Researchers Dr. Brian Skotko, Frank Buckley, and Gert de Graaf, have updated their population estimates for lives with Down syndrome in Europe. They show that Europe is putting the “eu” into eugenics.
I’ve written previously about the excellent work Dr. Brian Skotko, Frank Buckley, and Gert de Graaf are performing in tracking population estimates for lives with Down syndrome based on the most current population reports from each country. They have most recently updated their estimates for Europe. The report is dismaying.
What they found is that absent prenatal genetic testing and selective abortions, the live birth rates of babies born with Down syndrome would be more than double what they actually are. This means there is a halving going on in Europe of each generation of babies that are born, i.e. 50% fewer babies are being born with Down syndrome in Europe because of selective abortions following prenatal test results. For every baby with Down syndrome you see in Europe, there is another that was terminated.
That is taking Europe as a whole. When broken down by individual countries, the news is largely worse, though there are a few examples for hope.
Above is a graph from the team’s lastest fact sheet. As you can see, almost every country in Europe has almost a 50% reduction rate. But, then there’s Ireland: only 8% of the expected live births of children with Down syndrome are selectively aborted. Similarly, on the same graph (available here), Ukraine has a 19% reduction rate, Republic of Moldova has an 8% reduction rate, and Malta has a 0% reduction rate.
Ireland is one of the most Catholic dominated countries in the world. And, Catholics are, by doctrine if not by individual practice, largely anti-abortion. Hence, only an 8% reduction rate in Ireland. However, this theory is countered when considering Italy and Spain, also Catholic-dominated countries, have reduction rates of 71% and 83%, respectively.
But, what accounts for the halving, or, in the case of countries like Denmark or France with their extremely high reduction rates?
Well, all of those countries have socialized public health systems where citizens are entitled to basic healthcare. These countries are often cited as being “better” as compared to the American health system, which has a mélange of public health at the most basic level, but largely a privatized health care insurance system. What effect does it have on a society if every taxpayer has to afford the health care of every other resident of that country?
Those with health care needs are seen as burdens on the health care system. And, being rational beings, those who are engaged in the public policy seek to minimize the “burdens” on the public health care system.
Mind you, this is not Mark Leach’s view of socialized medicine. There are explicit studies reported out publicly, as well as news reports, extolling the need to reduce the lives of those born with Down syndrome because they are costs to the public health care system–costs that can be “avoided” through publicly subsidized prenatal genetic testing and abortion.
And, so, that’s exactly what happens: a system developed out of a sense that health care is a basic human right results in a cost-benefit analysis that causes some lives to be deemed too costly to enjoy that basic human right.
It’s modern day eugenics. Being practiced in the continent where the phrase “Never Again” originated to stave off any future elimination of a class of people bigotedly labeled burdens on society.
“Never again”? Ha. It’s a matter of public policy in Europe.
Recent Comments