Posted on 11/01/2006 4:38:55 PM PST by Piefloater
IN a controversial treatment, doctors in the US have given a severely disabled child drugs to keep her small and 'manageable' for her parents.
In a report published in a medical journal this month, the doctors described a six-year-old girl with profound, irreversible developmental disability who was given high doses of estrogen to permanently halt her growth so that her parents could continue to care for her at home.
The controversial growth-attenuation treatment, which included hysterectomy, was requested by the child's parents and initiated after careful consultation and review by an ethics committee.
In their report in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, doctors Daniel F. Gunther and Douglas S. Diekema, both at the University of Washington in Seattle, explained the reasoning behind what they hoped would generate healthy debate.
Dr Gunther is at the Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, and Dr Diekema is at the Centre for Pediatric Bioethics.
Caring for children with profound developmental disabilities could be difficult and demanding, they said.
For children with severe combined neurologic and cognitive impairment who are unable to move without assistance, all the necessities of life – dressing, bathing, transporting – must be provided by caregivers, usually parents, and these tasks become increasing difficult, if not impossible, as the child increases in size.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Yeah, I guess. Please let everyone know who this doctor or doctors are so we can avoid using their services.
I have a serious question for those of you who support this. Would you feel the same way if parents applied for this treatment for a quadraplegic child of normal intelligence? The reasoning for such a step would be exactly the same that the child is completely reliant on the parents and the parents would find it increasingly more difficult to care for the child as he grew bigger and might have to bring in outside caretakers to help.
It seems to be perfectly acceptable with everyone mainly because the child is mentally retarded.
The family that I knew had a child just like that, who lived to be 12 years old, until they took him to the hospital because his bowels were not functioning and their efforts to relieve the situation were not working. This had happened many times before, but this time the doctors refused to help, saying that it was time to let him go. The mother had seldom left the house for those eleven of those twelve years, but the family never forgave the doctors. Fortunately for them, the child never grew to normal size, but my neighbors now, have a son that will soon be too big for his mother to lift and care for the way she has. What will she do then?
As a rule of thumb, avoid "bioethicists" or doctors who are even on speaking terms with bioethicists. They are in same business as Drs. Mengele, Cranford and Kevorkian.
I have a serious question for those of you who support this...
I, Petronski, do NOT support this, so mind your pronouns if you're replying to me.
Precisely. You've nailed it. Severely mentally retarded children can have their growth stunted, their organs removed and their limbs removed (so long as it is done painlessly), because they are not going to use them anyway, and they are not going to know that they have been physically altered. People who think like this have equated personhood (and the rights that come with personhood) either with intelligence or with 'quality of life'.
-A8
It facilitates the care necessitated by her developmental disabilities, and (WRT hysterectomy) prevents needless pain and hemorrhaging.
The procedure is in fact disabling what *is* functioning, not treating what is not functioning.
Some people have their wisdom teeth taken out, not because they are "not functioning", but because they can cause problems later.
I certainly admire your devotion to this substrata of our society. However, it might appear as a social Dem agenda. Just curious what makes you so devoted?
**************
You make some good points. I thank God I have not had to make the kind of decisions these parents have.
************
I suspect if I were the parents of this child, this would be my reasoning. There is always hope.
Yet they have my sympathy.
Yes, of course. But I have no sympathy for the bioethics committee that dreamed up this plan to deform the child. It was they, surely, who made the decision. Mom and Dad would never have thought to do it or would even have known that it was possible.
This really is a heart wrenching story about bioethics. I also thank God I have not had to walk in these parents' shoes. And I admire those people who can devote their lives to caring for them, they are truly saints.
No, I'm sorry just didn't change it to all. :)
You confuse ethics with usefulness.
And the child in your example. Most deaf people would want to hear if they could. It's not the same.
I answered this above -- a child of normal intelligence will mentally age as well as physically age, and thus will have the capacity to consent to medical procedures or withhold consent.
When a person will develop the capacity to consent or withhold on his/her own, the decision should not be made by the family.
That's not at all what people are saying, but you have been unable to see what people are saying, so go ahead, stick with your agenda.
Not as sickening as your conmstant carping and holier than thou arrogance.
I assume you think the better solution would simply be to kill her?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.