Current Events > Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sinroth posted...

Down syndrome is a chromosomal disorder, not a disease.

Of course you start off wrong. There is generally no difference between disorder and disease and often they are used interchangeably. I can see you just googled trisomy 21 definition and read the definition it gave you.

Now here is a source from actual professionals in the field. Read sentence two.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5125364/

Down syndrome (DS) is a birth defect with huge medical and social costs, caused by trisomy of whole or part of chromosome 21. It is the most prevalent genetic disease worldwide and the common genetic cause of intellectual disabilities appearing in about 1 in 400-1500 newborns.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22411251

Down syndrome (DS) or trisomy 21 is the genetic disease with highest prevalence displaying phenotypic features that both include neurologic deficiencies and a number of clinical outcomes.

Here's an article that uses disease and disorder interchangeably. Look at the title

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4464633/

"Down syndrome: an insight of the disease"

For the same reason that you like to be nitpick on topics that you don't fully understand I'm not even going to bother wasting my time with reading the rest of your posts. I think my last post made my point well enough you can just reread that if you want.

Hexagon posted...

Sinroth posted...

Down syndrome is a chromosomal disorder, not a disease.

Of course you start off wrong. There is generally no difference between disorder and disease and often they are used interchangeably. I can see you just googled trisomy 21 definition and read the definition it gave you.

Now here is a source from actual professionals in the field. Read sentence two.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5125364/

Down syndrome (DS) is a birth defect with huge medical and social costs, caused by trisomy of whole or part of chromosome 21. It is the most prevalent genetic disease worldwide and the common genetic cause of intellectual disabilities appearing in about 1 in 400-1500 newborns.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22411251

Down syndrome (DS) or trisomy 21 is the genetic disease with highest prevalence displaying phenotypic features that both include neurologic deficiencies and a number of clinical outcomes.

Here's an article that uses disease and disorder interchangeably. Look at the title

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4464633/

"Down syndrome: an insight of the disease"

There is no universal medical definition of the terms "disease" and "disorder". Often they are used interchangeably, but some make a clear distinction between diseases having explicit, extrinsic causes (disease vectors). We aren't making medical diagnoses, but moral and social arguments, so these connotations are in play. A moral argument made on the basis of down syndrome being a disease akin to cancer is unsound; we must be clear about the terms involved, and how they apply to the scenario.

For the same reason that you like to be nitpick on topics that you don't fully understand I'm not even going to bother wasting my time with reading the rest of your posts. I think my last post made my point well enough you can just reread that if you want.

I've highlighted why your last post contained several flawed arguments, but if you don't want to respond then no worries.
---

Sinroth posted...

but some make a clear distinction between diseases having explicit, extrinsic causes (disease vectors).

Sinroth posted...

moral and social arguments,

How moral of you to not produce a single source. That's because it's not true or it's a very, very old source before the discovery of the molecular origin of disease.

Yes to the answer OP. Any parent worth a damn would agree the kids life will be hell.
---

Hexagon posted...

Sinroth posted...

but some make a clear distinction between diseases having explicit, extrinsic causes (disease vectors).

Sinroth posted...

moral and social arguments,

How moral of you to not produce a single source. That's because it's not true or it's a very, very old source before the discovery of the molecular origin of disease.

A source for what? That people use disease and disorder to mean slightly different kinds of abnormalities? That one definition is to be preferred over another is a linguistic argument, not a scientific one. If you google "difference between disorder and disease" you'll find all sorts of examples. Here's one link I skimmed which seems to affirm that there is (at least to layfolk) a difference:

https://www.healthwriterhub.com/disease-disorder-condition-syndrome-whats-the-difference/

After a quick search and scan:

Miller-Keane dictionary defines disease as a "pathological process with a characteristic set of signs and symptoms" and disorder as an "abnormality of function".

Farlex has several definitions for disease basically covering every use without a single precise definition, but has a disease has characteristics like "recognised etiological agents" (i.e. extrinsic causes), "identifiable signs and symptoms" (so vague as to not really be helpful), "consistent anatomic alterations" (has to change the ordinary function of the person). Another definition of disease is that it is a disorder, which it defines as "a disturbance of function, structure, or both, resulting from a genetic or embryonic failure" (i.e. an intrinsic defect, compared to something like, say, the flu).

These are only two medical dictionaries. I'm not going through all of them, but I hope you see these are hardly scientific terms. They basically affirm common sense and usage, and some of these definitions are even circular if you click enough of them (disease is recognised by etiological agents <--> etiological agents are those which cause disease). Not all medical organisations agree on the distinction, but we should use the more precise language because it is often relevant in practice.

The point of all this is not to dilly-dally, but rather to highlight a weakness in your thinking. If you cast your definition of disease wide enough, then sure, down syndrome and cancer are diseases. And we try to cure and prevent diseases like cancer, so why not down syndrome? Cancers, flus, etc. have extrinsic causes and interrupt usual functioning, while being down syndrome, autistic, etc. is intrinsic. People with terminal-stage cancer live excruciatingly painful, short lives, while those with down syndrome do not. Such wide definitions sand off meaningful differences between different kinds of "diseases", which is why we should distinguish "disease" from disorder" to be more specific.

But again, you should respond to the real point, which is that having a particular disorder, or being part of a marginalised group, does not necessarily prevent you from having a happy, meaningful, fulfilling life. And down syndrome is such a disease where the afflicted can have good lives. So why is down syndrome a sufficient reason to abort what would otherwise have been carried to term and loved the same as any other person?
---

So you produce a statement that "some" people

make a clear distinction between diseases having explicit, extrinsic causes (disease vectors).

Then you reply back with:

Farlex has several definitions for disease basically covering every use without a single precise definition, but has a disease has characteristics like "recognised etiological agents" (i.e. extrinsic causes), "identifiable signs and symptoms" (so vague as to not really be helpful), "consistent anatomic alterations" (has to change the ordinary function of the person).

You know what another word for that is? It's wrong. Just say you were wrong.


Sinroth posted...

That one definition is to be preferred over another is a linguistic argument, not a scientific one.

So you search laughable websites like "healthwriterhub" and tell me there is no scientific definition. Here's a neat thought. Don't assert objective statements like suggesting an absolute difference between a disorder and a disease only to then come back and say "this shows that, really, it's all too muddy and no one is really correct."

Bulls****.


Sinroth posted...

But again, you should respond to the real point, which is that having a particular disorder, or being part of a marginalised group, does not necessarily prevent you from having a happy, meaningful, fulfilling life. And down syndrome is such a disease where the afflicted can have good lives. So why is down syndrome a sufficient reason to abort what would otherwise have been carried to term and loved the same as any other person?

I would respond, and I could have read your entire post, but the unfortunate circumstance for you is that you were wrong at the start of your post and over something factual nonetheless. This is a very big deal, because you're trying to make a convincing argument over things that are either in the future or hypothetical. But now you've set a precedent. Why on earth would I believe you about any moral or social argument? Either you're wrong so there's reason to believe nothing you say is right, or you're intellectually dishonest and can't even own up to being wrong. In that case why would I further waste my time with you?

The definition of disease is not some scientifically-established piece of knowledge like evolution or gravity or germs theory or whatever. You can grok that immediately by just looking at the definitions I gave you.

In addition, these definitions acknowledge a difference in usage between disease and disorder, with the term disorder often being used of an intrinsically or genetically caused "ailment", vs. a disease being used of an extrinsically caused "ailment". We should respect that the two words have different connotations, lest we run into absurd comparisons between down syndrome and cancer.

I mean, they're different words. Of course they have different usages.

So you search laughable websites like "healthwriterhub" and tell me there is no scientific definition.

You wanted a source where people weren't using disease and disorder interchangeably and I gave you the first thing that came up on google.

Here's a neat thought. Don't assert objective statements like suggesting an absolute difference between a disorder and a disease only to then come back and say "this shows that, really, it's all too muddy and no one is really correct."

I said there was a linguistic difference between the two:

Sinroth posted...

That one definition is to be preferred over another is a linguistic argument, not a scientific one.

So we should respect the different meanings, uses, and connotations of the two words when they are employed for our moral arguments. In using a single word for every condition we ignore morally relevant differences between, say, down syndrome and cancer (disorder and disease; genetic disease and etiological disease; call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter).

I would respond, and I could have read your entire post,but the unfortunate circumstance for you is that you were wrong at the start of your post and over something factual nonetheless. This is a very big deal, because you're trying to make a convincing argument over things that are either in the future or hypothetical. But now you've set a precedent. Why on earth would I believe you about any moral or social argument? Either you're wrong so there's reason to believe nothing you say is right, or you're intellectually dishonest and can't even own up to being wrong. In that case why would I further waste my time with you?

