For the record

A September 11 post on this blog based on a September 9 story in the Globe and Mail in Toronto mischaracterized executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Ottawa Dr. Andre Lalonde's sentiments as expressed in the Globe and Mail story. The headline for the post read "Canadian doctor warns Sarah Palin's decision to have Down baby could reduce abortions." And the second paragraph said, "But a senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a Down syndrome pregnancy may prompt other women to make the same decision against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions".  Doctor Lalonde's point of view should not have been portrayed as a concern that the number of abortions would decline but rather, as expressed in the Globe and Mail, that women would be influenced by Gov. Palin's decision to keep Down syndrome children that they were neither emotionally nor financially prepared to care for. Here's a link to the article on which the post, since removed was based.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080909.wxldown09/BNStory/International/

Comments

[John Quimby]

Thank you for posting this correction.

[mark]

More on the candidates and children with special needs at http://www.specialneeds08.blogspot.com

[Joseph Walker]

As Dr. Lalonde is quoted in the Globe and Mail, he is concerned about the level of "emotional and financial support" available to parents of children living with Down Syndrome.

If his concern is truly about "level of support" for parents of children who live with DS, I expect him to be equally vocal in lending his support to the advocacy activities of his local Down Syndrome Society. I would expect him to contact the Ottawa branch, in order to follow through on his concern. He has, to my knowledge, failed to be vocal about that support, both in this piece and when he was interviewed by the National Post (Toronto: Jan 6, 2007). This is now twice that Dr. Lalonde's statements to the Canadian press have been deemed noteworthy in Canadian disability circles. To some within the Down Syndrome community, it appears that Dr Lalonde might have a knack for presenting only negative aspects of life with Down Syndrome to our national press.

He has opportunity to show otherwise.

Joseph Walker
Member, Canadian Down Syndrome Society.

[ambero]

"Doctor Lalonde's point of view should not have been portrayed as a concern that the number of abortions would decline but rather, as expressed in the Globe and Mail, that women would be influenced by Gov. Palin's decision to keep Down syndrome children that they were neither emotionally nor financially prepared to care for. "

Exactly how is that different from a concern? Dr. Lalonde is disgusting. Apparently the Hippocratic Oath applies only to people without disabilities.

Have you ever met the parent of a Down Syndrome child who regrets having him or her?

[JS]

Oh, I get it. The good doctors concern isn't about a reduction in abortions per se, simply in a reduction in the abortions of DS babies. I wonder how he feels about babies born blind or dumb or mute or a combination thereof or with other physical or mental challenges. All of these children would also have special financial and emotional needs. I don't want to put words in the Dr's mouth but I've a feeling he may agree with the feelings expressed by a blogger yesterday when responding to the previous article regarding Sarah Palin's decision to give birth to her DS baby.

"what would be better...never to be born or to live a life like that, no one will be able to answer that"

Here's my comment. Live a life like what? Imperfect? Challenging? Even those we would define as being born "normal" many times have had to endure extreme hardships...that's life. Since no one knows what life has in store for them, whether born healthy or advantaged or challenged, shouldn't we err on the side of life and opportunity? Just look around the world at the suffering...starvation, disease, crime, war and various other inhumanities and injustices. Because a person is born into a tough challenging situation or is just thrown a curve ball by life, does that mean they're not worth loving and caring for? Does that some how make them "less worthy or sub" human beings? Hmmm...that has a familiar historical ring to it. Given the opportunity many of these men, women and children could end up affecting others lives and our society in a positive, meaningful way. Or is it just easier if they don't exist? How convenient, if that were the case then we as individuals and as a society would be free of any responsiblity except to ourselves. "no one will be able to answer that"...your right. None of us can presume to know all that life has in store for us whether good or bad. But if we accept your premise wouldn't half the population of the world be better off dead?

[Tragic Christian]

Mea culpa, LA Times. Dr. Lalonde is bad enough, but it was you guys who chose the headline and emphasis to the story. Your editorial slant is quite plain, and I think we only receive this correction because something bit you . But it's refreshing to know how the ZelLATimes stands on DS children.