Posted on 08/12/2013 7:26:35 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
If it was appropriate to kill the imperfect, we'd all be dead, wouldn't we?
Love thy neighbor as thyself. Your nearest neighbor is your unborn child.
Wonderful article. Sending it to my son and daughter in law who are the proud parents of TWO Down Syndrome children, (One their own, one adopted.)
Bless them.
I knew a gal with a Downs Syndrome child. I looked and saw the beauty that God endowed the child with and remarked what a beautiful child it was. She looked at me like I had grown horns and was nuts. So sad that she couldn’t see through the pain and inconvenience to understand what she really had. I never had to walk in her shoes, so I am probably not fully qualified to criticize, but it made my heart ache for her and her child. I worked the Biloxi Summer Olympics for a number of years and it was spiritually uplifting to be among these children.
??
Its interesting that people without Downs Syndrome are concerned about “preserving the culture”
If you had Downs Syndrome, would YOU want to remain retarded your entire life to preserve your sweetness and simplicity?
I am reminded of the movie “Charlie” where the character is “cured” of his mental retardation by a miracle drug and becomes a sparkling genius, falls in love with the researcher etc— then realizes the drug is losing effect and realizes he will regress and will again become retarded. It was kind of horrifying, actually.
Some people in deaf culture have the same attitude- better to stay deaf than undertake surgery or other measures to restore hearing or communicate by voice - deafness is a “culture” thing, not a handicap
However - retardation? Far different imho
It’s interesting that the researcher is emphasizing the limited utility of what she’s discovered so far, while less-knowledgeable people are going ballistic.
I don't know the answer. I get it that these children and others who are outside the norm teach us to be more human and compassionate, and many seem very content with their lives. I also get nervous when we play God with genetics.
It's a really deep philosophical crossroads we're at, with the ability to manipulate life.
Yeah, I remember "Charlie", but the book (actually short story) rather than the movie. I thought it went past "kind of" horrifying. Of course, people with Alzheimers (and some other forms of dementia) undergo this precise same transition, so it is not exactly unknown in our society.
And it STILL goes past "kind of horrifying".
Agree...
My biology teacher predicted we'd arrive here. That was 38 years ago. He was ahead of his time.. God rest his soul.
“Its interesting that people without Downs Syndrome are concerned about “preserving the culture””
I found that more than curious too - like Down Syndrome is a species in need of preserving.
I’d like to hear Sarah Palin’s take on this discovery.
“Flowers for Algernon” was the title of the book. Algernon was the rodent on which the drug was first tested, and against which Charlie was measured when he started getting the drug. Algernon died, and it was a consequence of the drug. Then Charlie realized he, too, would die.
and Rick Santorum’s
Like many, he had a bit of savant to him....he couldn't do any kind of arithmetic - yet he couldn't be beaten in card games.
My wife has significant experience working as a nurse taking care of people with Downs Syndrome, and has been on the board of a non-profit which takes care of those afflicted. There is basically an entire government supported industry that has grown up around the care for people with Downs Syndrome. It is not that surprising that some who may have to find a new way to make a living... might view this development in a negative light.
Our assumption here is that in general the relatives who are concerned about “preserving the culture” are either getting a whole lot of assistance including substantial government funds given to them to take of their relative or they are not the ones actually carrying for their relative.
We have known entire families who have basically been supported by the money that they get from the government to take care of their relative with Downs Syndrome. Some of these people might also be inclined to make up these same type of lame excuses to deny their relative proper treatment when and if it becomes available.
We personally think that it would be inhumane to even consider withholding this type of treatment should it become effective and available.
There are some in the deaf community that are opposed to cochlear implants that can in many cases restore near normal hearing. Their concern is also that the widespread use of this procedure would be the end of the sign language based “deaf culture”
I rank that similarly to nearsighted parents not wanting to buy their kids glasses so they can share in "blurry" culture.
Yes, I noticed that too. I guess it wouldn’t sell as good if a reasoned discussion of the turth was reported.
I also think that in the back of most ‘journalists’ minds is Sarah Palin, and the posssiblity that she may, again, be proven right. So they need to fan the flames to falming hot in order to stop this research before it becomes available for use.
This ideology, as I understand it, is very much nurtured in Gaulladet College, which has promoted the idea of deaf people being analogous to an ethnic minority, preserving and developing their own distinctive world.
The idea of "preserving the Down Syndome culture" is similar. And similarly wrong-headed. It comes from the "dictatorship of relativism" which deems it bigotry for anything to be termed "normal" or "abnormal," "natural" or "unnatural."
I was recently reprimanded when I called homosexuality abnormal. I was told I could say "sexual minority," but even "atypical" was thought to be too stigmatizing.
How can you do medicine --- which is supposed to cure, heal, repair, strengthen --- when you can't define what "healthy" is?
Certainly no well-intentioned and thoughtful person can having anything to gain from misstating what’s currently been achieved in this research, or from generating hysteria either for or against additional study.
I know people have a lot of emotional investment in the subject, but *calm down*. When a therapy that is potentially useful to humans is proposed, it will need to be tested; results can be observed, etc., etc.
Someday we may have a way to instantly restore a person to full health, no matter what has gone wrong - like in “Star Trek” - but we’re nowhere near that now. No “antidotes,” no magic spells ... just, maybe, incremental advances in prevention or alleviation for conditions, whether they’re genetic or acquired.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.