My distinction between disease and disorder is a counterpoint to your argument that down syndrome is, like cancer, a disease which is always to be cured and prevented. Such a broad use of the word disease paints all ailments, be they intrinsic or extrinsic, lethal or benign, with the same strokes, ignoring the meaningful and morally relevant differences between them, as exist between down syndrome and cancer.

Future people having moral considerations is a separate point.

Aborting a foetus because it has down syndrome when it otherwise would have been loved and carried to term being discrimination is a separate point.

I'm sure there are other points hidden in there somewhere. These are all stand-alone, back-and-forth arguments between us, with really no intersection. I would be grateful if you actually responded to any of the numerous points I've made, instead of objecting to the different ways in which people use "disease" and "disorder" and having a cry that I'm being intellectually dishonest (lol).
---

The definition of disease is not some scientifically-established piece of knowledge like evolution or gravity or germs theory or whatever.

This has nothing to do with anything.

In addition, these definitions acknowledge a difference in usage between disease and disorder, with the term disorder often being used of an intrinsically or genetically caused "ailment", vs. a disease being used of an extrinsically caused "ailment".

Nothing you posted has showed this. Nothing you posted says "disorder is used of an intrinsically or genetically caused ailment". Nothing you posted shows that "disease is used of an extrinsically caused ailment". Read a medical dictionary, or any reputable source of knowledge relating to science and health like a textbook.

The definitions you posted DID show that etiological agents are a definition of a disease, but that doesn't in any way mean the converse is true. You expect people to listen to your "arguments", but you're showing you can't understand basic logic. Every heard the phrase all trout are fish, but not all fish are trout?

Nothing you posted says that all diseases are of etiological agents. First you were wrong, but you just keep digging a hole deeper and deeper.

This has nothing to do with anything.

It means that "disease" does not have an objective or universal definition, and how we use it depends on context, which medical association we belong to, and so on. In many contexts, there is a distinction in the usages of "disease" and "disorder" which should be recognised in any moral argument making use of these terms.

Nothing you posted has showed this. Nothing you posted says "disorder is used of an intrinsically or genetically caused ailment". Nothing you posted shows that "disease is used of an extrinsically caused ailment". Read a medical dictionary, or any reputable source of knowledge relating to science and health like a textbook.

I have already quoted the Farlex medical dictionary which, among other more general ways of using the word "disease", affirms that "disease" connotes an ailment which is extrinsically or etiologically caused.

The definitions you posted DID show that etiological agents are a definition of a disease, but that doesn't in any way mean the converse is true. You expect people to listen to your "arguments", but you're showing you can't understand basic logic. Every heard the phrase all trout are fish, but not all fish are trout?

First of all, I don't think what you've said is quite true in the strictest sense. Definitions are equational. But I think I understand what you're getting at. If you assent to the more general usage of "disease", then what you've said is fine and we're not in disagreement: disorders are diseases, but diseases aren't necessarily disorders. If you assent to the more specific definition of "disease" --- that of an extrinsically-caused ailment --- then by using the word "disease" you are connoting that the ailment has some extrinsic cause.

You compared cancer and down syndrome, suggesting the two are diseases and should therefore be prevented and cured where possible. This argument somewhat depends on a rhetoric trick: using the widest possible definition of "disease" to hint at a similarity between the two, while ignoring real differences in cause and severity. All I have said is that we should affirm a distinction between diseases and disorders (extrinsic and intrinsic) as this is relevant to our moral argument.

Nothing you posted says that all diseases are of etiological agents. First you were wrong, but you just keep digging a hole deeper and deeper.

I didn't say that "disease" can't be used as a catch-all, or that it can only refer to ailments with extrinsic causes. I am merely acknowledging differences in usage and meanings of the two words, in that "disorder" connotes an intrinsically-caused or genetically-caused ailment (as in down syndrome), and by juxtaposition that "disease" connotes an extrinsically-caused ailment. This is an important distinction in our moral argument, because down syndrome is an intrinsic ailment (a genetic disease, a disorder, whatever you want to call it) and cancer is an extrinsic ailment.
---

It means that "disease" does not have an objective or universal definition, and how we use it depends on context, which medical association we belong to, and so on. In many contexts, there is a distinction in the usages of "disease" and "disorder" which should be recognised in any moral argument making use of these terms.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/disease?s=t


disease
[dih-zeez]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.
2.
any abnormal condition in a plant that interferes with its vital physiological processes, caused by pathogenic microorganisms, parasites, unfavorable environmental, genetic, or nutritional factors, etc.
3.
any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society:
His fascination with executions is a disease.
4.
decomposition of a material under special circumstances:
tin disease.

