Doctors have accused a medical body of suggesting that unborn babies with Down’s syndrome should be aborted because it will cost too much to care for them.
More than 100 doctors, nurses and other medics have signed a letter attacking the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists for saying the NHS should calculate the ‘cost effectiveness’ of supporting those with the condition.

Bit of a move over time, isn’t it?

You may not, you may, you should?

How long before you must?

15 thoughts on “Interesting”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    How long before you must?

    No one will care about children with Down’s syndrome. It is when they start doing it to older people with dementia that there may be a little bit of a backlash.

    Someone in California was denied a cancer drug this month. But they were offered euthanasia.

  2. Bloke in North Dorset

    Logical step. People are pilloried for choosing a lifestyle of obesity, alcohol, tobacco etc that costs the NHS money, why not parenting a Downs child? Perhaps a sin tax on “abnormal” babies, for equity?

    All hail the NHS.

    And people still blindly trust the State.

  3. Does anyone have the link to RCOG’s original statement? I suspect that the Mail has slightly misrepresented things. What I feel is happening is this:
    – A new(ish) antenatal test is available for Down’s testing
    – The NHS/NICE wants to know: is this a cost-effective test to fund?
    – RCOG is proposing that the savings from fewer people with Down’s being born be considered as a benefit of the new test.

  4. The state has moved from controlling people’s lives (you mustn’t) to not controlling people’s lives (you may) but is inevitable moving back to controlling people (you must). It’s as though it’s a natural law or summut.

  5. The consequence of having an NHS is that everything becomes a charge on the taxpayer. Even if we replaced the NHS by some better furrin’ system the same would probably be true. That will naturally influence cost-benefit considerations.

    It’s like trying to calculate whether an extra pound of educational expenditure would be best spent on educating the super-bright, the clever, the mediocre, the dim, or the mentally defective. It’s a perfectly rational calculation to attempt, but news of it would send irrationalists into howling outrage.

    But the alternative is to spend according to the whims of fashionable sentimentality and the political power of pressure groups. That’s why so much was spent on AIDS, wasn’t it? And what was spent on AIDS wasn’t spent on something else, such as Down’s children.

  6. Where do you draw the line?
    Every baby born needs lots of help. Over time some will grow up and need no help. Some, due to accidents, illnesses etc will grow up and need as much or more help than a baby.
    If you draw a line and say this is where we will support and this is where we will not support then the line exists. And is subject to changing the criteria.
    If you like its knowing exactly what sort of woman this is, now you are negotiating on price.

  7. I’m just astounded doctors have complained about this. It’s doctors, nurses, and midwives who have been pressuring parents to abort kids with Down’s for years. Pregnant mothers who refuse the so-called screening test are treated like lunatic pariahs. Parents who have the screening test, get a positive result, then don’t decide to abort, even worse.

    And it’s bollocks. You can have a perfectly healthy child, then have a car accident or a nasty illness or any one of a hundred unfortunate events, and the poor kid ends up needing expensive round-the-clock care for life.

  8. Government by jerks: they insist on picking up the tab, then complain about the cost.

    Odd that doctors are concerned with cost, and not medicine, their field of expertise.

  9. SMFS,

    When you say denied did insurance say we aren’t covering that or did someone tell the person they couldn’t have the drug at all?

  10. “Odd that doctors are concerned with cost, and not medicine, their field of expertise.”

    To be fair, I think their real motivation is that they have an ambition for every single person to be perfectly healthy and healthily perfect for the maximum possible time. They genuinely think that mental disablement is a horrible fate to inflict on anyone, (or on their carers,) even if they’re totally happy about it themselves.

    The authoritarians among them want to bring that about by telling people how to live, and bringing whatever pressure to bear to bring that about, but the only real issue with money is that there’s a finite pot of it, and money spent on the self-inflicted undeserving is money that can’t be spent curing other people. It’s not a case of telling people you don’t like treating them because it’s expensive – it’s a case of not liking having to tell some little girl with leukemia that she’s going to die because you just spent the last of the budget on pumping out the Friday night drunks.

    From a more mercenary point of view, patients requiring lifetime care raise the demand for doctors, and hence their wages. To the extent that doctors care purely about money (and a lot of them do – they are, after all, not offering to take a pay cut so they can afford to treat more patients), the more sick people the better.

  11. SMFS,

    Thank you. Other than some key words in the article there isn’t much to be outraged at. That could change with more detail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *