Ricki Lewis

Mar 07, 2016 11:54 AM EST

Unfortunately, when reproductive politics override practical, reasoned, nuanced counseling advice given with the best of intentions, this sort of law results. Depending on wording, either end of the "Rights" spectrum could be favorably biased, with the real life consequences of hapless families and children forgotten. Guidance counselors in the 1960's were quite different from those today, but all have had ideas about individual rights, pursuit of happiness, balanced with societal interests,inevitably biasing the most earnest intentions. Genetics counseling presupposes awareness of percentage risks, trade-offs, and legal ethics, with the personal beliefs and mores of the family likely having final word in decisions. It is hard to see how clear-eyed assessments of financial hardship, lifelong care factors, emotional stresses on both family and children, etc. are unfair or unbalanced, while anecdotal accounts of unexpected survival, or success, or triumph are not exaggerating a positive outcome against the odds. The ideal counselor may never be unbiased, but should have as much information as possible representing all aspects of a case, in order to answer questions and calm the consciences of all deciding parties, so afterwards there is the least likelihood of second-guessing, doubt, recrimination.
There is a subtle agenda perhaps within, as if Down's syndrome advocates are fearing the loss of their focus group. The right to have a child is very different from a right to be born, some time in the future.

- Ela