The Problem With Down Syndrome: Part 2

I just want a healthy baby.  I think every single prospective parent must utter these words at some point, but it is worth questioning.

One "common sense", yet false, assumption is that Down syndrome itself is a state of poor health.  Then, it goes without saying that the ideal state of affairs would be to get rid of Down syndrome.  This is the logic I hear time and time again in news articles, comments, off hand remarks from strangers.

It makes sense, right?  Down syndrome comes from the presence of an extra chromosome.  That extra chromosome causes the body to malfunction, right?  Therefore, Down syndrome IS poor health.  So therefore, our goal should be to make sure no one is born with Down syndrome.  Wait.  Can we slow down?

Discussing medical risk solely in terms of Down syndrome reduces a complex individual into a one-dimensional picture painted with a single color called "extra chromosome".  Most parents who get a Down syndrome diagnosis find themselves sinking into a black hole of terrifying statistics.  I don't wish to minimize these, but it isn't the whole picture.

The third chromosome isn't an unsightly ink blotch of risk on an otherwise pristine piece of paper.  We all carry risk by virtue of living.   We all carry higher risks by belonging to certain definable groups.   Sickle cell anemia.  Tay Sachs.  Cystic Fibrosis.  Thalassemia.  Familial Mediterranean fever.  It took me ten minutes of an internet search to learn about this handful of medical conditions, all of which are more prevalent in certain genetically related groups.  I'd guess that there are many genetic bases for disease and illness, science just hasn't found the common thread yet.

Also, why have I never read a single media story mentioning that living with Ds isn't solely about medical risk?  What about better prognosis after leukemia and seizure disorders, less hardening of the arteries, diabetic blindness, fewer solid tumor cancers, fewer cavities, and lower likelihood of both cerebral palsy and high blood pressure?  Genes do not act in isolation, and I wish there were more balanced attention paid to the fact that Ds is not a disease unto itself, but a genetic existence.  Unusual, sure, but not a disease.

I also wonder what effect the diagnosis in and of itself has on rates of detection of health "problems".  When we got our diagnosis, we went through months of medical appointments to rule out statistically likely medical issues.  The results?  We have "discovered" some, but are choosing medical intervention for only hypothyroidism.  While the reasons we did all those tests were based on a real risk, I also wonder how much is confirmed simply by looking.  If I had subjected my other children to the same battery of medical screenings and tests, what would we have found?

Again, I'm don't want to minimize the real health concerns, and I think we need more understanding of what Down syndrome is, not less.  There are clearly differences relating to having three copies of a chromosome.  Still, the mainstream image of Down syndrome being a form of poor health in a way fundamentally different than a person with typical chromosomes doesn't feel right.

Lastly, I sense a real stigma permeating the discussion of medical risk and disease.  Now, I don't have a child with a significant medical issue.  (This of course, like for any human being, could change.)  However, when I read the comments in these articles talking about the new research, it almost feels as if the assumption is that an person gets leukemia, infantile spasms, Alzheimer's, etc., because of his inherently defective genetics.  To be sure, a significant risk factor could be Down syndrome, but the exact hows and whys that an individual develops a disease or condition is very hard to know.  There is no health condition that is unique to Down syndrome, after all.  My real concern: Doesn't this stigma contribute to discrimination against people with Down syndrome overall?

I just can't accept it as simple common sense that Down syndrome is unhealthy.  I just can't lay all of that on one chromosome.  Risk and statistics are very complicated, and tell us mostly about large groups of people.  It is harder with a single individual.  Just ask the mother who had a baby with Down syndrome after receiving 1 in 1000 odds after screening.  Clearly, she had a 100% chance of having that baby, but simply did not know every single factor that may have calculated into that equation of chance.

I'm saddened by the general public's quick leap into assuming that the ideal application for this new research is to "cure" or "prevent" Down syndrome itself, rather than treat a specific disease to enhance an individual's comfort and quality of life.  No one contemplates getting rid of an entire group of people in the name of better health, except, it seems, when it comes to genetic differences such as Down syndrome.  I know that the research is probably not intended as such, but why is the rest of the world so quick to go there?

My son with all 47 chromosomes is here to stay.  Let's slow down and try to understand what science has to offer, before we make any assumptions.  Down syndrome is part of genetic diversity.  It has been in existence for as long as humans have, and will continue to be.  Perhaps we should stop thinking that people with Down syndrome are surviving despite their 47 chromosomes, but with their 47 chromosomes.

Next up: Intellectual Disability*

* This, of course, assumes that I'll be able to keep my focus on this one topic of thought.  Wish me luck, as it is not a given.

********************
Edited to add: It has become apparent to me that I haven't addressed the topic of stigma against illness and disease enough.  I do not believe there is a hierarchy of human worth based on health status.  In fact, I believe that this tendency to define Down syndrome in and of itself as a unhealthy also contributes to sometimes poor medical care for those with complex medical needs.  I can't list the number of times I have heard parents express that doctors were less willing to intervene in serious medical situations because of their belief that "Down syndrome is just like that".  What I truly want is for each individual to be treated as a unique case.  Down syndrome must be accounted for when assessing medical needs, to be sure, but it can't be the entire picture.  ~jl