would have selected for small feet in their girls. This may have had interesting developmental consequences, given that the genes for characteristic features are very often multi-purpose and spread around the DNA. Hitler would have murdered Einstein in utero or sooner, given the chance. There are a lot of consequences to un-natural selection of which we are not yet aware. Even if we are fully aware of the consequences, can people be relied upon to base their kill/keep decisions on rational grounds?
I'm also pro-choice. IMHO, the child concerned should be consulted and given a choice before anything drastic is done to or with him/her. Can you pick any physiological marker during a child's in utero development at which the child stops being ``a blob'' and starts being ``human?''
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Grow up!!
This is a very immature attitude on your part. I was 16 once too, and thought "No way _I'd_ ever want to live if ____". You fill in the blank.
Now I'm 35, and on dialysis. I have a little more perspective. And I'm not ready to die, even though my life isn't perfect. Even though it is downright miserable and painful at times! Even with severe diet restrictions, and being tethered to a dialysis center (can't miss those treatments).
It turns out that being alive is pretty enjoyable - even with disabilities! Try talking to some people who actually suffer from those things you fear most - people who live in a wheelchair, or various other disablities. I, and all these other people have things to do still, and people to see.
Now you may be saying "Well, that's your choice, but I would choose differently". I don't think so. You will be old and feeble one day, odds are. You will get a chance to live with no bladder control, arthritis, impotence, failing vision, dependence on others, and whatever other things come your way. They will come, you know. And when they do, you'll adapt, and keep on going, doing the best you can, just like the rest of the human race has for thousands of years. And, you'll find it isn't so bad. You still talk to family members, watch the kids grow, and look forward to new releases of software...
I get pretty tired of the life-wouldn't-be-worth-living-without _____ crowd. It just isn't true. Life _is_ worth living, even then. Saying otherwise devalues the people who are living those lives. Aborting them before they have the chance to live their live, on the grounds that it isn't worth it is appallingly evil.
I have no problem seeing how far behind others I am in some areas. It's highly unlikely I would ever be able to marry. I have tremendous problems speaking when I'm confused or in a noisy room (sometimes I can't speak at all for even a few days). I'm barely able to work, but somehow manage to make it through a workplace designed for non-autistics. (computer programming is a blessing for people like me)
Should have I been aborted? I don't think so. Was I a lot of work for my parents? Yes - I was a very difficult child to raise (I didn't speak much of my childhood; I bit other kids and I banged my head against the wall at times). Was I a happy kid? Sometimes - it depended on if I was being abused by the other kids or not. Autism wasn't hell - the way I was sometimes treated was.
I am very happy now. I love life. The sensory "issues" that I have sometimes make life difficult, but being able to see the mountains the way I can - getting lost in the sensations - makes up for it. Enjoying rocking back and forth or simply humming to myself brings me a lot of joy - and I won't let anyone take this away from me, even if they think I'm "less human" then they are.
Please don't assume anyone with a disability is unhappy. We might actually enjoy life. Some of us don't, and I realize that, but many so-called normal people commit suicide - surely they weren't happy either. From someone who has lived with prejudice my whole life: Don't you dare judge the value of someone else based on what you think you see.
I will also say that it is very possible for a mentally retarded child or "severely" autistic one to be happy and enjoy thier life. Who are you to take that away from him, simply because it would take "work?" Who are you to judge who is valuable to society and who isn't? I wonder how many slashdotters who, although very intelligent, did very poorly in sports and PE. Are they all less human because of this? Are they more expendable? Wouldn't it be horrible to know you were bad at sports? How is this any different then being "slow" intellectually?
I will also mention that the Nazis, through euthenasia, killed first the mentally and physically handicapped. I fear I would have been one of the ones killed if I lived then. They did this before they started killing the Jews.
I have no personal experience of the PathLAN software but the principles underlying the story are straightforward.
It is possible to screen to see whether the pregancy will result in a Down's syndrome child using a number of tests.
The most accurate test is amniocentesis, when a sample of the amniotic fluid in which the foetus floats is removed early in the pregnancy. The foetal cells in the fluid can then be analysed (karyotyped) and their chromosomal pattern determined. (Down's is usually caused by an extra chromosome 21).
Unfortunately, amniocentesis, though a definitive test, is not itself without risk. There is a slight chance--somewhere around 1 in 200--that the test itself will lead to abortion (loss of the pregnancy).
