Healthy ,willing and able

[Rau]

The couple THEMSELVES. It is not right for others to point it out TO THEM. It’s not anyone’s place here or in the world to do so yet that is exactly what is done. Leave it to their medical team. Funny enough, usually the doctors are much more level headed about things than people on these boards or people at the grocery store.

A person asked for their counsel is free to offer it, within the limits of their knowledge. The relationship one has to the person asking would influence one’s response.

The uninvited volunteering of commentary and opinions “at the grocery store” is inappropriate and I’d hope anyone posting or reading here would know that.

 

[UbiCaritas]

She gave 2 possibilities with regards to the difficulties of having a child with Down syndrome. One of which doesn’t really make much sense. Just pointing out that half of the possibilities she mentioned are extreme cases and not very common.

No, I did not. Please read more carefully.

The sentence in question was: “It’s unfortunate but true that with an increase in parental age comes an uptick in the likelihood of certain types of disabilities in children conceived during that timeframe, while also placing the associated realistic burdens, both resource-based and physical, on an older and physically-frailer parent: a parent who, at 45, has a child who requires certain types of care, is going to be lifting a 100+ pound adult as a 65-year-old, or perhaps dealing with early-onset Alzheimer’s in a child with Down Syndrome while dealing with their own aging issues.”

I said that the risk of “certain types of disabilities” (a broad category which includes, but is far from limited to, Down Syndrome) increases with parental age, and then mentioned two specific examples: an adult child who cannot walk, thus requiring extensive physical support from a caregiver, and early-onset Alzheimer’s in adult children with Down Syndrome*. I did not say that Down Syndrome itself generally precluded walking, only that there are other disabilities which can.

A blog I often recommend is Passionate Perseverance, which is written by a Catholic mother of a severely disabled child. In it, she documents, honestly but with great faith, the challenges and blessings of having a child with severe disabilities. Her daughter was in her early 20s when she died a couple of years ago, having never walked, toileted, stood, etc independently. The author, Mary Lenaburg, doesn’t pull any punches about just how hard it was, even as a rather tall, strong woman, to lift, carry, and general care for her daughter; her husband helped as he could, of course, but he and her adult son had to work during the day, so most of the burden fell on her. At the same time, she leaves you in no doubt what a great blessing Courtney was to them and to the world. One of the many reasons I appreciate her point of view is that it is so realistic while also recognizing at all times Courtney’s (and, by extension, anyone’s) worth as a human being and child of God.

*By age 40, a majority of individuals with Down Syndrome have Alzheimer’s disease–see here.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

No, I did not. Please read more carefully.

The sentence in question was: “It’s unfortunate but true that with an increase in parental age comes an uptick in the likelihood of certain types of disabilities in children conceived during that timeframe, while also placing the associated realistic burdens, both resource-based and physical, on an older and physically-frailer parent: a parent who, at 45, has a child who requires certain types of care, is going to be lifting a 100+ pound adult as a 65-year-old, or perhaps dealing with early-onset Alzheimer’s in a child with Down Syndrome while dealing with their own aging issues.”

I said that the risk of “certain types of disabilities” (a broad category which includes, but is far from limited to, Down Syndrome) increases with parental age, and then mentioned two specific examples: an adult child who cannot walk, thus requiring extensive physical support from a caregiver, and early-onset Alzheimer’s in adult children with Down Syndrome*. I did not say that Down Syndrome itself generally precluded walking, only that there are other disabilities which can.

A blog I often recommend is Passionate Perseverance, which is written by a Catholic mother of a severely disabled child. In it, she documents, honestly but with great faith, the challenges and blessings of having a child with severe disabilities. Her daughter was in her early 20s when she died a couple of years ago, having never walked, toileted, stood, etc independently. The author, Mary Lenaburg, doesn’t pull any punches about just how hard it was, even as a rather tall, strong woman, to lift, carry, and general care for her daughter; her husband helped as he could, of course, but he and her adult son had to work during the day, so most of the burden fell on her. At the same time, she leaves you in no doubt what a great blessing Courtney was to them and to the world. One of the many reasons I appreciate her point of view is that it is so realistic while also recognizing at all times Courtney’s (and, by extension, anyone’s) worth as a human being and child of God.

*By age 40, a majority of individuals with Down Syndrome have Alzheimer’s disease–see here.

What you linked to doesn’t say by “age 40 a majority of individuals with Down Syndrome have Alzheimer’s disease.”

This is what the article states:

Autopsy studies show that by age 40, the brains of almost all individuals with Down syndrome have significant levels of plaques and tangles, abnormal protein deposits considered Alzheimer’s hallmarks. But despite the presence of these brain changes, not everyone with the syndrome develops Alzheimer’s symptoms.

One of the many questions researchers hope to answer about Down syndrome is why some people develop dementia symptoms and others don’t. Researchers are working to answer a similar key question about those who don’t have Down syndrome: Why do some people with levels of brain changes characteristic of Alzheimer’s never show symptoms of the disease?

 

[UbiCaritas]

What you linked to doesn’t say by “age 40 a majority of individuals with Down Syndrome have Alzheimer’s disease.”

This is what the article states:

Good catch, sorry! Posted the wrong link.

alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=937

“Down’s syndrome is the most common cause of learning difficulties and occurs in approximately one in 800 births. The majority of people with Down’s syndrome develop Alzheimer’s disease in their 40s and 50s, and most will have Alzheimer’s disease pathology (amyloid-beta plaques and tau tangles) in their brains from their 40s”

It’s a rather interesting line of research, focusing on the genetic markers for both DS and AD and seeing how they’re connected.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

It’s unfortunate but true that with an increase in parental age comes an uptick in the likelihood of certain types of disabilities in children conceived during that timeframe, while also placing the associated realistic burdens, both resource-based and physical, on an older and physically-frailer parent: a parent who, at 45, has a child who requires certain types of care, is going to be lifting a 100+ pound adult as a 65-year-old, or perhaps dealing with early-onset Alzheimer’s in a child with Down Syndrome while dealing with their own aging issues.

There’s no reason to presume that a calm, sober and medically accurate assessment (assuming that is what is on the table) of the increasing probability of a disability with maternal age, is a “scare tactic”. While some may intend it as that, the reality is that it is simply another factor which a couple is entitled to consider in making decisions about seeking or avoiding pregnancy.

If we are talking about informing, I guess it would be good to point out this study that came out a couple of years ago as well (different from chromosomal irregularities):

"The researchers found that older mothers – aged 35 and older – were 40 percent less likely than younger mothers to have a child with one or more of the birth defects known as major congenital malformations. The researchers reached this number after adjusting their statistics so they wouldn’t be thrown off by high or low numbers of women with certain risk factors.

The rate of heart defects were similar in both groups, the investigators found, but there were lower rates of brain, kidney and abdominal wall defects."

stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/healthy-kids-good-news-for-pregnancy-after-age/article_d7cc42bf-28da-5127-821d-f6b94acf48f4.html
I don’t know if any other research to support or oppose this has come out since, but it is something to consider if you want to go the route of talking about statistics and older moms.
Honestly, I don’t love focusing on these statistics for various reasons, including the fact that the wording surrounding them usually seems to push the supernatural, and even some practical, aspects of life out of the picture, only to focus on the perceived negatives. I do feel that often they are used to cause fear in families deciding whether to be open to accepting more blessings (if they were to be blessed again). Yes, it is good to know in general, but I think the focus of the dialog when these statistics come up is usually a negative one.

 

[UbiCaritas]

If we are talking about informing, I guess it would be good to point out this study that came out a couple of years ago as well (different from chromosomal irregularities):

"The researchers found that older mothers – aged 35 and older – were 40 percent less likely than younger mothers to have a child with one or more of the birth defects known as major congenital malformations. The researchers reached this number after adjusting their statistics so they wouldn’t be thrown off by high or low numbers of women with certain risk factors.

The rate of heart defects were similar in both groups, the investigators found, but there were lower rates of brain, kidney and abdominal wall defects."

stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/healthy-kids-good-news-for-pregnancy-after-age/article_d7cc42bf-28da-5127-821d-f6b94acf48f4.html
I don’t know if any other research to support or oppose this has come out since, but it is something to consider if you want to go the route of talking about statistics and older moms.
Honestly, I don’t love focusing on these statistics for various reasons, including the fact that the wording surrounding them usually seems to push the supernatural, and even some practical, aspects of life out of the picture, only to focus on the perceived negatives. I do feel that often they are used to cause fear in families deciding whether to be open to accepting more blessings (if they were to be blessed again). Yes, it is good to know in general, but I think the focus of the dialog when these statistics come up is usually a negative one.

It is an interesting study, and I’d love to see it more developed/replicated. In short, the risks of chromosomal-related abnormalities increases with age (which was generally known), but excluding those conditions and their sometimes-related birth defects (Down Syndrome kids often having heart defects, or kids with Potter Syndrome, IIRC, never developing kidneys, for example), risks of other organ defects go down. The hypothesis seems to be that this relates to a higher incidence of miscarriage (less-healthy babies being more likely to be miscarried) and also better maternal preparedness via general good health, vitamins, and the like. As I said, quite interesting.

I agree that the focus of these discussions can be negative, and is in fact more likely to be so, but you’ll also see the occasional person who implies that to take such factors into account is somehow less holy, or less trusting in God, than to take a reasonable assessment before making a decision. Prudence is one of the cardinal virtues, and practice of it doesn’t exclude trust in God. (Not implying for a moment, of course, that your post was in that line of thinking. )

 

[Rau]

Knowing that the risk of a specific set of adverse conditions falls (from already low levels) with age is not all that relevant given that the risks miscarriages and the risks of the entire set of adverse conditions actually rises.

I agree with the remarks on prudence.

 

[Greenfields]

I for one will never change my mind to be open to having children in my 40’s…even 50’s I came here to ask a question, not to look for counselling (NFP advice)
I am 100% Catholic and 100% pro-life.
My parents who have 10 children taught me these values.
Yes, it is the internet but yes we are called to be true witnesses to the faith.
I am so happy to be healthy willing and able and for us to both answer God’s
call.God bless
(so funny, 'cause even this that I’ve typed will be
misinterpreted and picked to pieces )

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Knowing that the risk of a specific set of adverse conditions falls (from already low levels) with age is not all that relevant given that the risks miscarriages and the risks of the entire set of adverse conditions actually rises.

I agree with the remarks on prudence.

Ok rau. And you knew this was coming. When we look at the stats and skew them to our choices for life and sex. At what point do those states equal or become worse than Zika rates for entire counties right now, and what should we make of the pope’s remarks about dicern meant of artificial contraception. At what rate of occurance does having a baby justify ABC. Since it is theoretically possible according to the Pope.

I am currious about this.

 

[Rau]

Ok rau. And you knew this was coming. When we look at the stats and skew them to our choices for life and sex. At what point do those states equal or become worse than Zika rates for entire counties right now, and what should we make of the pope’s remarks about dicern meant of artificial contraception. At what rate of occurance does having a baby justify ABC. Since it is theoretically possible according to the Pope.

I am currious about this.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at. I can’t make the connection between avoiding pregnancy (by moral means) on the basis of judging one’s circumstances, and Contraception as a means to avoid pregnancy in the same or other circumstances.

And I continue to not understand what the Pope’s “discern” remarks are supposed to mean. The Church authorities who have left the issue “hanging” as they have done deserve strident criticism (and that is as politely as I can express myself on the matter).

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I for one will never change my mind to be open to having children in my 40’s…even 50’s I came here to ask a question, not to look for counselling (NFP advice)
I am 100% Catholic and 100% pro-life.
My parents who have 10 children taught me these values.
Yes, it is the internet but yes we are called to be true witnesses to the faith.
I am so happy to be healthy willing and able and for us to both answer God’s
call.God bless
(so funny, 'cause even this that I’ve typed will be
misinterpreted and picked to pieces )

1. Yes people get off track and want to offer advice about what you should do. Even though you did not ask that. Though truly not thier place you have to expect it on the forums. Your original question seemed to be about how to handle others unwanted opinions and (suprise) there you have them.
2. You need to not care. The decision of you and your husband to engage in the marital embrace and co create with God need not be any of the business of other posters, family members, pew sitters, friends, or waitresses.
3. That being said you are coming off as someone who wants to engage in the “battle”. There are a few on the pro life side that want to be “in your face” about making babies. Implying that everyone should do as they do or think and dicern just like them. That is just as wrong and obnoxious as people who wish to discourage procreation.

4 finally. I have seen many threads get turned into a stat war and a scare war on many issues. This is one of them. It defies logic. It also defies holy vocation and marriage.
Some do it I suppose because they really feel the information is helpful as it affected thier own dicernment. But rarely is it helpful to those who get pregnant later in life and are scared. In fact I believe it plays into a culture of fear and death. Though maybe not directly.
And it most certainly is offensive and hurtful to those families who have special needs children no matter the age of the parents because what it really says is “you don’t want this”. You don’t want it so much you will logically and statistically and sexually do almost anything slowed by Catholic law to keep it from happening. That can be very hurtful to other families indeed.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at. I can’t make the condition between avoiding pregnancy (by moral means) on the basis of judging one’s circumstances, and Contraception.

And I continue to not understand what the Pope’s “discern” remarks are supposed to mean. The Church authorities who have left the issue “hanging” as they have done deserve strident criticism (and that is as politely as I can express myself on the matter).

I think you and I share the confusion on this matter. I would love clarification from the pope in non Zika cases. Cases (like my own) where the risk is greater and graver than Zika.

 

[Rau]

I think you and I share the confusion on this matter. I would love clarification from the pope in non Zika cases. Cases (like my own) where the risk is greater and graver than Zika.

In my more charitable moments, I imagine the pope had in mind a circumstance where “rape in marriage” was the concern. Wife has been bitten by mosquito and drunk hubby comes home and will force a sexual act. And maybe there is s fear that Hubbie will later force an abortion. This is not so different to the Congo nuns where their actions were not morally wrong. But then I snap out of it.

A clarification would only seem to work in cases as I speculated above. Any other would be a theological mountain to climb - requiring a retraction of existing doctrine.

 

[SusanneT]

I for one will never change my mind to be open to having children in my 40’s…even 50’s I came here to ask a question, not to look for counselling (NFP advice)
I am 100% Catholic and 100% pro-life.
My parents who have 10 children taught me these values.
Yes, it is the internet but yes we are called to be true witnesses to the faith.
I am so happy to be healthy willing and able and for us to both answer God’s
call.God bless
(so funny, 'cause even this that I’ve typed will be
misinterpreted and picked to pieces )