The Killing Of People With Down’s Syndrome: Richard Dawkins says it’s immoral to let a Down’s Syndrome baby be born. Since when have eugenics been moral or ethical? What would happen if you were diagnosed with Dawkins’ Syndrome?

Aug 21, 2014 | Uncategorized

Well written piece on Down’s Syndrome:

See Photographer with Down’s syndrome who ‘sees the world differently’

9 September 2014 Last updated at 00:01 BST

Photographer Oliver Hellowell has Down’s syndrome, which his mother says means he sees the world differently from most people.

Oliver’s unique way of capturing the natural world has recently gained him a lot of fans.

Just over a year ago, his mother Wendy O’Carroll set up a Facebook page for the 18-year-old’s photography. That page now has more than 10,500 followers.

Richard Dawkins has said that if you are pregnant with a baby who has Down’s Syndrome: “Abort it and try again.It would be immoral to bring it into the world” But since when have eugenics been moral or ethical? Since when has it been moral for a negative worth to be attached to the life of a person with a disability, disqualifying them from the right to exist? In 2012, 994 human beings with Down’s Syndrome were deliberately killed before birth in England and Wales. Does that make us a moral, ethical, civilised nation? If a test could be designed to discover whether you might become a zoologist with pretensions to philosophise would those be reasonable or rational grounds to end a person’s life? Perhaps a campaign should be launched to save babies suspected of having Dawkins’ Syndrome.


Also see: Blue Apple Theatre Company: Actors with Downs Syndrome challenge us with their production of Living without Fear:

Drama and Music To Make Us Think: Disability Hate Crime, Religious Persecution, Bullying, Relationships, the Holocaust, North Korea, Scapegoating of Minorities…

Better Off Dead?

“Not content with killing Down’s Syndrome babies – 90% of whom are now hunted down and aborted before their births – we’re now seeing attempts to eliminate them and to let them die rather than treat them in our NHS Hospitals. Is this the same NHS that we were celebrating in the Olympic Stadium? What a contrast, too, with the inspirational achievements of disabled athletes, during the Paralympics celebrated in the same stadium, and who have taught us so much about courage and the overcoming of seemingly impossible odds.

“As we rush pell-mell into Nietzschean-style eugenics and ethics, we should recall those inspirational moments, remembering that people with  Down’s Syndrome are human beings – not “a drain on public finances”; that disabled people would not be “better off dead” and that by allowing the elimination of the weak it is we who expose ourselves as the truly weak”  – David Alton


13 September 2012 Last updated at 01:21

Down’s syndrome patient challenges resuscitation order

By Jane Dreaper Health correspondent, BBC News

A man with Down’s syndrome is suing an NHS trust over a hospital’s decision to issue a do-not-resuscitate order giving his disability as one of the reasons.

The instruction not to attempt resuscitation in the event of a cardiac or respiratory arrest was issued without his family’s knowledge.

Their lawyers describe the order as “blatant discrimination”.

East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust says it complied fully with guidance from professional bodies.

The family of the man, who can be identified only as AWA because of a court order, remained unaware of the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decision until he had returned from hospital to his care home.

The DNR form, issued while he was in hospital in Margate a year ago, was listed as an indefinite decision, meaning it would cover the duration of his stay in hospital, with no provision for review.

Start Quote

He has a good way of life now, but somebody wasn’t prepared to give him the time of day.”

The reasons given were “Down’s syndrome, unable to swallow (Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy] fed), bed bound, learning difficulties”.

AWA, 51, has dementia and was having a special tube fitted to help him with feeding.

The form says there was no discussion with his next of kin because they were “unavailable”, but the family say they visited him in hospital “virtually every day” – and a carer from his home sometimes attended too.

One of AWA’s close relatives, who is pursuing the legal action on his behalf, said: “Until his dementia started three years ago, he had a really hectic social life. He loved parties, discos and going to church.

“He was looked after at home for as long as possible, but then we got him into a nice care home. His health deteriorated a bit – he had eating problems and couldn’t swallow – so the decision was taken to have a Peg inserted so he could receive medication, foods and liquids.

“He was admitted to hospital for a fortnight. When he was discharged, one of the carers at his home was unpacking his bag and found the DNR form, to their horror.

“We weren’t aware of the DNR until then. We were very angry and quite distressed, especially as he’d been re-admitted that day because he’d got pneumonia.

“Since November last year, he’s been right as rain. He has a specially adapted chair, takes part in various activities and is conscious of everybody around him most of them time.

“He has a good way of life now, but somebody wasn’t prepared to give him the time of day.”

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

DNR orders are frequently being placed on patients with a learning disability without the knowledge or agreement of families.”

End Quote Mark Goldring Mencap

AWA and his family are represented by solicitor Merry Varney, from Leigh Day & Co.

She said: “This is definitely one of the most extreme cases we have seen of a DNR order being imposed on a patient without consent or consultation.

“To use Down’s syndrome and learning difficulties as a reason to withhold lifesaving treatment is nothing short of blatant discrimination.

“If an individual was physically preventing a doctor from administering life-saving treatment to a disabled relative, it would undoubtedly be a matter for the police, yet we see doctors taking this decision without consent or consultation regularly.”

Mark Goldring, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, said: “We are very disappointed to hear about this case, but unfortunately, we believe that DNR orders are frequently being placed on patients with a learning disability without the knowledge or agreement of families. This is against the law.

“All too often, decisions made by health professionals are based on discriminatory and incorrect assumptions about a patient’s quality of life.

“People with a learning disability enjoy meaningful lives like anyone else. Yet… prejudice, ignorance and indifference, as well as failure to abide by disability discrimination laws, still feature in the treatment of many patients with a learning disability.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

We have a clear and robust policy in place on DNR which complies fully with national guidance from the professional bodies.”

End Quote Dr Neil Martin East Kent Hospitals Trust

“Health professions need to understand their legal duties when treating people with a learning disability, and be held to account when their fail to do so.”

Dr Neil Martin, medical director for East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, said: “The trust cannot comment on this individual case because it is subject to ongoing legal proceedings.

“East Kent Hospitals has put a great deal in place in recent years to meet the needs of vulnerable patients, including practical steps to improve communication with people with learning disabilities and their carers.

“It has a clear and robust policy in place on ‘Do Not Attempt Cardio-pulmonary Resuscitation’, which complies fully with national guidance from the professional bodies.”

Ms Varney is leading a separate legal case to try to make the Department of Health issue government policy across England on DNR forms, rather than leaving it to professional guidance and policy decisions by individual NHS trusts.

That case is on behalf of the family of Janet Tracey, who died at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge. It will be heard in the High Court later this year.


Share This