Talk:Down syndrome/Archive 2

message: I found this page from the NPOV fix-me links, and it looks like you've made tremendous progress recently. I'd like to help finish off the last section marked NPOV, Down syndrome's sociology.
It seems like the two main thrusts of the section are:
*Aborting DS fetuses is very common -- and maybe this is because parent's aren't fully informed.
*Discussion of the challenges of living with DS, or raising children with DS, and the support available.
Some of the latter material is already covered in the Education section. I propose we cover the rest in a "Living with Down syndrome" section.  I'll take a stab at this tomorrow, if some one else doesn't beat me to it.
I'm not sure what to do with the abortion material. We could put it into its own section with a more specific title.  I know many of the editors worry about a mother expecting a Down syndrome baby getting too negative a view of DS and so aborting. Certainly legitimate. Do others feel this section on abortion statistics is integral in portraying DS fairly and keeping mothers from getting a biased opinion?  I'm tempted to say that an abortion section would be surprising in an encyclopedia, and that the interests would be better served by making sure the Education and Living with DS sections are fair, but I'm not sure.
Please comment! If there is no disagreement, tomorrow I'll go ahead and replace the Down syndrome's sociology section with a section on Living with Down syndrome.
--Herriot 15:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a go.  About 12 hours before your note, I changed the Down syndrome's sociology material and renamed it Down syndrome and society.  I replaced the abortion material with a link to disability, and took out the redundant material.  There are two parts to this -- how parents deal with their children who have Down syndrome and how society treats disability in general, and Down syndrome specifically.  Much of the individuals' response is covered in other sections.  Down syndrome & society looks at the rest. Ted 16:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you did looks fine (I started writing this last night before you edited). Sorry I should have checked back before I posted! Thanks for fixing it. Herriot 16:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finishing off the NPOV (Down syndrome's sociology)

message: 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)
thread_title: Judith Scott

message: It has been widely recognized in democratic countries that the housing of people with Down syndrome in psychiatric institutions and their exclusion from society is inept and ignores their abilities as well as their human rights.
I don't know much about these issues. This sentence, however, strikes me as suggesting some near unanimity over some vague ethical and medical points across the populations of a large number of countries. For instance, who recognizes such things? The general population? Human right activists? Physicians? Physicians expert in the care of Down syndrome patients? Politicians? Doesn't it rather reflect what the contributor thinks that people should be thinking?
On several occasions, I've witnessed ordinary people reacting badly towards the presence of people suffering from mental retardation in buses and other public places; this could suggest that this alleged consensus is not so wide.
Furthermore, I'm somewhat unhappy about the link between democracy and the topic at hand. As far as I know, in the first half of the 20th century, many US states (which we can safely assume to be rather democratic) had eugenics programs. So it seems that this tendency in democratic, well-developed countries is also rather recent, but that other opinions prevailed earlier.
Thus, in any case, I'd like:
* Clarification as to what is meant by "democratic countries" (probably: "advanced democracies nowadays", and I'm not even sure it applies to all of them).
* Clarification of what "widely" means, esp.: widely in the general population, or among certain classes of specialists?
* References to back such claims.
David.Monniaux 13:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's over the top, but there is a kernel of truth.  The general modern consensus in the UK, USA and probably many other countries, is that people with Down's, and similar conditions, should be integrated into society as far as possible - this contrasts with the policy of putting them into institutions which was the prevailing one until 20-30 years ago.  That's fairly uncontroversial amongst educators, healthcare professionals and politicians, whatever the attitude of the general public towards people with DS.  Inclusion into mainstream schools is a hot potato in the UK, but generally on the grounds that parents should be able to choose to send their child to a special school if they want to, there's no controversy about children with DS attending mainstream schools if they would benefit from it.  http://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/pdfs/Your%20Qs%20answered.pdf gives a summary of the UK history - in 1944 children with DS were considered "ineducable", in 1971 the right to education was recognised (and the emphasis shifted to community care rather than institutions), these days it is almost expected that children with DS will attend a mainstream school (some, in the Conservative party especially, would argue that this is not a good thing and they would often benefit more from a special school).  The sentence certainly needs rewording, but it isn't fundamentally wrong.  --  ajn</span> (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried a NPOV reformulation. What do you think about it? David.Monniaux 16:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better - I've tweaked it a bit.  The policy is not specific to people with Down's - it would be quite unusual for a deaf child to be sent to a "deaf school" these days, for example, but there are some deaf people who say a deaf child will be better off in a school where they can pick up "deaf culture".  Down's doesn't have a specific culture in the same way, but I know that many people feel special schools can be far more supportive and understanding than mainstream ones.  Many feel the opposite.  This should really go into a Wikipedia article on Inclusive education, though. --  ajn</span> (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. For the record, I happen to work quite close to a school for the mute and the deaf (originally founded by Charles-Michel de l'Épée), and have never heard about deaf children in "normal" schools in primary and secondary education. David.Monniaux 20:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vague sentence about consensus

message: Could someone with more expertise then I add a section on the differences between the various forms of the syndrome?  The article (version 10 AM central time 3 OCtober) states "Depending on the actual etiology, the degree of impairment may range from mild to severe." which agrees with my understanding of the issue.  But nothing further is stated.  
Is the precise relationship between the chromosomal abnormality and the impairment controversial?  Or is this information in another article?
:I added something new today on mosaic Down syndrome, which touches on this subject. I kept it short because it affects only a small percentage of those with DS. By the way, I am new to editing this page and fairly new to Wikipedia, so I feel especially open to correction. I cited my main source, by a pediatrician who specializes in DS and has a son with DS, but what he says seemed consistent with other sources. Paul Turner 16:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  subtypes 

message: If I go into a Muslim country brandishing the bible in one habd and a cross in the other and try and convert them, there is a certainty about my ensuing trial and human death sentence.  The culture is maintaining itself against my intrusion and my intrusion, even if unwanted, helps to solidify the culture's concept of right and wrong.
If I go into the same country with the POV oF NPOV, my presence does not cause a response - not as far as I am aware anyway.  Insidiously, like a cancer, the western philosophy erodes the culture's sense of good and evil by portraying NO MORALITY with the information it portrays to them.  So you lead people into, to use your example, homosexuality, because you talk of it as if it weren't a sin, even though it may carry the death sentence in the country whose people may be accessing Wiki.
NPOV portrays a very strong westernised philosophy of good and evil, whether you want it too or not.  When you tell me you don't believe in morality, you then go on to voice your own morality and you are fully aware, I believe, that you are doing so!
You need to move beyond this western philosophy of npov, and see it for what it is, just another philosophy that is clamouring to take power and erode the values held by other societies, cultures and, for that matter, most people of the western world itself I dare say.
Got to go, but am enjoying this.  Thank you.
--Donald 02:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really the place to get into this discussion.  I'll respond on your talk page.  jfg284 you were saying? 11:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Donald, you are way out of line.  First you claim that the concept of NPOV is "Western", which in itself is ridiculous.  Then you decide to smear Muslims: FYI there are tens of thousands of Christian missionaries in the Muslim world, and have been for centuries.  Lastly, you come here as a guest (as we all are) to Wikipedia and rather than engaging in constructive discussion, that is, debating the ethics of NPOV in an appropriate venue, you instead decide to attack and insult the contributors here.  There are alternate points of view on any given subject, agreed, however this is not the site on which to express them (e.g. IMHO, gov't everywhere should get out of health-care, education, welfare, and deciding who can and cannot be hired, as much as possible.  It is impossible to be genuinely good when the gov't steals everyone's resources and forces them to live amoral lives).  This is an article about a major disease, not about social advocacy.  Everyone here acknowledges the importance of that task of advocacy, this simply isn't an appropriate vehicle for it. 24.85.83.170 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: On my first read of this article it looks as if this disorder (and yes, it is a disorder) is simply a genetic difference in individuals, on par with hair colour. While I certainly agree that those who suffer from Down's Syndrome deserve the same rights accorded to those without, it is folly to put forth the viewpoint that this is not a medical condition. It is a chromosomal abnormality and a serious one at that. Ifnord 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As human trisomies go, Down syndrome is among the least serious (behind only trisomies of the sex chromosomes).  It is hard to improve things when language is simply reverted back.Ted 19:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV words 

message: I have added a stub for education.  My only direct experience with educating children with Down syndrome is through Montessori pre-school -- hardly typical.  I'm sure some of you have something to add.
Ted 16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: I've added a stub for a section on challenges for pregnant women, parents, and individuals with Down syndrome.
I know this is fairly dangerous to add this, but I'm convinced we can make a section that will be useful without violating NPOV.
I don't have personal experience here, so I'm leaving it up to others.  I'm sure we can do it without being preachy. Ted 18:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely to succeed, from looking at the POV material.  I would just focus on the genetic defect aspect.  The sociology section just alternates within a paragraph the two view points of serious vs non-serious. -MegaHasher 07:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenges

message: I was wondering if we could rename the section "Genetics" to "Causes" or something similar. The section basically covers the causes of Down's Syndrome anyway, so I thought it just might be easier for referencing purposes. zack 18:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, technically, not correct.  Whereas, for example, albinism is caused by a malfunctioning tryrosinase gene, Down syndrome is trisomy 21.  This can cause a variety of medical and cognitive problems.  I don't think that changing the heading helps in any way. Ted 20:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Sub-Category to "Casues" of Down's Syndrome 

message: [Moved some comments from the section previously entitled PHOTO and one unsigned comment (the first below) from the top of the talk page Dyfsunctional 02:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo used is, I believe, the child of the photographer. Articles benefit from having images, this one is no exception. It's a good shot and adds to the article. Ifnord 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that the "child" has facial hair.  Also, for all we know, this image could be of a non-Down syndrome person, uploaded as a joke at the subject's expense.  (Just to be clear, I'm not saying that it is a joke image, I'm saying that the possibility exists.)  We only have the uploader's word to go on.  Dyfsunctional 02:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm happy with it.  It is an image of the son of one of the earlier contributors.  It is a sweet picture. Ted 04:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs a better picture 

message: In just the past few years (between when my wife was pregnant with our four year old and now, when she's pregnant with our second child), a new screening teat, http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/pregnancy/prenatalhealth/118.html, the Nuchal Translucency or Nuchal Fold test, has become widely available. I don't have the expertise or the time to write this up, but essentially, the doctor first establishes a baseline risk based on the mother's age and other factors, along the lines of "You have a 1 in 207 chance of having a Down baby; a 1 in 428 chance of having a baby with Trisomy 18," and so on. A finger-prick blood test is then taken and an ultrasound is used to look at the size of the translucent area of the folds at the back of the fetus' neck. Fetuses (Feti?) with abnormalities tend to have a larger area, apparently. The results are used to re-estimate the chances of a fetal abnormality -- i.e., "based on the results of your Nuchal screen, your risk of Down syndrome is now 1 in 2,500." This lets prospective parents use these numbers to decide if they think they should get an amniocentisis or a CVS screen -- both of which dentify upwards of 99% of Down cases, but with some (small, but still existent) chance of causing a miscarriage. Those tests really ought to be included here, too. 
I almost wonder, based on my reading of the rest of this talk page, if the only two tests mentioned are mentioned specifically BECAUSE of their notorious inaccuracy, in a "don't bother getting the tests, just have your baby, as Down syndrome children are a joy..."
:There is no reason to assume devious intentions.
:To date, I have seen few data for the Nuchal Translucency (NT) test.  It has only recently been used in the US (where I am located), and is quite expensive.  From what I gather, when used with the Free Beta test, it gives very good accuracy.  For example, the inventor, Dr. Nicolaides, stated that he found 18% of all fetuses with a nuchal fold > 3mm had Down syndrome (which means 72% did not).  Using a Bayesian decision model, if the mother is 35 years old with a baseline risk of 1/270 and a >3mm ultrasound test will give a modified risk of 1/7.5 [].  That still means a chance of 6.5/7.5 of not having Down syndrome -- a 87% false positive rate!  The IPR is, of course, not anywhere near that high and would include a variety of conditions for the tests.
:I originally wrote the section on pre-natal screening, based on my knowledge of common screens in the United States.  If anyone wants to add this information, that would be great.  What I have found is that Free Beta + NT gives a "Screen Positive Rate" of about 2.4% (compared to IPR rate of 2.8% with Free Beta), and a detection rate of 90% (compared to 80%).  Now, it is more accurate.  It is currently the most accurate combination of tests available.  But it is hardly enough of a difference to impugn the motives of the contributors to this article.  If you can do better, then, please, do so. Ted 22:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add information about new screening test 

message: I have redone the Down syndrome's sociology section and renamed it Down syndrome and society.   In the past several months, the scope of this particular section has been reduced.  With these final changes, I have removed the POV tag.  You may wish to look at the history for the article to see where we started.  By all means, improve it, but it is no longer a violation of NPoV. Ted 03:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Down syndrome and society 

message: I found the following under "Sources," and thought that it was pretty obvious vandalism, so I went ahead and deleted it (plus it wasn't even linked to anything). "8: De'Leon Is The Best 4$ho get at me or get out." jf 23:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism