potential of those with disabilities through its hosting of the Paralympic Games. However, its own laws vehemently and shockingly discriminate against any new life in the womb that might possibly be affected by a physical handicap, genetic problems or a mental defect." In a recent blog post Madeleine Teahan, like James Parker, called in question the hypocrisy of a country which has fallen over itself to highlight the splendid efforts of the competitors this last fortnight, yet at the same time is publicly silent about its laws that allow abortion up to birth for babies with defects. She concluded: "Before we, the benevolent Paralympic hosts, congratulate ourselves on being the midwives of diversity, let's pause ... to ponder if support for our Paralympians rings hollow." I found striking evidence of this Janus-faced "benevolence" in an article in the Telegraph earlier this week. The headline: "Test that could end Down's syndrome" and the subtitle: "Blood check is 99 per cent accurate, could save 300 babies a year and should be available on NHS within five years". My instant (naive) response was to think that a breakthrough had been made in ending this chromosomal disorder. What else could the headline possibly mean? Then I read the small print. I was completely mistaken. Indeed, I had to read the small print a few times to grasp its full implications. What the report by Stephen Adams, the Telegraph medical correspondent, did not say was that a new blood test for pregnant women, which would