Talk:Down syndrome/Archive 2

Finishing off the NPOV (Down syndrome's sociology)
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

I find the term "Advocates for people with Down syndrome" strange. When I read "Advocate for..." I think of someone who promotes something, and I doubt anyone would be promoting Down's Syndrome. Wouldn't "Advocates for people with Down Syndrome's rights" or something along those lines (it's a little long this way) be better? 62.251.111.252 14:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Reorganization
TedE - What is you back ground as DS definition police?
 * I have no background as a definition police. I haven't had time to create a user page, maybe after exams next week.  As a thumbnail sketch, I teach at a Research I University in the US.  I'm currently teaching a senior-level genetics course for majors.
 * Welcome to the Discussion page. I would really like to cut down on going back and forth between cdss' redefinition of DS and a more clinical definition.  Is there any room for give and take?Ted 22:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How, as a man would you define woman? Would you only focus on the fact that they are abnormality doe to a "y" chromosome? Or is there more to it than just telling your reader that a single chromosome is different? Down syndrome it self does not need to be treated.... Hypothyroid issue yes treat that... When you define women do you state that they have a significantley greater chance of breast cancer???? A true definition is about so much more than a "clinical" statment of karyotypes.


 * This is where we may differ. 46,XX in humans is not abnormal.  Neither is 46,XY.  Did you even read the part about targeting treatment before you deleted it?  Actually, when I discuss male/female development and differences in class, I do mention that females have a significantly greater chance of breast cancer.  I also mention the increased maternal risk for nondisjunction as well as the increased paternal risk for point mutations.  Do you recommend mammograms to your male colleagues?  Or, do you use the knowledge that due to his sex, a male has a much smaller risk for breast cancer.  Or, that females have a much greater risk, due to their sex.


 * 'A true definition is about so much more than a "clinical" statement of karyotypes.' [emphasis mine] I couldn't agree more.  However, it starts with karyotype.  It is foolish and irresponsible for a parent not to consider the possible medical consequences of her/his child being touched by DS.  This is really no different from my making wellness decisions based on my own genetic history.


 * Look at some of my comments in the rest of the discussion page. I have encouraged other contributors to add material that would help to support parents and other relatives.  A simple cut-and-paste of a cdss position statement on redefinition of DS is counterproductive.Ted 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at this outline and give some feedback.Ted 20:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization is done

Neutrality of the article
Speaking as an economist with a lot of bio background, I must say this article is very biased. The "Down syndrome's sociology" section is incredibly biased in favor of the "pro-Downs" camp, with no mention at all of the negative social and economist cost that Down's syndrome imposes on the rest of the population, an example of which is the added cost to taxpayers to support all those special programs.


 * Interesting. Do you think the article on the Holocaust should discuss the pro-side of exterminating Jews?


 * As a Jew who has a mongloid as an immediate relative, I must say, sorry, but this section stinks of advocacy towards the 'cause'. A very noble idea, but please not in here. Please, whoever feels up to it, shorten this section and represent the other POV as well. Cockneyite 05:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A "mongoloid"? Do you also use the word "nigger" in everday conversation?

Especially noticeable is the last paragraph (which I removed due to its glaring inappropriateness), which concludes with "They really are a true joy." Not only is this a meaningless sentence, especially in a world-class encyclopedia, it is also incredibly subjective and presents only one point of view. A substantial part of the rest of the section is similarly biased, so I added it to the disputed neutrality list. Hopefully others with a more balanced view notice this as well and help revise the article.

An accurate, factual article should cover both sides of a discussion, not solely harp on about one group's subjective views. I believe this article does not meet those standards.


 * I think much of the first section is rather biased as well. "Down syndrome is a naturally occurring chromosomal arrangement that has always been a part of the human condition," is speculation, and should be presented as such. "Down syndrome is not a disease, disorder, defect or medical condition," is a bit of unnecessary semantics, and false at that (it's in the ICD, isn't it?). "Down syndrome itself does not require either treatment or prevention," is another statement that people could disagree with. Perhaps the NPOV-dispute warning should be moved to the top of the article? jaime 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The part you mention is a recent addition and is quoted word-for-word from the Canadian Down Syndrome Society position paper on redefining Down Syndrome. It will not last very long. Ted 01:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say that I find this point of view (though not you personally) disgusting. The fact that someone would be in an "anti-Down" camp just because it raises his or her taxes is atrocious. This being said, yes, I suppose that the article doesn't both sides of the story. I would like very much if the above opinion didn't exist. However, sadly, it does, and it's not my place to blind the world to it just because I have a strong feeling about it. Webster100 00:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Webster, but it should be in there, because it's not a very uncommon opinion. jaime 09:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: First of all, I am rather new in the Wikipedia community and I am the older sister of a girl who has Down Syndrome and I have very strong opinions on certain topics presented in this article, so I don't think I should contribute to the actual article in case I write something slanted. However, I just wanted to ask this question here. If a mother who has just found out that the child that they are carrying has DS and they come to read this article and find out about all the solid scientific facts about children with Down Syndrome (such as statments that they might have varying degrees of mental retardation, may be prone to certain diseases, will likely need special education, extra attention and care, etc.)what are they going to think? To be honest, if I did not have a sister with DS, simply reading the bare facts and characteristics of DS children and adults would greatly discourage me despite all the support groups that are availible. I do respect the opinions and facts that the "Anti-DS" people present. Yes, it does take extra money to raise a child with DS, but this extra money should be be presented in a negative light. Some people may be willing to spend extra money to support a child with DS. I agree that perhaps a statement such as "They are truly a joy" should not be in this article, but I'm just saying that if the facts stand alone, they might not present an accurate picture of DS because it would tend to draw unknowing readers to support the anti-Down camp. This is just my personal opinion on this matter, and again I don't mean to offend anyone, and I will not contribute to this article for fear of presenting biased information.Midnightmoonradiance 17:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Midnightmoonradiance, while you are probably right about editing the main section of Down Syndrome, your experience can be put to good use. Consider creating a new section on "Support for Families" (with a better title, of course). It could be an invaluable section for new parents.Ted 16:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I am really disappointed with the lack of neutrality in this article. Is there a way to allow someone with more neutrality to completely revise the article? A glaring issue I find is in the first section titled 'Overview'. The second sentence says, "Down syndrome is not a disease, disorder, defect or medical condition." Then farther down in the section titled 'Medical research' the second sentence reads, "Down Syndrome is a term used to encompass a number of genetic disorders of which trisomy 21 is the most frequent (95% of cases)." Even at the top of the article the ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes are linked to. Down Syndrome is a genetic malformation and it does cause many physical problems the most serious being a greatly lowered life expectancy. If there are no objections I would like to remove the second sentence under 'Overview' and edit some other sentences. Please try to put your personal feelings aside when viewing this issue.

Personally I find it a little gross that someone would try so hard to present Down Syndrome as something normal or as something that women should not even consider greatly when getting pregnancy testing done. I work for the Arizona Department of Disabilities and I work with adults that have a range of issues including many with Down Syndrome. Having a child with Down Syndrome poses its own problems and it can be extremely difficult for a family with limited resources to provide for their child in every way they would like to. But the government has programs setup to assist families through funding from taxes. I am not going to argue whether this is right or not because at this time it simply is the way it is.

And to try to portray people with Down Syndrome as completely loving and simple creatures that we all wish we could learn from is dishonest. People with Down Syndrome are not completely selfless and perfect human beings. If you work with people with DS you will find cases of jealousy, normal desires including sexual, temper tantrums, refusal to do what is asked, and other feelings and emotions that are considered 'normal'. If you truly want to understand someone with Down Syndrome then first understand that they are human beings and not some archetype of the perfect loving human being or some angel sent from heaven. They are people and they deserve to be thought of as such.

Oxaric 09:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oxaric, the parts you mention in the Overview are a recent edition by 130.179.112.92. This is not the first time he has placed these types of remarks. I don't think he reads the discussion page. The remarks will eventually be removed, but simply deleting them can lead to revision wars. The material in the Sociology section does need a complete rewrite. Look at an older version of the page and see if you still find the Overview section objectionable.Ted 14:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the removel of some sentences from the Overview section. It looks good to me although I don't know about the rest of the article. School has started again so I can't offer much time but if you would like any opinions of mine feel free to e-mail me. Take care! Oxaric 01:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I will consider adding a section for family support and will try to be as neutral as possible. I agree with Oxaric. Although Down Syndrome children can have a sweet and loving nature, they are true human beings and do feel other less positive emotions such as anger, jealousy, depression, etc. However, these characteristics could be a "turn-off" for prospective parents who may fail to realize that having "normal" children would also display emotions of anger, jealousy, etc. But of course, the economic situation of the family should also be accounted for. And like Oxaric, I have (been having, actually)school so I can't offer much time either but I will try to contribute as much as I can! Midnightmoonradiance 05:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Phototropism 12:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I write this firstly as a compassionate human being, secondly as a father of a girl with Down's Syndrome and thirdly as a biologist with a broad knowledge in human genetics. To put it simply in plain English, some of the views expressed here deny the very human condition, if this is of any value, to those who promulgate such thoughts.

Without getting to much into the scientific jargon:

People with Down's Syndrome  do not suffer from the so - called syndrome itself. They may be prone to cardiovascular problems, ear infections etc but this may or may not be the case. What the very complex genetic repercussions of the trisomy, three copies of the chromosome 21 and the over expression of some of the it's genes  means on the individual vary very much from one to another.

To deny the access to shared economical resources on a 21st century modern society to a group of people due to their different karyotypic  make up  is alarmingly close to what Sir Francis Galton, father of the eugenics movement, and others  who came after him used to justify mass-murder and ethnical cleansing.

Neither genetics nor economics should  be used to deny universal access to housing, health or education. But then again that sounds so naif in the frame of our current market society, driven as it is by the stock market fallacy of growth and GDP. As it happens the pillars of such increasingly eroded system are   highly populated by a  certain type of karyotype that is the one of mainly privileged egotistic white males, not to be mistaken with  some of Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene Theory postulates!

Phototropism 12:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sounding like a prick, I'm going to throw in two cents. I'm not sure what the whole deal is with the lack of neutrality.  It's a well done article until we get to the sociology.  I'll use an appeal to authority, I have a degree in journalism, my wife in sociology, and one of my older brothers is Down.  And I've really got to agree with the initial opposition to the " Down Sociology" section.  I know I'm opening myself up to being labeled "Anti-down", and very 'cruel' for agreeing, even knowing my own brother is down.  Pardon the language, but that WHOLE section is BULLSHIT.  There is no mention of the other side, this is a scholarly endeavour, is it not?  There is an honest economic concerns, my brother has been collecting Social Security since he was a teenager, and he has to live with family or in an institution, and this is a very SMART individual with down.  There is no mention to actual SOCIOLOGY.  No mention of how incredibly taxing it is to raise a down child, it is HARD.  This section almost vilifies people who abort down fetuses, without mention of how incredibly hard it is to raise a down child.  My brother has been in trouble with the law because of people who will take advantage of him, and steal from him because of his slower intellect.  I have a new wife and pray every day that I will NEVER have to make a decision of whether or not to keep a down baby, that child will NEVER be completely independant, despite what this article claims.  Throughthelens 22:03 MST, 13 March 2006
 * As the mother of an aggressive and sometimes downright violent 10-year-old boy with Down syndrome, I know that it is simply dishonest to portray the raising of ALL children with DS as a constant joy, and mislead those trying to make a fact-based decision about what's involved. My son is much loved and I'm a strong advocate, but there is a subset of children with DS who tend to be aggressive and difficult, and there is no such creature as a child with trisomy 21 who doesn't have significant difficulties. These children are DISABLED. Neutrality on this subject (and this article is NOT neutral) must be maintained; there are indeed many people who cannot raise a severely disabled child. I am not advocating abortion by any means, but lying about the complications and leading people to believe that their baby with DS will just be a little behind the others and might get a college degree (i.e. an associates in child care in one extremely rare case I've heard of, not a BS in engineering) is dishonest and manipulative. Give all the information, and let prospective parents exercise their right to decide if they can handle the situation or not. Letting them know that it's not all sunshine and roses, but that these people have value, might mean an adoption rather than an abortion if they decide they can't raise the baby.

Medical versus social models
Stop mucking about - this is extremely serious!

This page gets read by many pregnant women who have been screened as carrying a DS fetus, and by their partners and friends, and who are looking for information, often in a real state of panic. The negative medical tone of the article is wholly inappropriate and also plain wrong, and is likely to lead to a far higher take up of termination of pregnancy. Yes, words can really kill - this isnt a game you know.The whole emphasis these days is on early detection and "treatment" - you guessed it, abortion. The parents are put under huge pressure to abort because doctors are fearful and ignorant of the condition (they only see DS kids with medical problems, not the ones who dont have any, so their view is inevitably jaundiced)

That kid with the screwdriver is my son, and I dont see why my expertise and opinion on the pre-eminence of the social model and my insistence on people - first language should be sacrificed on the discredited altar of eugenics. By all means tidy up any errors of fact and wikify it all you like, but dont stick it at the bottom as a footnote please, that gives a wholly negative impression.

For many years, parents of kids with DS have been trying to clean up all these awful textbooks and dictionary references and put the record straight, and its about time that Wikipedia started to wise up to the real experts.

I've moved the heading back where it belongs, and request mediation - what are the qualifications of those who are trying to assert their superior wisdom in this dispute? Excalibur


 * This is an encyclopedia, and as such, we must begin with a plain definition of what the topic in question actually is. So I would say we need to begin with at least 1 paragraph of basic medical definition, and also its discovery and origin of the name. After that, perhaps we can have a section on social aspects, and leave the very technical stuff on chromosomes to a section further down. We should also mention the pressure the medical establishment has (and still does) put upon potential parents finding their foetus has Down's. Does all this sound reasonable to you? (BTW, you can sign your user name after comments with three tildes). We also need a page on the social model of disability -- I wrote a little about it on the page disability, but I think we needed a deddicated article too -- perhaps you'd like to help? -- Tarquin 08:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Tarquin, seems a fair enough compromise. The social model of disability is a pretty tough topic, and I'll give it some thought. In the meantime, I have written a short piece on institutionalisation just to get my hand in, and I'd welcome anyone having an edit - I'm new at this game, having never written an encyclopaedia entry B4, but I'm learning fast. Excalibur


 * Your experiences are what's known as anecdotal evidence. Disputing information not on the basis of its factuality, but rather on the "qualifications" of those persons presenting it is what's known as an ad hominem and an appeal to authority. Subjective emotionalism has no place in what's supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia.  As such, as a person with a disabled child, you'd probably be better off restricting your editing to Discussion comments, leaving the actual article for editing by those without strong personal bias on related subjects.

I totally agree with Excalibur. I have a little brother who had down syndrome, and he is the greatest person I know! I can't believe that people would actually kill a little baby just because some snooty article made it sound bad. Actually, my little brother is very smart. He can count, read, sign fluently (even make up his own signs!), remind us of things that we didn't do, make connections from one thing to another with out being explained, and much more.


 * Abortion is the termination of a human fetus that isn't fully developed. Infanticide is what you call it when you kill a "baby". There is quite a difference between the two terms, and concepts. Whatever your opinion on the morality of abortion, you must realize that there is a distinction between a fetus and a baby. Please keep your biased semantic games out of this NPOV encyclopedia.

I agree that articles in an encyclopedia should begin with a neutral, basic definition (of course, there should be no negative tone in it what so ever), a bit of the cromosone junk at the beginning (but most at the end), and then they should put in how good people with Down Syndrome are, and how they're not mind-deprived fools. After that, they should have how Down Syndrome can be treated (or, more of what is being done to help those learn) in short, they should tell people how it is wrong it is to kill people with D.S., and not killing them even has its rewards.


 * This is (I truly hope) an excellent example of sarcasm.

While I don't myself disagree with it, the sentence "People with Down syndrome have the same human rights, emotions, dignity and value as any other human being" is POV.

Also, since emotions can be affected by neurological abnormalities (e.g., as in autism), I'd like to see that back up by medical (or at least anecdotal) sources. Human rights, of course, are a mater of much philosophic debate and legislation; perhaps we'd be better served by a survey of the human rights most societies accord to persons with Down's -- do most western democracies grant the franchise to persons with Down's?.

"Dignity" and "value", of course are entirely POV, and this part of the phrase belongs in an advocacy piece, not Wikipedia. orthogonal 13:18, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Apparently some people *want* this to become an advocacy piece, the justification being that "this is extremely serious".

___

Hi, I have just added a few informations on schooling for children with DS and on the statistical information available on abortions of children with DS. Most of it goes for Europe, so if you have any updates for the US, please add them. I was not sure about the extent of citing sources wikipedia requires, I can add relevant sources for everything I wrote. While I can see Excalibur's point as a mother, I have changed the lines on the social model a bit since the part on realization of personal potential - in my opinion - clouded the actual difficulties the disability still constitutes. I have been a teacher for children with Down Syndrome (and other mental disabilities) for seven years and I have tried to give a summary of the current social model / integration discussion. Although I am all against discrimination, the role theory and social model vs. medical model discussion really blurs the fact that the disability is not just something attributed to a child by society, but a condition that requires even more qualified schooling and more thoughtful parenting than the absence of DS. The over-emphasis of the social model has led to extreme integration projects (in Germany, at least) that proved not at all beneficial for the children with DS because they could not cope with the normal schools' curriculums and were rather chaperoned than befriended by the non-disabled children.

I generally agree with Orthogonal on "dignity" and "value" being POV, and I don't think human rights' claims usually belong in an encyclopedia. However, it hurts none, and one must be quite careful not to inadvertedly give a justification for eugenics by the way one gives the medical information. In some German hospitals we therefore have a special pedagogic service, providing parents of a disabled child with accurate information on disabilities and updating the sometimes astonishingly unscientific information provided by the medical professions.

Miriam_Stiehler 13:05 29.9.2004

Picture
I'm not saying the picture on the article is wrong, I just think maybe it shoud be more front-on, as it were, showing the facial differences of a Down's person. Anyone else?

Selphie 12:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) **


 * I'm inclined to agree that the picture doesn't illustrate very well the facial characteristics we expect to see. --bodnotbod 02:17, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually found the picture quite refreshing, a different way of looking at Down syndrome children which the article later verified in speaking about their capability for semi-independent living.Yoninah 22:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the current picture of Michael does not show well the common physical traits of a person with Down's Syndrome. Probably the best picture would be one that would show the physical traits as well as their capabilities (such as reading a book?)

Judith Scott
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)

Haircut
Why do so many people with Down syndrome have the same haircut? This article doesn't seem to address it. In Canada at least, a person with Down syndrome can be identified as easily by their bowl-style haircut as by their facial features and behaviour. silsor 04:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Children with Down’s Syndrome often have straight, soft hair. As children they may have an extra fold of skin over the back of the neck and as adults, short broad necks. I think the haircut is a matter of carer's choice (they may be too restless for more complicated haircuts); I know curly-haired Down children. JFW |  T@lk  23:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a really funny discussion. There is a really good selection of photos at http://www.43green.freeserve.co.uk/uk_downs_syndrome/contribs/gallery.htm - including some kids with different ethnicity. They have a pretty good mix of haircuts - heck if you want to spend a few more pounds or dollars you could probably get the barber to do anything. Whats your point exactly? Excalibur 00:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Children with Down syndrome tend toward tactile defensiveness, and haircuts can be a major issue -- as are nail cutting and face washing. My son gets a buzz cut every few months; he would get stabbed with scissors if we tried anything else since he thrashes around. Longer styles are also less likely to irritate during barbering. And not all kids have this problem.

POV issues with this article
"They have the same dignity...value..." While I may agree all I will, this will never go beyond opinion. It is not good encyclopedic style, and until further notice, I remove it. Further, "The missing 1437 are not due to statistical negligence." While true, this is polemic style, and although I don't like to use words like "anti-abortionist agenda", this is very POV - thus, I rephrase it. Any other POV issues you find and decide\want to change, please list them here as well. It is a sensitive topic to many, and it's nice to see some justification for such edits. --TVPR 07:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) (PS: I take the liberty to archive the 3-year old parts of this talk page)


 * If someone's going to edit Wikipedia, they should at least have the courtesy to familiarize themselves with NPOV. Anyone who considers something a 'sensitive topic' due to their own personal situation is probably not the best person to contribute, or provide unbiased revisions towards information concerning the particular topic of interest. Feelings are not facts.

Vague sentence about consensus
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: David.Monniaux 13:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried a NPOV reformulation. What do you think about it? David.Monniaux 16:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

subtypes
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)

Excalibur Added a few edits - I felt the text was getting a bit sloppy in places and the references to europe fail to mention that the continent is many years behind best practice in the UK and the english speaking world. I havent visited this page for some time, and I find some of the discussion very interesting, especially that the picture doesnt convey the stereotype - well of course people with DS look much more like their parents than other people with DS, and stereotypes dont belong in an encyclopedia on the POV rule. As a parent, I dont think I am especially more subject to bias than a professional. Would you rule out an article on train spotting by a train spotter - who else would be best placed to write it? But having spent 25 years of my career working in health and social care management (see my profile) including closing down many of the old bins, I probably have a few more facts up my sleeve than most! excalibur Excalibur 15:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The Overview Section
I am sure this section is supposed to tell one what Down Syndrome is. Instead it talks about the cause, The change in rate of births and so on, discovery and finally a bit about what it actually is... The only bits that should be in the Overview section are, in my opinion, what it actually is, then the cause and finally the discovery. At the moment it is in my opinion too long.

As for this: " Your experiences are what's known as anecdotal evidence... you'd probably be better off restricting your editing to Discussion comments, leaving the actual article for editing by those without strong personal bias on related subjects. " I think that is unfair. The point of Wikipedia is that everybody aids in producing this thing. People who have personal experience of a subject are the sort of people who should be adding to this. They will have seen people with Down Syndrome engaging in daily life, they will have read much of the literature on the subject. It makes far more sense that they write what they know than that they be told to keep out just in case they infuse the article with a certain POV. And if they do make this a POV article then you can edit the offending passages.

I just deleted a new addition, poor spelling and seemed to be biased. People with DS are generally "mean to other people"? No.

Just a comment
I just came here to fix up a few of the sources - ask if there were any objections to the Harvard style being implemented, then came across this interesting discussion. Not what I was expecting, but much more fun. I also have a child with Down Syndrome. I think I may recall excalibur from another internet group, but could of been just someone else who used that handle. Anyway, I see a number of issues here, perhaps the one that rubs me the wrong way is the entire notion of npov.

On the npov perspective, that is also just a point of view in it's own right, which Wiki, from the above discussion, has apparently made law. By laying this value on the writers to perform too, concepts of right and wrong become meaningless. Jewish extermination, baby killing, fetus killing. It's all too easy to wipe the moral meaning away by saying npov. NPOV is a very westernised philosophy that I don't agree with, but it is one that is being forced on us by well meaning, but, I would argue, beguiled people: People who do not fully realise the immorality of such a perspective. We can't keep a bible on our own desk, because it shows our point of view, so we have to take it off the desk, keep our mouth shut and not let anyone know - as if it is something that is foul and dirty. So much for witnessing.

Then again, Wiki is an online encyclopedia. Should an encyclopedia that goes round the world, especially to a less developed country, have the right to enfore it's western culture of NPOV upon them, or project any Westernised philosophy for that matter.

I would argue that Wiki should reflect the culture that it is attempting to connect to, but that's my point of view, just like Wiki's apparent point of view is to pretend it has NPOV.

Just my comment anyway, but back to the reason why I am here. Any objection to moving the citations etc to the Harvard style?

--Donald 12:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)```


 * The problem NPOV tries to solve is one that is inherent in your argument. I don't believe in morality.  There are things I feel are good and, to an extent, things I feel are evil.  However, I also acknowledge that it's unlikely there's any real "force" determining what's good and what's evil, but rather a deeply ingrained societal point of view.   Take, for example, the question of whether or not murder is wrong.  Most anyone would be suprised at such a question, but when you break it down it essentially becomes a normative statement: it is better to live than die, it is better to let others live than die, and it is better to let others be happy than not.  Those three statements are, in essence, what we base our "morality" judgements on regarding the question of murder; they are however, at their heart, simply normative statements that do little more than express an opinion. I have a sneaking suspicion you'll disagree with me on this point and make a case for a real higher determination of good and evil, but no matter what you say it will come down to an opinion.
 * As a result, infusing "morality" into such a discussion will invariably include an opinion. And though you may find this ok, it becomes a problem when you try to reconcile two different "moralities."  For example, I think it immoral for someone to declare that "homosexuality is wrong" and that homosexuals are "a blight upon the earth" and other such rhetoric, as it is, to be frank, none of their goddamned business what two adults do together and it interferes, at a basic level, with the homosexuals right to be happy (remember it is better to let others be happy than not?).  However, those who espouse said rhetoric are more than likely to consider the homosexuals themselves "immoral" for their actions.  How do we reconcile these two "moralities?"  That is what the NPOV seeks to avoid.  And though yes, in a way, it sweeps "morality" under the rug, this is at times necessary when there are (as there often are) two contradictory moralities.  As for "enforcing it's westernized philosophy of NPOV," we would be just as guilty if we were to "enforce our westernized christian philosophy" or "westernized jewish philosophy" or hell, even "westernized monotheistic philosophy" on said countries.  The idea of NPOV is to minimize what it is we enforce on them.  Though you are in a way correct, and we are enforcing a POV on them in and of the NPOV idea itself, it's the least POV way to do it.  jfg284 you were saying? 13:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please, this is not the place for a discussion of the "morality" of homosexuality. If homosexuals were discrete like other people, and kept their behaviour to themselves, instead of announcing it to the world (and insulting everyone they see who isn't homosexual while they're at it) nobody would even know or care what they do.  It's their "missionary", preachy character of recent years that people object to.

