Oh. I guess I am not allowed to have an opinion as to any issues regarding bioethics and that such issues, including abortion, should merely be left to doctors, nurses and others involved in healthcare. What complete drivel.
No, I wouldn't support the amputation of limbs. It is the continued hope of parents in this situation that they will be able to continue therapy and somehow increase mobility somewhat. Even though she cannot use her limbs in a conventional fashion she can be stimulated by touch, and can be comforted by someone holding her hand. This is another part of her disability which results in an increased dependence on the senses she has, even at a limited rate.
The article conveys none of these points and sets forth that the parents chose to stunt their daughter's growth through elective surgery and hormone treatments predominantly for mobility and convenience purposes. If you argue that these elective surgeries were proper when merely serving a purely convenience function, then you cannot rule out the possibility of other elective surgeries, such as amputation, to be thrust upon one at the whim of another for the sake of mere "convenience."
I'm sick of arguing this point. Now go back to reading Sanger's biography or whatever it is that gives you the idea that people have the right to arbitrarily decide to remove the body parts of others less fortunate under the guise of "convenience."
You're clearly entitled to your opinion. The problem is that without knowledge of the situation, it may not be relevant. The fact that the article fails to mention any of my points supports my statement. These factors are implied and widely known among families with severely disabled children. Convenience could very well be the author's word which does not accurately portray the situation.
I'm not arguing the "convenience" angle, I'm dismissing it. I don't think people have the right to make these arbitrary decisions so give us all a break.
Once again, do you have any expertise other than being a "history major"?