What a joy it has been to watch America’s Michael Phelps compete in the 2008 Summer Olympics!  Phelps has not only set an all-time Olympic record by winning eight gold medals in a single Olympics, but has also captivated the world with his quiet charm and easygoing manner.
Phelps is also a member of a large group of Americans diagnosed with ADHD – Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. Although the neural systems in his body which made him ADHD were in place well before he was born, his ADHD did not make itself known until he was an elementary-school aged child.

But what if it were possible to diagnose ADHD before birth, much as it is possible to diagnose other atypical conditions, such as spina bifida and Down syndrome?  Would Phelps, as a fetus with ADHD, have been allowed to continue his development in his mother’s womb so that he was born alive?  If the ability to diagnose ADHD in utero yielded the same results as that of Down syndrome, the answer is: Phelps would have had a one-in-ten chance of being born alive – simply because of his ADHD.

In the United States, 90 percent of all babies diagnosed in utero (through amniocentesis or chorionic villi sampling) as having Down syndrome are aborted.  Yes, you read that right – ninety percent.  A child with Down syndrome has a one-in-ten chance of surviving pregnancy to be born alive, not due to any physical cause or pre-natal difficulty, but because once we know who they are, we prefer to kill them.

If ADHD were diagnosable in utero, the amazement that we hold for an historical achievement such as the world has never seen would be – well, would have to wait for someone or something else. Statistically, Phelps would have been pre-selected for an early death – a very early death.

Wouldn’t it have been better if he had been?  He was a handful, most likely, as children with ADHD can be.  He posed special concerns and challenges for his mother and for the educational system, as children with ADHD do.  So wouldn’t the world be better off without him – wouldn’t it have been better if he had been terminated before he got a chance to dab a toe in a swimming pool?  Of course not.

It makes just as much sense to terminate a life with Down syndrome before that baby even has a chance draw breath, to dab a toe in the swimming pool of life.  People with Down syndrome have feelings, have hopes and dreams and ambitions just like you and I. They have strengths and weaknesses, just as you and I do; they can hold jobs and they do contribute to society.

In fact, people with Down syndrome are much more different from each other than most people realize – I have found more diversity amongst people with Down syndrome than I have among “typical” people. Perhaps we don’t really celebrate diversity as much as we like to think we do.
And wouldn’t it have better for Phelps to not have had to endure the life he has had to endure? 

He was different from those around him.  That amazing body which allows him to swim the way he does, was, in its youth,  target for derision according to Phelps and his mother. Other kids liked to flick his ears.  He remembers things such as his hat being grabbed and thrown of the school bus. And he remembers other kids at swim meets harassing him.  Surely he should have been pre-selected for early death had he been diagnosed in utero; it would have saved him such a life.  Of course, it would have saved him from eight Olympic gold meals as well.
It is just as mistaken to decide to terminate a baby with Down syndrome before birth using the “what life they will have” justification.  People with Down syndrome have highs and lows just like you and I do, and have moments of sadness, just like you and I, and – news flash – have times of joy, of happiness, of contentment, of fascination, of delight and wonderment, just like you and I – very often more than you and I.

Yet the U.S. has followed Great Britain’s lead in slanting the tables formidably against children with Down syndrome.  We need to keep in mind the consequences here: we aren’t talking about employment or housing; we’re talking about life and death. And 90% of the time, when the child has Down syndrome, we in the United States of America vote “death.”

As a society we hold in our hands technological abilities never before known to Man. As we edge closer and closer to the reality of genetic selection, we find ourselves bearing responsibilities never before known to Man.  Or do we have any responsibility at all as to how this technology is wielded?  Is it ethical to terminate a life because that life poses difficulties for others?  Is it ethical to carry out a sentence of capital punishment upon a life because the person living it looks different than you or your family or your best friend?  Is it ethical to target a life for extinction because that life may be inconvenient – even though that life is only beginning?

If the answer is “yes” to Down syndrome – and 90% of the time in the United States, that answer is “yes” – then it is “yes” to people with ADHD.  It is “yes” to people born blind; it is “yes” to people born deaf. It is “yes” to people born with spina bifida, cleft lip-and-palette, club foot, or cerebral palsy, or autism.  One must be careful, though, because the more people for whom we say “yes” to targeted extinction, the closer we ourselves come to becoming that target, for who among us is truly “typical”?

We’d best be very careful in considering this as we cast our votes in the upcoming Presidential election.  For whoever occupies that oval office next may do so for four years; at most, for eight. But the judges he appoints to the Supreme Court (and other judiciary vacancies) will be making decisions on behalf of ourselves and our children for a lifetime.
My wife and I are the very proud parents of a little girl with Down syndrome.  All who meet her are enchanted with her sunny disposition and joyful inquisitive nature.  She plays with dolls and loves to color and plays on swings and slides.  She is learning to read – and doing so very well - and to count.  She rides horses; she blows bubbles, she has a sense of humor and makes up jokes; she has Grandma and Grandpa wrapped around her little finger, and she amazes people with her love for broccoli, salmon, curry cauliflower, and Cajun catfish.  She also loves to accessorize, and will make a bracelet, pendant, or hat out of the darndest things.

Some things are more difficult for her than they might be for other children.  And some things were more difficult for Michael Phelps than they were for other children.  But Michael Phelps deserved his chance to win the eight gold medals of which we as a nation are so proud.  And children with Down syndrome deserve the chance to win their gold medals, and make no mistake, win them they do – gold medals in perseverance and sheer strength of character; gold medals in bringing people laughter and joy; gold medals in deeply inspiring those around them; gold medals in reminding the rest of us to delight in the smallest things in life that most of us overlook; gold medals in teaching the world what compassion truly is.

It is a national tragedy that we prefer to kill 9 out of 10 of them whom we know will be born to win these gold medals. 

Such is the sacrifice we chose to make at the alter of convenience.

Bill Speer
Springfield