Reply
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

What's in a name
While looking around the net, I noticed that it seems to be common in the UK to call this syndrome, "Down's Syndrome." In North America, the recognized naming convention is without the posessive. Is this not true in UK? What about the rest of EU? Ted 03:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the US, the correct terminology is "Down syndrome" (upper case "D" and lower case "s"). In the UK it is normally written as "Down's Syndrome".  I would imagine that the rest of Europe writes it in whatever language they speak.  In France, for example, it is either "syndrome de Down" or "la trisomie 21".


 * Someone changed the opening to this: "While Down Syndrome is the recognized term in the US, Canada and Europe, some support groups and organizations use Down's Syndrome." This is, of course, wrong.  The "s" in Down syndrome should be lower case and most of Europe does not use "Down's Syndrome" because they don't say it in English.  Contrary to some people's beliefs, English is not the only language on the planet.
 * If you will look at the history, we are trying to work with a gentleman from Canada. At first he insisted that 'Down's syndrome' was completely incorrect.  It is fairly common (although not universal) in the UK.  I have no knowledge of use in other commonwealth countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, or India.  If you can come up with a better way to indicate it is not proper usage in the US and Canada, but may be in other parts of the world, more power to you. Ted 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Down's is incorrect. It does not change the fact that it is wrong if groups in the uk use it. Down's would imply that J.L. Down had or owned the syndrome. All we (the world) did was name it after him. That is why the Down is capital. "Down's syndrome" is incorrect. Lou Gehrig's Disease has an " 's  " as he actually had it.
 * I find this comment interesting. 'Down's' is incorrect, and yet Down's Syndrome Association, Down's Syndrome Scotland, Down's Syndrome Research Foundation, Down's Syndrome Federation of India, etc. use it.  Do you really want to tell parents that their support group is too clueless to get it right?  If you have a better way of describing the situation, go ahead and put it up.Ted 22:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ted www.dsrf.org does not hve an " 's " .. You want to be corect and clinical but not in this case? It is incorrect period.