So a lot of energy over the years has gone into selecting pregnancies at higher risk of Down's Syndrome. The best strategy is still up for debate, but basically, tests on maternal blood and also foetal ultrasound have been shown in large trials to differentiate successfully between high and low risk pregnancies. And of course, the age of the woman is a significant risk factor (the risk of Down's Syndrome rises sharply over the age of 35).
Presumably the PathLAN software was programmed to produce an overall risk score using data on maternal age, and from maternal blood and ultrasound tests. The age of the women was incorrectly calculated by the software, altering the overall risk score, and the women were subsequently incorrectly advised on the need for amniocentesis.
I don't know whether PathLAN was a proprietary or an open source system, but it is precisely because of occurrences like this that we must have open source software development methods if we are going to get serious about using computers to support clinical practice in medicine. We need to open the code, as well as the medical knowledge it implements, to proper peer review. And once we have done that, we have an ethical duty to share that peer-reviewed code so that no other patient suffers needlessly from a similar error again.
Support the Open Source Healthcare Alliance: http://www.oshca.org/
You can never eat too much, only cycle too little.
Sheesh! Yet another reason why Windows sucks. Can't Microsoft get anything right?
That being said, I do think that (slowly) people are starting to get brave enough to address the real issue, which is human life/not a human life. The whole debate, logically if not emotionally, stands or falls with the answer. And they will avoid or derail that debate if at all possible.
a3g ffgg hhtssf 4tfffgs
they don't want to admit they made a mistake, so they needed a scapegoat. the millennium "bug" came at the perfect time, and is the perfect scapegoat.
before long, they'll start blaming miscarriages on the recent attacks. just you watch.
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
Fuck that shit. What the hell kind of an asshole are you?
"Facing that type of pain will result in gain. Any child, however "disabled" or genetically malformed, that somehow manages to accomplish that single feat, even if they barely survive the week, will have had a richer, more rewarding life than many. "
And guess what...a child who ISN'T genetically malformed will be more likely to accomplish MORE than a single feat, and survive more than a week.
Raising a child who would inevitably die, or be a burden on their families or the state their entire lives wastes the parent's time and resources which would be better used to create a child who WOULDN'T bring them more pain than joy.
It also increases the chances that their offspring would procreate.
The ONLY bright spot I can think of is that the retarded kid might not realize how fucked up his/her life is, and thus would not share in his/her parents' misery (which, whether they voice it or not, or whether they eventually get over it, they possess or possessed at one point) OTOH, the mildly retarded are generally smart enough to KNOW that they are retarded. So even that isn't likely.
FUCK YOU.
I wish that were true. I don't mean to flame you--before Annie was born I had that innocent view of the medical world as well. I daresay you have never been offered amniocentesis, or had a child born with a serious disability.
Let's start with some simple biology. Down syndrome happens at conception. My little girl doesn't have a birth defect--she has a genetic defect. Amniocentesis, as far as I know, doesn't tell you of any condition that can be helped with prenatal care. Unless you define abortion as prenatal care. The purpose of amniocentesis is to identify genetic defects.
We've been called by the county several times to counsel parents who have had amniocentesis and heard the words "Down syndrome." The doctor's advice is always abort, abort, abort. The doctor is in full-blown damage control: the parents hear the worst possible case--how the child will have a damaged heart, damaged lungs, will require open-heart surgery within weeks, will live less than 5 years. They hear about mental retardation and the likelihood of spinal injury and the meager prospects for a "meaningful life." The "emotional preparation" they get from the doctor is a combination snow job and horror story.
What the doctor doesn't tell you is the million and one things that make Downs kids unique. That they have "loose ligaments" that make them the stretchiest and snuggliest kids in the world. (Daughter #3 crosses her legs Indian-style in front of her pillow, then bends forward onto her pillow and falls asleep--if you don't have Downs, you'll permanently injure yourself. This is how they take naps.) That there is something mysterious--something mystical--about Downs kids and animals. We have off-the-racetrack Thoroughbreds, and they're tough for experienced horse people to handle--but they'll stand for Annie, and docilely stand while she holds them on leads.
Is every obstetrician in America needlessly, hopelessly, cruel? No--but every obstetrician in America is in, by far, the most expensive medical specialty due to the crushing liability premiums they pay. If there is any possibility of any kind of problem they have a built-in incentive to encourage--to the point of a really hard-sell--abortion. That's why they push amniocentesis--and if you refuse amniocentesis, they will haul out legal forms and insist that both you and your husband sign waivers of any right to sue.
The reason I think the article conveys the view that children are now disposable commodities is that the author never even suggests that having a child with Down syndrome might not be a bad thing. Instead the fact that two kids with Downs were born is written as a failure, as a breakdown of the government system, and as a reason to call for a new "reference" program against which all other such programs will be compared.
I'm--obviously, right?--close to the subject. So perhaps I'm quick to hear the echoes of Peter Singer's "end the suffering" (by which he means, "off the imperfect") palaver. Down syndrome represents tragedy and suffering: suffering is bad; thus, end Down syndrome. (Singer says this with more or less those words.)
I'm not going to say that Down syndrome is completely without suffering. In fact, Daughter #3 is still up (it's 11:12 pm) telling knock-knock jokes, way past her bed time. So there's going to be a little suffering on her bottom if she's not in bed in about thirty seconds....
Er--ah, um. Actually, it was my wife who got pregnant. (Although she kept saying, "you did this to me!" all through labor....)
All jesting aside, I can't answer the question in the abstract. The question I can answer is "if you knew Daughter #3 would have Down syndrome, would you have aborted her?" The answer is a simple "no." When the doctor offered amniocentesis my wife refused. When the doctor more or less insisted, she refused. When the doctor suggested that she should return with me for "counseling" she asked if he thought she was incompetent--all amniocentesis does is give you the bad news. Since abortion was simply out of the question, she refused.
That said, Down syndrome is not, by any means, the worst possible disability. There are other trisomies (where there are three chromosomes in a "pair"); there is Tay-Sachs; there are other genetic defects; there is cerebral palsy. Handicapped kids frequently start in "early intervention" programs within weeks of birth--of the kids in Annie's first class fewer than half are alive nine years later. We know mothers and fathers with preschoolers that can't lift their heads off the floor--we know parents of "kids" who are in their twenties and still wearing diapers. None of them would "dispose" of their kids--none of them would give them away.
The closest I can come to answering your question is to tell you about my brother and sister-in-law. She comes from a family with a genetic condition that prevents the body from absorbing iodine--boys usually get it, girls usually carry it. If they have the disease they develop terrible rickets (bowing of the legs) and have to have a series of orthopedic operations through their growing years. When Dave and Suzanne married they had to face the question: do they have children or not? They have two daughters--and their second daughter (in a very rare circumstance) has the disease. Every summer they fly to St. Louis (he's in the Air Force, so every summer they're flying from somewhere new) for observation and study of her condition, and usually surgery to insert pins into her legs.
I think they made the right choice.
Either you haven't read Peter Singer, or you just don't give a damn about what he really says.
Well, get the shotgun, time for some abortions, right?
/. already proves we have plenty of arrogant intelligent snots more interested in mouthing off than doing anything to help out. So when I see articles mourning their birth, I get a bit upset. Yes, it's sad they weren't born UNAFFLICTED. It is sad this cannot be reversed in the womb to prevent them from being crippled. It is NOT sad that they were BORN.
The bias in this mere report is disgusting. One can hear the shock and horror in timothy's voice: "and that two of them brought the pregnancies to term."
OH NO!
Look, I've known many retarded people in my life, including a family member and his friends. Most of them were sweet, kind, and gentle people who weren't half as dumb as people make them out to be. I think the world isn't harmed when a sweet, kind, and gentle person is born, since
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
"'This was a simple error that shouldn't have happened... I have every sympathy with the families involved.'"
Translation: Damn, didn't catch those ones in time. Got an axe?
"The later the test is carried out in a pregnancy, the greater the risk to the mother and her unborn child."
I find this one QUITE amusing. Seeing as how if the test is carried out late in pregnancy it will be after the legal limit and the mother can't have the child killed, I believe it is the exact opposite, and later testing vastly reduces the risk for the child. =P
"They were put in the unacceptable position of being given reassurance by the test and then having that taken away from them."
I see this as monstrous. "Oh, thank god my baby will be (note capital N) Normal! I wouldn't want him to be one of those RETARDS, those FREAKS.
Karmatic retribution?
