Posted on 11/01/2006 4:38:55 PM PST by Piefloater
Deafness is an impaired function. The medical arts are properly used to restore normal function; heal injury; cure disease.
In the case under discussion, medical techniques are bring used to impair normal functions, namely growth and maturation: not as a side-effect, but as the intended result. That is not ethical. It is the opposite of the purpose of medicine, which is to achieve health and healing.
In short, there's all the difference in the world between repairing abnormality, and deliberately pursuing abnormality.
Wow what an interesting moral dilemma, I'll have to ponder this a while before formulating an opinion. Looking forward to reading what others have to say.
That would be better than stunting her. But better still would be for the parents to sacrifice just a bit more, and care for at home even if she grows to adult-size.
-A8
Then I hope you're against all cosmetic plastic surgery, Botox, teeth whitening, etc. etc. etc. all those things that medicine does to create things that are not found in nature -- abnormally white teeth, abnormally perky boobs, and abnormally unlined foreheads. Medicine does those things too.
We're talking about keeping someone SHORT for gosh's sakes, we're not talking about creating Frankenstein's monster. Tall or medically kept short -- what does it matter? Constant love and attention v. crapshoot - that matters in the grand scheme of things.
Limbed or limbless -- what does it matter? Constant love and attention . . .
-A8
That's so uncaring to both the child and to the parents I really don't know what to say.
I already responded to that limb v. limbless issue -- it's the question of unnecessary ongoing pain and mobility problenms -- and I don't think it really benefits either one of us to continue this debate with each other.
"Were I this child I would rather die, and die cruelly, than be medically altered for the convenience of my parents."
Relevant questions. What use does one have for a uterus if you are not going to reproduce? If normal size makes you less likely to receive quality care is it something you need? Is is more to the child's benefit to be bathed 3 times a week rather than once? Or to be moved to the bathroom to evacuate or be left for longer periods in a soiled diaper.
I see this also as being a quality of life issue for the child. Christ said that it was better to lose ones eye or hand and to enter the kingdom of heaven than to be whole. (paraphrase) It's not the same thing, but there are similarities.
do you have any personal experience in the "sacrifices"
you are suggesting for these parents?
caring for an adult sized infant is a very physically and
emotionally draining experience.
these parents are not removing limbs, they are giving her
medications to keep her small so that she can be cared for
at home. they do not want to farm her out to an institution
when she is too big for them to care for her on their own.
I have a seven-year old quadraplegic daughter that my wife and I take care of at home, and will continue to do so until we are too old or too incapicitated to do so.
What about you? Do you have any personal experience in these sacrifices?
-A8
Overdosing her on estrogen may very likely give her breast cancer.
Really, we aren't discussing "want" here. Either elderly people (they will eventually be elderly) can carry around someone of 100-150 lbs regularly or they cannot. It isn't a question of sacrificing more.
absolutely. as i said before, i am a special education
teacher. i have taught students of all disabilities from
preschool through high school.
Let's cut right to the chase here, shall we?
No abortion, right? And the parents can't make their own decisions about their child's care. Are YOU volunteering for the job?
A good end does not justify an unethical means. But "deliberately pursuing abnormality" (to use Mrs. Don-o's phrase) is unethical. (That is precisely why it would have been unethical to give thalidomide to this child in utero to prevent her from developing arms and legs.) Stunting a child is a deliberately pursuing abnormality. Therefore, stunting this child is unethical, even if done for a good end.
-A8
This is a very tough situation. God bless you all. I hope you can keep her at home for a long, long time.
No infanticide, right?
-A8
Where the heck are you people when circumcision threads come up?
-A8
The girl is now six years old. Of course there will come a day when they can't move her. Nobody disagrees with *that*. The problem is doing something unethical (i.e. stunting the girl's growth) in order to extend the time before that happens.
-A8
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.