 * www.dsrf.co.uk does use "Down's." It was my mistake for not remembering the society in Canada.  My apologies.  I use the correct terminology in my class, but I don't make a point of telling the students that those various societies are wrong.Ted 06:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The WHO standardized on Down's Syndrome in 1965, while the AMA has used "Down syndrome" since 1974. Both are correct, depending on locale (oops-- already in article!).--24.85.83.170 21:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia meant to be for all English-speaking people or just Americans? If it's supposed to be global, we should stick to the worldwide (WHO) standard, which is "Down's".  I notice that Parkinson's disease rightly uses the "'s" version, so if we're aiming to be universal and consistent, it has to be "Down's Syndrome". Waggers 16:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (Afterthought) At the very least, the article itself should make reference to both names; at present, it's completely USA-centric. Waggers 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article used to have both forms in the introductory paragraph, and that was moved fairly recently. I'd like to see a reference to the WHO standardisation (their website has far more hits for "Down syndrome"), but it's pretty clear that "Down's" is not wrong, and it's the accepted form in much of the world.  It doesn't indicate the possessive any more than Thomson's gazelle belonged to Thompson.  Crohn's disease seems to have the 's on both sides of the pond.  --ajn (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You have probably missed the entire Down vs Down's debate (by debate, I mean "edit war"). We have tried to accomodate a gentleman who was very adamant about "Down" (and is from Canada, not the US).  Currently, the WHO is neutral with respect to this and I see both forms used.  In the US, "Down's" is clearly incorrect.  My only concern with the intro paragraph is the implication that "Down" and "Down's" are interchangeable.  That is not correct in the US.  A student doing a report based, in part, on this entry might use the incorrect form in the US and I, for one, would take points off for it.  As for inconsistencies in nomenclature, that's a fact of life.  If you ever want to see fisticuffs among academics, a committee on nomenclature is the place to look.Ted 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding "correctness" I should point out that "Down Syndrome" is utterly incorrect in the UK (and probably a number of other countries too). So it's right to point out that the two are not interchangeable, but wrong to fail to acknowledge both forms.  Personally I think the arguments for "Down's" outweigh those for "Down":
 * It's named after a British doctor, therefore the original references to the syndrome are far more likely to in be the British nomenclature
 * It's consistent with other medical conditions (Parkinson's Disease and Crohn's disease have already been cited as examples)
 * According to 24.85.83.170, the WHO picked "Down's" as their standard in 1965 and haven't changed it since. The number of hits on their website for each version is fairly irrelevant in that debate; we're talking about a chosen international standard, not a popularity contest.
 * Waggers 10:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't get into any "truthiness" arguments. I've tried to make the changes in the article.  See what you think of those. 13:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks Ted. Waggers 14:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Weird, I'm Canadian, and I always went with Down's Syndrome. It's technically correct, the best kind of correct. Even in the US, it is common in casual speech to say that so-and-so has "Down's", leaving off the word "Syndrome". The US Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary has an entry for Down's Syndrome, and not Down Syndrome -- no new edition has been published in years, so evidently Down's preceeds Down in the US. Also, to me, Down Syndrome sounds like someone thinks that the word Down is meaning opposite of up, rather than a syndrome named for Dr. Down.207.189.230.42 06:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Much as I like references to Futurama, Down syndrome is technically correct in the US. There was a converence in 1974? (I forget the exact date and I'm too lazy to look it up) sponsored by NIH that determined that.  We can argue as much as we want, but it is technically Down syndrome in the US.  As an aside, I've noticed some UK organizations that use Down.  Maybe the US is corrupting them.... Ted 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Claims of Down's syndrome being incorrect in the US are erroneous; see http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-19-2005.pdf and other info on Talk:List_of_eponymous_diseases for proof that this is older and correct usage in the US today too. --Espoo 20:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You may wish to read the material on http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/info=mutations_and_disorders/show/naming. It states, "Genetic conditions are not named in one standard way (unlike genes, which are given an official name and symbol by a formal committee)."  Later is says, "There is debate as to whether the possessive form (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease) or the nonpossessive form (Alzheimer disease) of eponyms is preferred. As a rule, medical geneticists use the nonpossessive form, and this form may become the standard for doctors in all fields of medicine."  I will continue to deduct points from students' papers that use "Down's syndrome." Ted 23:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're contradicting your own quote: "There is debate...As a rule...may become the standard"! You also didn't say at what level of education and in what field your students are, but it is in any case not a good idea to punish students in a situation that is declared unclear and changing by standards' institutes/organisations in your own country(!), unless of course you openly declare this minor point an important part of your course content. This is especially true since we live in an increasingly global world, in which you should be encouraging your students to read papers that are written elsewhere and also according to the WHO standard, which calls for the genitive.
 * In any case, this does not change the fact that claims of "Down's syndrome" being incorrect in the US are erroneous. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a course curriculum. Wikipedia should describe the current situation, not engage in unscientific language prescription. There is nothing wrong with deciding on a preferred form to be used throughout Wikipedia, and the current chaos of articles being called "Parkinson's disease" and "Down syndrome" should be abolished, but this should not take the form of erroneously claiming that one or the other is incorrect, when the situation is clearly in the middle of a change. This is especially true because "Parkinson's disease" is clearly older and in that sense "better" English that has nothing to do with "owning or having". Did you read my explanations at Talk:List_of_eponymous_diseases? I suggest that the names of all Wikipedia articles be changed to either the natural, normal English form "Parkinson's disease" or the new, pseudo-PC "Parkinson disease" but that the other form be listed at the beginning of each article as also possible and without any stigmatisation. --Espoo 17:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There are standards that are "legistated" by governing boards and there are standards that are used because of usage among professionals. Genetic conditions are the second type. So, why don't we use the original name, "Mongolian idiocy?" In the US in the 50's and 60's, that was common, so NIH had a conference and published a statement saying that Down syndrome (non-possesive) should be used. Since that time, professionals in the US have used that term. However, it is not a standard. Now, if you will look back at the old discussions (first of the year), you will see someone who was very insistent that "Down syndrome" was the only correct term. Notice who fought this. What we arrived at was a historical description -- I looked at many journals, societies, etc in various countries and went with what professionals use. I don't know of any society in the United States or Canada that uses "Down's syndrome." Most (but not all) in the UK do use that. The correct usage in the United States is "Down syndrome," by virtue of near universal acceptance among human geneticists. This is why I count off on papers. In the same way, I use the standard, accepted form of American English. I count off when it is misused -- because the standard form is used by professionals. I agree people shouldn't feel "stigmatized," and I fought for that earlier in Down syndrome. You will notice that the introduction doesn't mention "correct," just a simple list of where each is commonly used. Later, under history, we use the word "accepted," which is also true. What more do you want? (Although I can guess given the POV of your previous response). Ted 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I explained what i think would be best for Wikipedia. In this case, simply this:
 * Down syndrome (more common in the USA, Canada, and other countries) or Down's syndrome (more common in the UK and other countries)


