Leo writes:
Your last comment seems to confirm that, in a reductio ad absurdum: if we screen for any genetic disease, even the most debilitating, then we will end up screening for a propensity to get prostate cancer. [BTW, it is my understanding that all men get prostate cancer; some of us just die from other causes before we get it, and some of us have a form of prostate cancer which is so slow that we just die of another disease first.] This is a suggestion that a line can not be really drawn. snip
I don't know that all men get prostate cancer but even so, theoretically society could decide that you are all too much of a burden. You just cost the system too much. So whether prostate cancer is the best choice as an example, my point is that society draws the line at what is "burdensome" and this becomes ingrained in personal "choice" -- Being blind, deaf, or developmentally disabled is now considered burdensome. Genetic screening will make many many more conditions burdensome. Indeed this is the whole reason why some politicians want to pass laws that would prohibit genetic discrimination in employment and health care - they know that they WILL be considered a burden, to their employers, to their health insurers. Disabled people already experience this discrimination which so called able-bodied do not, until their "defect" is known or becomes visable.
As for the personal situation you describe, the medical professional failed to inform the woman of her situation. Being against selective abortion of disabled fetus does not translate into being for endangering the life a mother-to-be.
Marta