Talk:Down syndrome
From Academic Kids
Archived discussion: Before April '04 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&oldid=12289458)
| Contents |
Medical versus social models
Stop mucking about - this is extremely serious!
This page gets read by many pregnant women who have been screened as carrying a DS fetus, and by their partners and friends, and who are looking for information, often in a real state of panic. The negative medical tone of the article is wholly inappropriate and also plain wrong, and is likely to lead to a far higher take up of termination of pregnancy. Yes, words can really kill - this isnt a game you know.The whole emphasis these days is on early detection and "treatment" - you guessed it, abortion. The parents are put under huge pressure to abort because doctors are fearful and ignorant of the condition (they only see DS kids with medical problems, not the ones who dont have any, so their view is inevitably jaundiced)
That kid with the screwdriver is my son, and I dont see why my expertise and opinion on the pre-eminence of the social model and my insistence on people - first language should be sacrificed on the discredited altar of eugenics. By all means tidy up any errors of fact and wikify it all you like, but dont stick it at the bottom as a footnote please, that gives a wholly negative impression.
For many years, parents of kids with DS have been trying to clean up all these awful textbooks and dictionary references and put the record straight, and its about time that Wikipedia started to wise up to the real experts.
I've moved the heading back where it belongs, and request mediation - what are the qualifications of those who are trying to assert their superior wisdom in this dispute? Excalibur
- This is an encyclopedia, and as such, we must begin with a plain definition of what the topic in question actually is. So I would say we need to begin with at least 1 paragraph of basic medical definition, and also its discovery and origin of the name. After that, perhaps we can have a section on social aspects, and leave the very technical stuff on chromosomes to a section further down. We should also mention the pressure the medical establishment has (and still does) put upon potential parents finding their foetus has Down's. Does all this sound reasonable to you? (BTW, you can sign your user name after comments with three tildes). We also need a page on the social model of disability -- I wrote a little about it on the page disability, but I think we needed a deddicated article too -- perhaps you'd like to help? -- Tarquin 08:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Tarquin, seems a fair enough compromise. The social model of disability is a pretty tough topic, and I'll give it some thought. In the meantime, I have written a short piece on institutionalisation just to get my hand in, and I'd welcome anyone having an edit - I'm new at this game, having never written an encyclopaedia entry B4, but I'm learning fast. Excalibur
- Your experiences are what's known as anecdotal evidence. Disputing information not on the basis of its factuality, but rather on the "qualifications" of those persons presenting it is what's known as an ad hominem and an appeal to authority. Subjective emotionalism has no place in what's supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia. As such, as a person with a disabled child, you'd probably be better off restricting your editing to Discussion comments, leaving the actual article for editing by those without strong personal bias on related subjects.
I totally agree with Excalibur. I have a little brother who had down syndrome, and he is the greatest person I know! I can't believe that people would actually kill a little baby just because some snooty article made it sound bad. Actually, my little brother is very smart. He can count, read, sign fluently (even make up his own signs!), remind us of things that we didn't do, make connections from one thing to another with out being explained, and much more.
- Abortion is the termination of a human fetus that isn't fully developed. Infanticide is what you call it when you kill a "baby". There is quite a difference between the two terms, and concepts. Whatever your opinion on the morality of abortion, you must realize that there is a distinction between a fetus and a baby. Please keep your biased semantic games out of this NPOV encyclopedia.
I agree that articles in an encyclopedia should begin with a neutral, basic definition (of course, there should be no negative tone in it what so ever), a bit of the cromosone junk at the beginning (but most at the end), and then they should put in how good people with Down Syndrome are, and how they're not mind-deprived fools. After that, they should have how Down Syndrome can be treated (or, more of what is being done to help those learn) in short, they should tell people how it is wrong it is to kill people with D.S., and not killing them even has its rewards.
- This is (I truly hope) an excellent example of sarcasm.
While I don't myself disagree with it, the sentence "People with Down syndrome have the same human rights, emotions, dignity and value as any other human being" is POV.
Also, since emotions can be affected by neurological abnormalities (e.g., as in autism), I'd like to see that back up by medical (or at least anecdotal) sources. Human rights, of course, are a mater of much philosophic debate and legislation; perhaps we'd be better served by a survey of the human rights most societies accord to persons with Down's -- do most western democracies grant the franchise to persons with Down's?.
"Dignity" and "value", of course are entirely POV, and this part of the phrase belongs in an advocacy piece, not Wikipedia. orthogonal 13:18, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
- Apparently some people *want* this to become an advocacy piece, the justification being that "this is extremely serious".
___
Hi, I have just added a few informations on schooling for children with DS and on the statistical information available on abortions of children with DS. Most of it goes for Europe, so if you have any updates for the US, please add them. I was not sure about the extent of citing sources wikipedia requires, I can add relevant sources for everything I wrote. While I can see Excalibur's point as a mother, I have changed the lines on the social model a bit since the part on realization of personal potential - in my opinion - clouded the actual difficulties the disability still constitutes. I have been a teacher for children with Down Syndrome (and other mental disabilities) for seven years and I have tried to give a summary of the current social model / integration discussion. Although I am all against discrimination, the role theory and social model vs. medical model discussion really blurs the fact that the disability is not just something attributed to a child by society, but a condition that requires even more qualified schooling and more thoughtful parenting than the absence of DS. The over-emphasis of the social model has led to extreme integration projects (in Germany, at least) that proved not at all beneficial for the children with DS because they could not cope with the normal schools' curriculums and were rather chaperoned than befriended by the non-disabled children.
I generally agree with Orthogonal on "dignity" and "value" being POV, and I don't think human rights' claims usually belong in an encyclopedia. However, it hurts none, and one must be quite careful not to inadvertedly give a justification for eugenics by the way one gives the medical information. In some German hospitals we therefore have a special pedagogic service, providing parents of a disabled child with accurate information on disabilities and updating the sometimes astonishingly unscientific information provided by the medical professions.
Miriam_Stiehler 13:05 29.9.2004
Picture
I'm not saying the picture on the article is worng, I jsut think maybe it shoud be more front-on, as it were, showing the facial differences of a Down's person. Anyone else?
Selphie 12:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) **
- I'm inclined to agree that the picture doesn't illustrate very well the facial characteristics we expect to see. --bodnotbod 02:17, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Judith Scott
I'm currently working on the Judith Scott article, and trying to get it wiki-linked from appropriate pages. She is an enormously popular outsider artist with Down's syndrome, and I feel that as such it might be appropriate to somehow link her from this page, but I don't know how best to incorporate her. I didn't want to add a "famous people with Down's Syndrome" list when she was the only one I knew of, so I'm leaving it up to those of you who work on this page; if you can think of a good spot for her, it would be much appreciated! Thanks! --Philthecow 19:28, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
- perhaps mention it in the section on the prospects in adulthood for people with Down's? -- Tarquin 09:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Haircut
Why do so many people with Down syndrome have the same haircut? This article doesn't seem to address it. In Canada at least, a person with Down syndrome can be identified as easily by their bowl-style haircut as by their facial features and behaviour. silsor 04:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Children with Down’s Syndrome often have straight, soft hair. As children they may have an extra fold of skin over the back of the neck and as adults, short broad necks[1] (http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.asp?TopicID=166&AreaID=2030&LinkID=1633). I think the haircut is a matter of carer's choice (they may be too restless for more complicated haircuts); I know curly-haired Down children. JFW | T@lk 23:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
POV issues with this article
"They have the same dignity...value..." While I may agree all I will, this will never go beyond opinion. It is not good encyclopedic style, and until further notice, I remove it. Further, "The missing 1437 are not due to statistical negligence." While true, this is polemic style, and although I don't like to use words like "anti-abortionist agenda", this is very POV - thus, I rephrase it. Any other POV issues you find and decide\want to change, please list them here as well. It is a sensitive topic to many, and it's nice to see some justification for such edits. --TVPR 07:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) (PS: I take the liberty to archive the 3-year old parts of this talk page)
- If someone's going to edit Wikipedia, they should at least have the courtesy to familiarize themselves with NPOV. Anyone who considers something a 'sensitive topic' due to their own personal situation is probably not the best person to contribute, or provide unbiased revisions towards information concerning the particular topic of interest. Feelings are not facts.