 * I'm quite sure that the only "reason" even reputable sites simultaneously use "Asperger syndrome" and "Asperger's disorder" is because one can't hear the genitive ("possessive") 's before the word "syndrome". In other words, i'm quite sure that even many professionals who write "Down syndrome" actually ("accidentally") say "Down's syndrome" because this is more natural English and arguably more grammatical and definitely older and definitely originally the only grammatically accepted form. Many if not most "firemen's associations" and "scientists' clubs" and even "standards' associations" are nowadays incorrectly spelled without the apostrophe, but that doesn't mean that these words are any less in the genitive, as can be easily proven by all native speaker always saying "women's club", never "women club".
 * You didn't answer this summary of your quote: "There is debate...As a rule...may become the standard".
 * You also apparently didn't understand my point that Wikipedia should not only record what geneticists call (or naively erroneously think they are calling or should call) a disease or condition. Wikipedia should make it clear that it is OK to call the syndrome "Down's syndrome" in the US too, even if this were only common among normal language users. The current phrasing clearly stigmatises this widespread usage as incorrect or at least foreign (British). The most we could or should provide in terms of language guidance is something like "Although Down's syndrome is also common in the US in general use (in analogy with many other diseases), most medical professionals prefer Down syndrome". --Espoo 20:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The quote I used previously from NIH had to do with all disease/disorder naming. This includes such diseases as Crohn's Disease.  For this case, NIH prefers Crohn Disease, while medical professionals seem to prefer Crohn's Disease, and Wikipedia should use use Crohn's Disease until such time as the NIH form becomes more widely accepted among professionals.  Down syndrome, however is nearly universally accepted among genetic professionals.  Just to make sure, I quickly looked up Down syndrome in the Index of over a dozen college level general biology and genetics texts (most likely published in the US, although I didn't check), excluding human genetics texts so as not to bias things.  The only one I found that used Down's syndrome was a general biology text published in 1971, and it also listed Mongolism.  It is fairly clear that it is accepted in the US by professionals.
 * This is, at best, peripheral to Down syndrome. I see little reason to invest a tremendous amount of article space for this.  The first sentence of the article must focus on Down syndrome itself.  It acknowledges "Down" vs. "Down's," but only briefly.  Anything more here would take away from the topic itself.  In an encyclopedia, we must write from the point of view of experts in the area.  Otherwise, it is just another blog.  In the History section, we discuss the origin of the terms, so we could add something here.  However you want to word it, it has to be consistent with professionals in the US using Down syndrome.  There is also a difference between common and accepted.  If you wish to add something, try to leave your point of view out of it.  Regardless of what should be correct, expert usage is whatever experts use.  Happy editing! Ted 21:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Disability or Not?
I came here looking for information about Down Syndrome. This is one of the most poorly written Wikipedia pages I've ever seen. Frankly, it needs to be completely rewritten. Forgetting the blatant NPOV, the article is not even consistent with itself. It opens with the admonishment that Down Syndrome is "not a disease, disorder, defect or medical condition." But then later it says, "The case is there are wide ranges of ability among persons living with Down and many are capable of living 'normal' lives with some degree of assistance just as other disabled persons may."

So are "chromosone-21 irregular" humans disabled or not? For the record, I think it's wonderful and a testament to our society that so many people are willing to champion the rights of people with Down Syndrome. But this page does not fit within the Wikipedia concept. Puskarm 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is, is a person disabled because they have three 21st chromosomes or are they disabled because they have a disability caused by the extra chromosome? I think if the page was well written that this could be skirted over but as it is I wouldn't consider this page worthwhile in doing research on Down syndrome.


 * Of course it's a disabliity, if it effects you in a way that makes you less able, it's a disability. Saying otherwise is PC rubbish. DevinOfGreatness 22:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * With the current version of the article, I believe this discussion is irrelevant. Ted 00:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Random chance
Is there really any basis for the assertion that the penetrance of the genetic abnormality is based partly on "random chance?" I don't believe it for a minute. I'm referring to the following text:


 * The effects of that extra genetic material varies greatly from individual to individual (footnote), depending on the extent of the extra material, genetic background, environmental factors, and random chance.

-Ikkyu2 06:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The most obvious case is for mosaicism. The nondisjunction leading to mosaic Down syndrome is random.  Because of selective pressure on cell lines, randomness affects the final fraction that is trisomy 21 as well as the tissue-by-tissue fraction.  Identical twins who are mosaic can be quite different.Ted 13:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The nondisjunction leading to mosaic Down syndrome is random.
 * I see your point, but I do not believe that the italicized statement above is provable/falsifiable. In fact, I assert that every nondisjunction event must have a physical cause, be it quantum-chemical, radiation-induced, mechanical, or other.  Splitting hairs, I realize, but the alternative is to leave a false and potentially misleading statement in the article. -Ikkyu2 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the use of random. Randomness is not some cosmic "lack of everything."  Of course there are physical causes.  Maybe the spindle fibers didn't attach correctly.  Possibly there were some weaknesses in the fibers themselvers.  Perhaps the synaptonemal complex was too strongly attached, or there was crosslinking between the homologous chromosomes.  Any of those (and others) could be the physical/chemical reason why there was a nondisjunction.
 * We know that the rate of meiotic nondisjunction increases with maternal age. That in itself suggests some chemo-mechanical source for nondisjunction.  The question is, can you predict it with certainty?  If not, then there is a random component.
 * The statement is certainly not false. I'm curious how you feel it may be misleading.  If it is, then it can be rewritten.Ted 16:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

POV words
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)
 * 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)

Education
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)

Challenges
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)


 * 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)

Noone has taken the opportunity to add to the "Challenges" section. Since I added it as a stub, I'll take it out. If anyone feels moved to add the content, feel free to do so.

Rename Sub-Category to "Casues" of Down's Syndrome
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)
 * 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)

Article needs a better picture
[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)]

''[For future reference, it should be clarified that the comments below refer to two different pictures: one of a blonde child using an electric drill, and one of an apparent adult cutting pictures out of a magazine. The latter image may have been inserted as a joke and was only included in the artice for a short time.'' Dyfsunctional 18:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)]

I do not believe that the picture that accompanies this article is actually of a person with Down's. I think it is somebody's bad joke and that the picture ought to be replaced.

Is it really necessary to use children's picture?

83.42.184.146 09:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to use children's picture?

Gaudio 09:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

It really isn't all that obvious the child in the picture has down syndrome. Klosterdev 19:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

I added this note next to the picture (it only shows up when editing): Do not change this picture without discussing it in the Down syndrome discussion page. Because of continued vandalism, pictures will be immediately reverted.

Feel free to revert any pictures unless they are discussed here. Ted 19:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Add information about new screening test
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)

Down syndrome and society
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)

Vandalism
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)