Sounds objective AF to me. Keep being wrong. Please, by all means.

You've just listed four different definitions of "disease", so it's hardly a word with an objective, universal definition (as in, the same single definition used everywhere by everyone). It's fair game to talk about which is the most relevant or useful to our discussion. One of these definitions is even the exact, more precise, "extrinsically-caused ailment" usage of the word that I'm talking about.
---

most countries and societies treat people with (severe) disabilities so terribly, is choosing to not bring a child through abortion really all that morally unfit?
---

coolboy11 posted...

most countries and societies treat people with (severe) disabilities so terribly, is choosing to not bring a child through abortion really all that morally unfit?

Wouldn't you say that aborting a foetus because it has down syndrome is reinforcing that poor treatment? A better solution seems to be to invest the time and resources into providing for and supporting such people, as individuals and communities, rather than aborting them because they're a perceived economic net inconvenience.
---

that article is whiny af

Sinroth posted...

You've just listed four different definitions of "disease", so it's hardly a word with an objective, universal definition (as in, the same single definition used everywhere by everyone). It's fair game to talk about which is the most relevant or useful to our discussion. One of these definitions is even the exact, more precise, "extrinsically-caused ailment" usage of the word that I'm talking about.

The second is specific to plants, the third is figurative, the forth is specific to materials. Not only that, but neither of those definitions preclude trisomy 21 as a disease. Are you going to plead ignorance now?

Are you arguing that Downs isn't a disease of the brain? Because using the classical definition of disease I think it is.

So far as a disorder is concerned and this off in the weeds argument you two have over it, I've really only head it applied two ways medically: genetic disorder and mental disorder, where the former is genes splitting and developing wrong, and the latter is the mind developing/acting wrong. I haven't heard it actually used medically to describe things like cancer, but I don't see why the terms couldn't be used interchangeably. It would just be strange to hear someone speak like that.
---

Hexagon posted...

The second is specific to plants, the third is figurative, the forth is specific to materials. Not only that, but neither of those definitions preclude trisomy 21 as a disease. Are you going to plead ignorance now?

I didn't see the "plant" in that second definition, but now that you seem to be agreeing there isn't a single, universal definition of "disease" for all circumstances, will you admit that a more precise distinction is sometimes drawn between "disease" and "disorder", as in the Farlex medical dictionary?

P4wn4g3 posted...

Are you arguing that Downs isn't a disease of the brain? Because using the classical definition of disease I think it is.

So far as a disorder is concerned and this off in the weeds argument you two have over it, I've really only head it applied two ways medically: genetic disorder and mental disorder, where the former is genes splitting and developing wrong, and the latter is the mind developing/acting wrong. I haven't heard it actually used medically to describe things like cancer, but I don't see why the terms couldn't be used interchangeably. It would just be strange to hear someone speak like that.

Originally, hexagon compared down syndrome to cancer (among other things). I argued there are important differences between the two. Down syndrome is intrinsic and genetic; you're born with it. Cancer is something you develop over your life, and has extrinsic causes (smoking, infections, etc.). People with down syndrome, despite having a harder time, are perfectly capable of living happy and meaningful lives. People with cancer live short lives in tremendous pain. These all seem like pretty important differences, and don't think the two should be equated so easily, so I challenged the comparison. hexagon has yet to respond to this point.

If you use "disease" in the most general sense, then cancer and down syndrome are both diseases. But we shouldn't be misled into thinking that because both are disease that we should prevent down syndrome at all costs, as we prevent cancer at all costs. There are real differences in cause and severity between the two. To stop ourselves sanding over these differences, we ought to use more precise language in our discussion, for example by distinguishing between "disease" (extrinsic, pathogenic etc. ailments) and "disorder" (intrinsic, genetic etc. ailments). I'm not really bothered by what terms are used, I just think the differences between cancer and down syndrome are significant and should be acknowledged.
---

Sinroth posted...

but now that you seem to be agreeing there isn't a single, universal definition of "disease" for all circumstances

I agree to no such thing. Is it not possible, in your mind, that a word can have an objective, precise disease within a context AND have multiple definitions for different contexts?