BTW any woman who hasn't heard how risk of Down's increases with age must either:
* have lived in a cave for the past 10 years
* cared so little for her baby or herself that she was too stupid to do any research
So in this case I'm torn between being saddened by the two aborted children, or relieved they were not raised by such incapable mothers.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
so they let some people live. why is this a problem. There should be praise given to the doctors for "messing up", and not aborting the birth of those babies
I have 3 kids. All are healthy, and perfectly fine.
Unfortunately because of the pitiful accuracy of these screening tests, you would never have known that DURING my wife's first two pregnancies.
The first two were 'screened', and were supposed to be at risk for BOTH Down Syndrome and Spina Diffida (sp). A week after the 'screen', we were sent to a DNA specialist. This person did a history of my wife and I, and came to the conclusion that we probably weren't at risk. She then used a more advanced Ultrasound machine (In Technicolor!), and determined everything to be allright. (I guess 'color' is why the rates are so high.)
Why did my first two kids show up 'at risk'?
Apparently this screen is only accurate if you've determined your date of conception withing 48 hours of the ACTUAL conception. That isn't easy to do when your 19 and then 22, and having lots of sex. The second 'culprit' (bear with me,I'm trying to remember this crap), is the amount of fluid in the placenta. My kids were little when they were born, the largest was my 3rd, who topped 7 pounds, the other 2 were around 5.5. With smaller kids, you get more fluid in the placenta, duh.
More fluid than 'normal' is one of the warning signs that these screens look for. When you have smaller kids than normal, you're just going to have more fluid than normal, duh again.
I never spent a lot of time with doctors. I don't have a doctor myself, and I have RARELY been to the hospital.
My experiences with the medical profession put them on par with myself. I know a broad range of things about a computer, but unfortunately like you can in Medicine, I can't charge $200/hr to a customer who wants something done that I've never done before. It must be the 12 years of school, that doesn't teach them much more than drug interactions. Everything else is on-the-job.
We're all beta testers for the Medical Profession.
Take any information you get from them, and find out for yourself if it's REALLY true.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
No I am not stupid. Yes, I understand the costs of raising a child with special needs. Regardless of your brother, you evidently do not, as you ony mention one of these costs (money).
When you mature and are able to have children, consider this: Downs is only one particular disability. If you gave birth to a typical, healthy baby who later became disabled due to sickness, head injury, etc, would you kill them?
It is pitch dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
These became understood because, eventually, people realised that there were just too many people in the "mentally disabled" category who were mentally as superior to the average "person in the street", as that average person was above a single-cell amoeba.
Asperger's Syndrome, a "mental disability", afflicts maybe 60%+ of all computer programmers. In the 1970's, these people would have been considered "retarded". These days, many earn 5 digit salaries, and a far higher percentage are millionaires than almost any other category.
What is defective one week is in MASSIVE demand the next, and is the life-blood of civilisation by the end of the month.
THAT, alone, is reason enough to question any assumptions about "retards". Have they some talent, as a consequence of their "disability", which could utterly crush the smug prejudice of the "able", =yet again=???
It is my belief that you should spend less time looking down on these people, and more time working with them. Maybe you can find the next Professor Hawking, who hasn't exactly been slowed by his genes, now, has he.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Please change your stand for humanity's sake.
Think about the theory of relatively.
No matter what speed an object is traveling, the speed of light observed by that object will not change.
There's a direct correlation between this theory and the value or happiness of a retarded person's life. If you don't get it, then you just aren't traveling as fast as I am, but is your life worth living?
Also, please never forget, "God doesn't roll dice." (Einstein).
If an obgyn is relying a computer program to tell him/her the statistical risk of Down Syndrome, then that doctor should not be practicing.
A doctor should have a deep knowledge of their field which transcends anything figureable by a computer.
Maybe my thinking is a little too utilitarian or Darwinistic, but was adoption ever considered? If I knew that my future children would have a good chance (your use of "usually" implies to me that the chances are greater than %50) of the carrying on the condition, I'd want to stop propagating the condition.
There are many unfortunate children (not just babies) without a quality home, why not take that route? Was it considered?
-Grant/"JimTheta
My stupid web site
My good posts get modded down, my normal ones get modded up.
This is not informative. The parent should have been modded down. I should not have been modded up.
There are plenty of forums where the endless arguments of what point life is defined as starting. The point I made, which you fail to address at all, is that abortion was not the issue of this article.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries