Why the Effort to Eliminate the Mentally Handicapped?

Here is a drug that is promising to the middle ages adults who are more prone to dementia from Alzheimers than the general population, and it is being denied to them. Anyone care to speculate why? Good for their advocates fighting back.

I thought pro choice meant in favor of the affected parents making a decision on that child’s behalf. I guess it only means in favor of the abortion choice.

I thought end of life care was a part of medicine, too. How is it a matter of concern to “medical personnel” if the affected parents choose life for their baby with Trisomy 13–even if that life lasts just one week?

Have we learned nothing at all from such atrocities as California Eugenics and the targeting of the handicapped in European concentration camps? I guess not.

Don’t put faith in that drug.

It should not have been approved in the first place.

It shouldn’t have been approved because…?

Why is specifically one group exempt from even a try?

Here is a good explainer.

Basically there were two studies on the drug… one showed no effect and the other when it started to show effect the study was stopped thus messing with the statistical significance of the effect.

It is an expensive drug that has not been proven to work and some indications show that it may be causing harm.

That addresses the issue of approval for “anyone” to receive the drug. It doesn’t explain why the mentally handicapped are not approved for a drug, that is supposed to prevent/treat plaque buildup in brain tissue, when it is approved for everyone else.

The drug’s approval should be withdrawn. The circumstances of its approval stink. So much so that one panel member resigned in protest.

It should not be given to anybody, outside of clinical trials, unless and until they show it actually works, which right now, they have not shown.

1 Like

Did you happen to notice the link you used in the OP didn’t provide context as to why people with Down’s Syndrome might be barred?

When you are reading a link and only one side of an argument is being presented? That should be a red flag to you.

The OPs link was extremely biased. It provided no information that those with Down’s Syndrome were going to be barred, or if they were, why.

And the drug may not even (likely won’t) work, which is VERY relevant.

We don’t have enough information to have a debate on this subject, and certainly not enough information has been provided to match the emotionally charged title of this thread.

I should note that Live Action is an anti-abortion advocacy organization and are the same people involved in the whole Planned Parenthood abortion video event.

1 Like