Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

Dculkin, The article about the B.C. case you posted is really alarming to me and seems much more serious than the Australian case I found. That award is totally absurd IMHO. So what if the girl has Down's Syndrome? It doesn't mean caring for her will be particualrly expensive and it doesn't mean her life will be worth less than anyone else's. If you ask me, this ruling is an insult to anyone with Down's Syndrome and anyone who cares about someone with Down's Syndrome. If the parents really wanted that test conducted they should have asked for it; the fact that it exists is common knowledge, in my experience. And if that woman was over 35 and didn't know about it, then frankly I think she should have done a lot more research into what pregnancy and child bearing entail.

Let me assure anyone reading this that if you ever find out that you're child-to-be will have Down's Syndrome and you choose to keep that child, you will not regret it. People with Down's Syndrome and similar disabilities are much more capable today than they were years ago because school systems are now required to give them a real education. If you take a 50-year-old and a 20-year-old with a similar level of mental disability, you will find that the 20-year-old is much more independent and much more knowledgable in general because they have been given chances they wouldn't have had until very recently.

In my experience, the smartest people are rarely the best ones and the people with the lowest IQ's are rarely the worst. I really don't think it's very smart to make a decision on whether or not to keep a child on this basis alone.

I guess as a caveat I would add that the child involved in the case may need more medical attention than I'm assuming, but even still Medicaid would pick up this cost now that she lives in the states.

Thank you for posting that article, BTW. I would appreciate other links and info. about similar cases if you have them.