Talk:Down syndrome/Archive 5

message: Wanted to check life expectancy of people with Down's syndrome, but did not find anything in the article. I did, however, find this:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s510389.htm
This article states that life expectancy has risen from about 25 in the early 1980s to about 49 in the present. Would someone care to incorporate this into the article? I would do it myself, but just didn't dare touch a featured article! :-) SindreF 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually covered in the "Health" section—actually, a New Scientist citation of this exact article, if I'm not mistaken :) Fvasconcellos 01:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life Expectancy 

message: Ive noticed some extremely childish vandalism on the "classifications" on the right side, it says "DUHH A CHILDREN WHY DUH DOWN SYNDROM DUHHH *DROOL*." Please, lock this
I've reverted this page to undo vandilism, someone made the whole page read simply "george bush." Who ever did this needs to get a life.--Marvuglia 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody please fix and lock this because of vandalism 

message: how does the picture drill.jpg shows that the child is having Down syndrome? u making him look bad on the internet he can sue u165.21.155.13 12:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Racist? Are you kidding me. What a f*cking dumb@ss
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.17.120.168 (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Errr... Racist? How? He clearly has Down Syndrome, and it doesn't make him look bad. Plus, his parent was the one who uploaded the photo. Sarg 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither Down's Syndrome, nor the use of power tools, are a race, so the accusation of racism is completely nonsensical.  JDS2005 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  To me it likes the kid is holding the drill unsafely, regardless of down syndrome. His hand is too close to the chuck as is his face. His hair could get cautght, or a splinter could go into his eye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.231.43 (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Its not a drill, its an electric screwdriver...no splinters, sometimes i wonder why I bother!!!Excalibur 22:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would we want to show that mentally handicapped people can be artists?  No part of the article suggests that mentally handicapped people can't be artists.  JDS2005 03:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  u all are being racist 

message: The kid is using it to do some sort of woodworking task, obviously. ChristinaDunigan 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: Can someone knowledgeable about Down syndrome pls check this edit  vis-a-vis POV and original research?  Sandy (Talk) 16:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like some things have been formulated more positive, but the results still seems quite neutral to me.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely comfortable with the changes made there.  The changes seem to suggest that impairment is not the norm among people with Down's Syndrome, and mention of speech impairment is outright deleted without explanation. JDS2005 03:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with JDS - It seemed an overly optimistic version to me.  Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: There are some beautiful DS awareness products on the market that I think would be of great interest to folks interested in Down Syndrome. They're intended for use in education and awareness and to help new parents develop realistic expectations of their child, but where would they belong? I don't want to turn Wikipedia into an advertising site but these products are top notch, beautiful, and I'm saying that as somebody with no connection whatsoever to the companies that produce them.
DowniCreations makes breathtaking (albeit expensive!) baby dolls with the physical characteristics of a child with Down Syndrome, and Band of Angels makes beautiful calendars, note cards, keepsake books, and such.
It seems that it would be suitable to mention that organizations produce products to promote social acceptance, to enhance self-esteem of kids with Down Syndrome, and to educate new parents, but where does it fit?ChristinaDunigan 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a section such as you describe (Down syndrome#Sociological and cultural aspects), but I don't think the websites you mention would be appropriate additions. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DS awareness products 

message: I have read elsewhere that autism maybe common in people with Down Syndrome. I think this is important to mention. Most people have the stereotypical idea that people with Down Syndrome are affectionate and gregarious. This is not always that case and those in particular who are quite withdrawn and behaviourally ridged may be entitled to an autism diagnosis, providing them with tailored support and understanding. 
Diamonddavej 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism and Down Syndrome 

message: Hello, 
My name is Elizabeth Peek and im doing a Project on the effects of down syndrome. and to learn more about down syndrome you can email me at **Email removed to prevent spam** 
Thank You, 
Elizabeth Peek —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.63.191.174 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is down Syndrome  

message: In fact, it is heavily biased towards one point of view. This needs to be fixed; does anyone want to do it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.55.119 (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Ethical Issues" Paragraph is not NPOV

message: The article claims a specific treatment is alternative without saying WHO claims it. Citations please.
--88.104.27.247 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative treatment

message: Some people seem to believe that these things can be examined in a vacuum, and that it is merely a matter of style or something. This idea is most untrue! The way for naming diseases / syndromes goes like this: Parkinson's Disease, Addison's Disease, Cushing's Syndrome, Crohn's Disease, Graves' Disease, Hashimoto's Syndrome, and so forth.  Once again - examining the issue in a vacuum is not proper. There is a verbal system to these names in the English language. The person for whom the disease is named is almost always the first medical doctor to note the disease / syndrome and find it important enough to write and publish a description of it for the medical community.  Similar things are found in other areas, such as geography where there was once a place called Van Dieman's Land, named for the ocean navigator who discovered it.72.146.42.76 (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I Agree with moving it, because "Down Syndrome" is nonsensical

message: What does "concrete thinking" mean, as mentioned in this article? Is this a common phrase? Bl4h 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It refers to a limited ability to think abstractly. People who think concretely take most sentences literally and have trouble understanding analogies, metaphors, figures of speech, etc.  alteripse 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concrete (philosophy) redirects to Abstract object, i added a link--12.199.113.4 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: concrete thinking

message: This article is being vandalised on a daily basis. Can it be placed on limited editing privilages to prevent the constant reversion? I'm afraid I haven't a clue how to formally request this, but I think it needs doing. Anyone agree or disagree? Shinji nishizono 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Action to Prevent Vandalism 

message: I think this sentence should be re-written:
"Individuals with Down syndrome can have a lower than average cognitive ability"
This sounds like "usually, Down's Syndrome individuals have average cognitive ability". 
Unfortunately, individuals with down's syndrome usually have a lower cognitive ability. 
Can someone edit this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vollkorn (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mental retardation 

message: I moved the works cited out of this section and User:Cinik moved them back without any explaination. This is totally outside MOS. These works cited need to be formatted properly and not just stuck in with the text. --DanielCD 18:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: refs in "Genetic research"

message: Why are there so many pictures of children from the same Volta School for the Mentally Challenged in Gbi Kledjo, Volta Region, Ghana in this article? I think the article would benefit from showing pictures of children from a bit larger diversity of ethnicities. Really: One picture of an African child with Down syndrome is enough, especially when none of the images right now seem to serve no other point than to show what an African child with Down syndrome looks like. One such picture should be enough. Any additional pictures of the same kids just do not have any added value for the article. I'm going to remove all but one of them. --The Wild Falcon 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why all the pictures of African children? 

message: Seriously, there are adults with Down's Syndrome.  Why do all the pictures portray children? JDS2005 20:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the pictures all of children? 

message: Hi Gantuya eng.  I absolutely agree with your sentiments about 'mongolism'.  I discovered the persistence of this pejorative term nearly 40 years after WHO officially dropped reference (more so in leading medical texts!) and decided to make it known.  It appears others do not take seriously the heritage of fellow humans - if they consider us to be humans. Part 09:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this rationale. But it would be enough to mention the wrong term once, not repeating it so many times. Gantuya eng 09:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Down Syndrome]]

message: I would like to know why my recent addition of "Partners in Policymaking" (www.partnersinpolicymaking.com) was removed with no apparent explanation.  This is a free site for parents and adults with disabilities that teaches advocacy skills, how to obtain employment, community living, etc.  It is not an "advertisement" under Wikipedia rules.  Partners is funded by the U.S. government and the State of Minnesota. It is available at no charge to participants. Similar programs are found in 30 States and are funded abroad by at least four European countries.Edburke317 (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:LINKS for Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. The link you added does not meet the criteria listed in What should be linked or Links to be considered. This is an article about Down syndrome with international scope, and there are hundreds of organizations that would be equally deserving of a link here, if not more so. I see that at the same time you added the link to Down syndrome, you also added it to Autism, Mental retardation, Blindness, and Cerebral palsy; this verges on WP:LINKSPAM and is generally frowned on. I see you've asked the same question at Talk:Autism #External link so I'll respond there as well. Eubulides (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Please see Talk:Autism#External link for a near-clone of the above discussion, along with further followup. Eubulides (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of recent addition 

message: I've removed the following text, recently added by , due to a pretty obvious POV issue and copyright infringement of the source website. I'll leave it to other editors to discuss whether or not the actual study (free full text) should be added.
The risks of amniocentesis to the unborn child have long been known but now a new (2007) analysis by a British doctor has shown that using the tests in seek-and-destroy missions for Down's syndrome and other genetic abnormalities results in the deaths of hundreds of healthy babies every year in Britain.
Dr. Hylton Meire, the retired physician and author of texts on ultrasound, calculates that for every 50 children with Down's Syndrome successfully identified and killed by abortion, 160 non-affected babies are lost by miscarriage after the test. His paper, published in the Journal of the British Medical Ultrasound Society, mainly emphasizes that the non-invasive test, called the foetal 'nuchal thickness' measurement, is not as useful as is widely thought because of the high incidents of false positives it gives.<link redacted, available in diff>
—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...for every 50 children with Down's Syndrome successfully identified and killed by abortion" is not a neutral statement. Also came from a partisan source. Here's the link to the actual article, which is of course not POV at all :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of recent addition re amniocentesis 

message: I've semi-protected the page for a week, as it seems to be getting hit frequently by IP vandalism. It's being reverted quickly, but there's still quite a bit; the only productive edits in the past week or so were from registered users. If anyone thinks protection is unnecessary, please feel free to let me know or ask at WP:RFPP. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was semi protected in Sept 07, but it appears it is still constantly receiving vandalism.  I agree with Shinji nishizono that it needs to be protected.  I am going to request indefinite semi-protection as most are from unregistered users and the ips are varied and always new.  Quickmythril (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: I'm wondering about removing references to people with DS who are notable only by association - such as 
# Charles Waring Darwin son of Charles Darwin (retrospective speculation).[75]
What do editors think should the criteria be for inclusion in this list to avoid it getting too long? I would personally opt for notable people with DS who have achieved something in their own right (like Paula Sage ) rather than the children of famous people - of whom there must be hundreds of possible candidates, some of whom sadly died very young or achieved very little of note. Alternatively maybe there should be a separate list of the children of famous people? Excalibur (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only those people who have Down's Syndrome and are notable in their own right should be included.  If their only claim to notability is they are the child of someone who is famous, they are not notable.  There should not even be a separate list for those individuals who are notable in their own right.  Jons63 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual test of notability is the presence (or reasonable hope of) a Wikipedia article. Charles Waring Darwin has an article, but many currently in the list do not. I'd support the removal (to the talk page) of the redlinked names. An argument for removing CW Darwin is that it is a retrospective "diagnosis". There are good arguments for and against including such uncertain entries, so I'm neutral there. Colin°Talk 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with removing those people. The list is for people of note, not "people who have achieved something which someone or other is going to decide is apt". They are of note for various reasons, the main one being the inclusion in their families before that was so widely endorsed. In the case of Darwin, it is worth including the speculative diagnosis (assuming that there is a citable source for it) since there couldn't have been a proper diagnosis at that time, in order to highlight people with Down's syndrome presence through history. In the case of de Gaulle, she inspired her parents to create a hospital and brought out a different side of her father. Further, if you deem someone to not be noteworthy, the proper course would be to try to get their entry removed from Wikipedia, not just not mention them here. While they're on Wikipedia, they should be mentioned here. It's especially unclear why Isabella Pujols should be included if Anne de Gaulle shouldn't. Salopian (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable individuals with DS

message: Why isn't the tile of this article Down's syndrome? Is it only in the United States that it is called "Down syndrome"? If so, shouldn't we use the WHO's official title? Mrtea (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the first section on this talk page for one of the most recent discussions. --Onorem♠Dil 14:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I went through the archives but missed the first section on this page. Thanks, Mrtea (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The argument for Down syndrome is that apparently in the US "as a rule, medical geneticists use the nonpossessive form."  But Wikipedia has Parkinson's disease, Crohn's disease and Hodgkin's lymphoma.  It's stated on the talk pages that these aren't commonly referred to in the non-possessive, so WP should name them as written.  However isn't it obvious that the reason Down syndrome, Asperger Syndrome and Tourette Syndrome is becoming more accepted is that "syndrome" starts with an "s" so both forms sound the same?  This is why it will probably never be known as Crohn disease no matter what any medical authority recommends.  And people using short forms will probably always say Down's and Parkinson's.  It's in actuality because most people are sloppy spellers that Down syndrome has been accepted and is in common use in the US.  If most people had a written "ear" just as they have an ear for their language when spoken, Down syndrome would be as rare as Hodgkin lymphoma.  What is in essence a spelling "mistake" is not a good reason for WP to be inconsistent in the naming of medical eponyms.  193.91.181.142 (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your rationale for the spelling variants is as good as any presented (i.e. people make up a rule that fits their preferred spelling). And yes, those US folk are sloppy spellers -- always missing the 'u' from colour and the 'e' from encyclopaedia! Colin°Talk 08:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since no counter-argument has been presented in almost three months, I say it's time that someone went through and changed all mentions of Down to Down's, Asperger to Asperger's and Tourette to Tourette's. 193.91.181.142 (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title - Down's syndrome 

message: In the current text, near the beginning of the article, there is a reference to someone who supposedly suffers from Down (or Down's) Syndrome.  I won't write the full name for reasons I will explain, but the first name is "Matthew".  There is no further reference to them in the article or in the appendices.  I suspect that this inclusion is vandalism performed by someone who knows "Matthew" and is attempting puerile humor at Matthew's expense.  Any chance someone could either expand on this reference if it is a valid one, or delete it as it is pointless and potentially libelous?147.56.244.32 (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed, you are right it did not belong there at all.  Jons63 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some web searching and couldn't find anyone notable with Down syndrome with that name.  I agree it is a form of vandalism  Quickmythril (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "For example" 

message: I would like to suggest that you add mention of the Mongoloid Development Council which was started in 1960 by my mother, Kay McGee. It was the first organization in the country and probably the world to provide support to parents of children with mongolism. The name was later changed to National Association for Down Syndrome. My mother also started the National Down Syndrome Congress in 1973 with others. I have a history if you would like me to send it to you.
Thanks
Marty McGee  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.49.240 (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sociological or cultural aspects paragraph or history paragraph 

message: In the 'Incidence paragraph', the article quotes reference #15 as saying "At maternal age 20 to 24, the probability is 1/1490; at age 40 the probability is 1/60, and at age 49 the probability is 1/11."
The article abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6455611
clearly states that these numbers are for "all clinically significant abnormalities", and not just Down syndrome.
The graph to the right seems to say 0.8% or about 1/125 for age 40, instead of 1/60.
If someone can see the fulltext of the article, we could add the correct numbers.
-Nayrb
128.100.71.61 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overstated risk factors 

message: Does note #15 really support the datat about the age groups of mothers and incident of Downs births?
98.199.198.22 (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note #15 

message: 5/21/2008
I would like to see Carrie Bergeron and Sujeet Desai added to the list of notable individuals with Down Syndrome. Carrie Bergeron is a motivational speaker and Sujeet Desai is a musician who plays several instruments. They are married and have been interviewed by Oprah and ABC News (I believe it was 20/20). It is easy to find links.
I would add them myself but there's no "edit this page" tab showing up for the main page and I do not want to create an account.
Thank you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.76.235 (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to Notable Individuals with Down Syndrome 

message: In Russian (and possibly other languages) "Doun" (from Down's syndrome) is a common insult akin to 'idiot'. This isn't a particularly palatable observation, but it is indicative of the prejudice that people with DS suffer still in other countries. Is it worth a mention and where?   Malick78 (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign slang

message: The following paragraph in the Incidence section is false.
Current research (as of 2008) has shown that Down syndrome is due to a random event during the formation of sex cells or pregnancy. There has been no evidence that it is due to parental behavior or environmental factors.
There is a host of teratogens that interfere with spindle fibers and lead to nondisjunction.  This paragraph should be marked as requiring a citation -- something I cannot do since the article is protected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.99.122 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental effects on nondisjunction 

message: This section:
Ethical Issues
Due to the low incidence of Down syndrome, a vast majority of early screen positives are false.[23] Since false positives typically prompt an amniocentesis to confirm the result, and the amniocentesis carries a small risk of inducing miscarriage, there is a slight risk of miscarrying a healthy fetus. (The added miscarriage risk from an amniocentesis is traditionally quoted as 0.5%, but recent studies suggest that it may be considerably smaller (0.06%), not statistically different from zero.[24])
A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93% of pregnancies with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated.[25] Physicians and ethicists are concerned about the ethical ramifications of this.[26] Conservative commentator George Will called it "eugenics by abortion".[27] British peer Brian Rix stated that "alas, the birth of a child with Down's syndrome is still considered by many to be an utter tragedy" and that the "ghost of the biologist Sir Francis Galton, who founded the eugenics movement in 1885, still stalks the corridors of many a teaching hospital".[28] Doctor David Mortimer has argued in Ethics & Medicine that "Down's syndrome infants have long been disparaged by some doctors and government bean counters."[29] Some members of the disability rights movement "believe that public support for prenatal diagnosis and abortion based on disability contravenes the movement's basic philosophy and goals."[30]
A 1998 study of Finnish doctors found that "Only very few, pediatricians somewhat more often, thought that Down's syndrome is not a good enough reason for pregnancy termination, but more (15-21%) thought that current prenatal screenings in general are (partly) based on eugenic thinking."[31]
Includes nothing but people who think aborting fetuses at risk for this syndrome is ethically bad. Since clearly many people do not share this view, a rewrite for balance seems in order.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.115.183 (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But how? Obviously, the parents wouldn't want to birth a baby with Down's syndrome; I know I would never want to have a child with Down's syndrome, and personally, abortion in this case seems like an act of mercy. But how can that be added to the article? People rarely speak about their own abortions, and I don't think anyone is going to say "I aborted my baby and I'm proud of it!", and even if they did, that'd probably be an op-ed piece, which is unsuitable for Wikipedia. So, though the information is important, I think trying to find a source to counterbalance it in the way you describe it, and say that it's not "ethically bad", is nearly impossible. So, until you either explain something that could "balance" the section, make a more reasonable request, or find information yourself, I'm removing the tag (though feel free to re-add it if something changes). Kevin (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Bias? 

message: Hi
Just realised can't edit own, so would you please be able to edit the footnote 11 for International Mosaic Down Syndrome Association and change the website to http://www.imdsa.org instead of imdsa.com.  We have updated our website and address.  Many thanks
Lisa ~ IMDSA Secretary & Website Desgin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdsa (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to Footnote Number 11 Please 

message: The first sentence of "Ethical issues" currently reads
: Due to the low incidence of Down syndrome, a vast majority of early screen positives are false.
There is a footnote that gives an original research argument.  Really we shouldn't be using footnotes in this way.  If the argument is accepted as valid by reliable sources we should be sourcing it correctly from those sources.
The footnote currently reads:
: Assume the false positive rate is 2% (at the low end), the incidence of Down syndrome is 1/500 (on the high side) with 95% detection, and there is no ascertainment bias. Out of 100,000 screens, 200 will have Down syndrome, and the screen will detect 190 of them. From the 99,800 normal pregnancies, 1996 will be given a positive result. So, among the 2,186 positive test results, 91% will be false positives and 9% will be true positives.
I'm not an expert in the field, but my own objection to this is that the footnote assumes that the general population will be screened.  At least in my country, screening for Down Syndrome is not universal (not least because the intrusive methods of screening available would carry a risk of provoking the miscarriage of many healthy babies) but is concentrated on known risk groups which have several times the risk factor of the general population.  Moreover the decision to abort is left to the pregnant mother, which minimizes ethical issues.  So the argument as presented is misleading.  This problem needs to be addressed because in its current state the presentation of the ethical argument is not sound and the section's opening sentence contains original research. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence of "Ethical issues" and its supporting footnote

message: The section on ethics is politically biased. I added a template to that effect, but deletion of the section may be in order, Race2thefuture (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: politial bias

message: is it possible for the baby to eventually develop D.S. even if the prenatal test has been negative? what signs should one look out for after birth?
this sydrome is hard to reasearch  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.79.254 (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  prenatal test always effective ? 

message: "Approximately half of the offspring of someone with Down's syndrome also have the syndrome themselves.[42] There have been only three recorded instances of males with Down syndrome fathering children."
So wait - one and a half out of the three children of men with DS have it themselves? 
Also, source 42 is about testicular development of men with DS, not the likelihood of their offspring having the disorder.71.194.62.168 (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Down Syndrome parents 

message: This article claims that some children affected by Down's Syndrome don't walk until they are 4 years old. I understand that the generally accepted "normal" range for children learning to walk is between 12 months and 7.5 years. While most children affected by Down's Syndrome will walk before they are aged 4 I believe the article is misleading as there a still a considerable number that don't walk until they are older and this is still considered normal for Down's syndrome.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Affable ke (talk • contribs) 11:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walking 

message: The term mongoloid is no longer used in connection with Down's syndrome, as it is racist. This is not mentioned in the article, and should be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by இளவேனில் (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this issue is discussed in detail in the History section. Rachel Pearce (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongoloid - term offensive 

message: The Down Syndrome article mentions some of the currently available prenatal screening tests (e.g. Quad test) and provides data on the sensitivity and false-positive rates of these tests.  It would be informative to discuss other technologies that are in development and soon to be available that are considerably more accurate, for example Sequenom's SEQureDx test, a  blood test which analyzes fetal DNA in maternal blood and has so far shown >99% sensitivity with <1% false-positive rate.  The advent of such a test would simplify the screening paradigm and enable women to get a more accurate result will less risk of unnecessary invasive tests (which carry the risk of miscarriage).  Please see Prenatal diagnosis for more information on these technologies.  The SEQureDx test is expected to become available in June 2009 in most states in the USA, though a few states (CA, NY, and RI) have certification requirements which will delay launch there by 3-6 months.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne1ofmany (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 April 2009
:Sorry speculating on what a future test will or wont do, and how it might be incorporated into clionical practice is premature. There are no reliable 3rd party evualuations given (just company's weblink which is not independent) and so WP:MEDRS and WP:No original research apply. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but retrospectively notes what has been reported on in the real world after the event. David Ruben  Talk  02:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  emerging prenatal screening tests 

message: as mentioned in this article , it is 45,XX,t(14;21)
is it correct/ or should it be 46,XX,t(14;21)
source- page 47 of davidson's principles and practice of medicine-20th ed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.54.239 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  about robertsonian dislocation 

message: According to the article, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated the rate as one per 733 live births. The article also states that the abortion rate for Down Syndrome is around 92 percent. If my math is correct, this makes the rate of Down Syndrome in pregnancy as one per 59 pregnancies. This seems like a significant statistic and should in some way be noted in the article, since it shows how common it is for a fetus to have Trisomy 21. I did not edit the article yet, since I got these numbers from combining sources. In order to put something like this in here, it would be best to have a source that states prevalence in pregnancy, not just in live births. Does anyone have a source that states the incidence of Down Syndrome in pregnancies?--Minimidgy (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that you are falsely assuming that all cases of Down Syndrome are diagnosed during pregnancy.  That is simply not the case.  The abortion rate statistic is only meant to reflect the decisions made by parents who become aware of the syndrome while they are still legally allowed to terminate the child's life.  It would not surprise me if a large majority of parents either are not financially capable of affording such a diagnosis, do not live in areas where such medical advancements are readily available, or simply do not pursue such medical research (as in the case of parents who employ traditional birthing methods).  Given these very likely possibilities, there is not sufficient reason to consider the two statistics to be conflicting.  If both numbers are accurate, then it would indicate that approximately 20-25% of Down Syndrome cases are detected in the prenatal phase of the child's life, and that in 92% of that 20-25% of the total, the parents chose to terminate the child's life before birth.  Blendenzo (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, women under 35 are not normally offered screening, and many women over 35 opt out of it. Women who would not consider abortion under the circumstances would be unlikely to put themselves through prenatal screening, especially given the risk of miscarriage --Fionah (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidence of Down Syndrome in pregnancies, not live births 

message: Addition of this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frensis_Down.jpg to the article. Read description for more info--ISEETRUTH (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is it a picture of, and why does it improve the article?  --RobertG ♬ talk 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's someone I know who suffers from the Down Syndrome (with a slight variation, I think). I think it'll improve the article because it shows the difficulty that people with the syndrome have with showing expressions, for example, in this case, happiness.--ISEETRUTH (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But a smile seems to me to be a good way to show happiness, so how does it demonstrate "difficulty"?  Do others have a view?  --RobertG ♬ talk 21:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice photo, but does not appear to indicate the symptoms ascribed to it. Not effective here. JNW (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of image

message: Please remove the reference to "Retard syndrome" at the beginning of the article.  It is offensive and not an accurate description of Down's syndrome.  It is also not used elsewhere in the article, further illustrating that it doesn't belong. 
The first sentence could read:
Down syndrome (the most common term in US English) , Down's syndrome (standard in British English), technically known as trisomy 21 is a chromosomal disorder caused by the presence of all or part of an extra 21st chromosome.
It's still not a great sentence, but at least it's not offensive.
64.142.95.254 (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was just vandalism. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retard syndrome 

message: it seems to me more must be included about ending pregnentcies. Is the population going down now? If it is I don't think people know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.160.185 (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: missing section

message: This section seems imbalanced; it focuses on voices criticising the ethics of abortion without presenting the case of why selective abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome might be ethical. I know that Peter Singer and Ronald Green have written on this area, Singer from a utilitarian standpoint and Green arguing that parents have an obligation to avoid 'genetic harm' to offspring, e.g. Green RM: Parental autonomy and the obligation not to harm one's child genetically. J Law Med Ethics. 1997 Spring;25(1):5-15. Claire Rayner defended testing and abortion, saying "The hard facts are that it is costly in terms of human effort, compassion, energy, and finite resources such as money, to care for individuals with handicaps... People who are not yet parents should ask themselves if they have the right to inflict such burdens on others, however willing they are themselves to take their share of the burden in the beginning." Fences&Windows 02:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethical issues

message: Please fix this. And try and add some more global data to the article. Thanks.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 Refs in the lead. 

message: Robertsonian translocations, where a parent is a "balanced carrier" is by far the least common mode of  translocation Down Syndrome occurence. It is the rarest of the rare.  Most translocation cases are 'de novo' arrangements, happening spontaneously, and neither parent is a carrier.  Most cases occur during a non-disjunction error during first cell division, much as regular trisomy occurs during that cell division phase; mosaicism happens after first division.  There are also other chromosomes that can be involved in a translocation of the extra copy of #21, not just the #14 chromosome; that just happens to be the most common site for it to occur.   The genes on and near the telomere end of the involved translocation pairing are/can be also affected, and can affect expression or symptoms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.1.114 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robertsonian translocations NOT the only way translocations occur