Hospital decides it was wrong to multilate child on parents behalf

[Kuciwalker]

It seems to be a fairly common one. What do you suggest?

[Last Conformist]

Personally, I'm inclined to speciism - humans are above everyone else 'cos we make the rules.

But what I'm interested in right now is when and why the sentience criterion became so popular - as you say it is quite common these days, and sometimes taken for granted.

[Kuciwalker]

Well if we go that route I don't mind kicking out the members that drag us down.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then why the need for sterilisation? If she isn't going to reproduce, then there is no reason to sterilise her.

Sterilization was never the goal, any more than it would be a goal if a hysterectomy was performed to treat uterine or ovarian cancer. Red herring, through and through.

So unless the child is small, the child won't be cared for? I agree with you that it would be easier to care for the child if she were small, it would also be easier if the child were not alive at all.

You're ducking the issue.

You spend 30 or more years wiping her ass, changing her diaper, rolling her over from side to side several times a day to prevent rashes and bed sores, picking her up and putting her into a wheelchair to take her to school, therapy and medical treatment on a daily basis, dealing with her period every month (and you never quite know when or how much or how often without poking and prodding and checking an awful lot, which is difficult for the girl as well as intrusive and difficult for the parents. Now try it if the girl lives to mid-adult age, and the parents are attempting to provide this care when they're in their 60's and 70's, probably with their own health problems and limitations.

It's not right to stunt the growth of someone and to sterilise them just because it makes caring for them easier.

In this case, why not, other than a knee-jerk ideoligical response that "oh no, can't ever do that?" What actual harm (as opposed to some theoretical, philosophical pontificating about higher principles) has been done to the girl in light of her condition, as opposed to the benefits of making sustained care over the next several decades more feasible, and reducing the difficulty of her day to day life (as well as that of the caregivers), as well as possibly extending her life by reducing risk of breast, ovarian and uterine cancer, toxic shock syndrome, yeast, protozoan and bacterial infections, etc.?

It's like chopping off a leg to make a body fit the coffin.

Really bad analogy. Not relevant at all to anything. You can do better.

We should be getting a bigger coffin instead of shaping people to fit our desires.

Actually, maybe next time you're in church, you should be thanking God that He hasn't burdened you in the same way this poor girl and her family have been, and asking His forgiveness for presuming that any of this reflects her parents' or family's desires. I'm sure they wanted a happy, healthy girl just like most parents, and from what I've read, they've done an awful lot and given up an awful lot to care for their daughter.

Perhaps you shouldn't assume you have the wisdom (or the right) to judge other people's options in situations like this, while not having the slightest clue what they go through on a daily basis.

My question is does this work for any other person who isn't mentally handicapped? If it's not right for them, then why is it right for the mentally handicapped folks.

Define "mentally handicapped?"

Does amputation of the leg work for anyone without necrosis, massive circulatory failure, or similar traumatic injury to the leg?

This is one specific individual, with a specific medical condition and prognosis. Whether the procedure may be appropriate or not should be based solely on the relative benefit vs. risk to the patient, which includes her long-term care requirements.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Well if we go that route I don't mind kicking out the members that drag us down.

That's the catch, of course - exactly who qualifies as human?

Not that the sentience criterion is without it's own problems of application.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Jews.

Well, you're a good argument for abortion, I'll grant you that.

[Kuciwalker]

Well actually that post was referring more to religionists and such.

xpost

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Well, you're a good argument for abortion, I'll grant you that.

Are you actually this slow?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Well actually that post was referring more to religionists and such.

I don't see how that makes my reply any less apropos.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
I'd go with whatever House says about this.

He'd probably be all in favor of the procedure. This season alone he wanted to kill one kid to save another, tried to steal nerves from a teenager, and removed half of someone's brain.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


This girl doesn't seem to be either, in any way that counts.

Yeah, just legally, medically, and according to pretty much every mainstream western medical and bioethical definition of human being, not to mention a few major religions practiced by a few billion people, but that's nothing when Kuciprat's on the job.





Go crawl back up the Kuciverse and flip a burger or pop a zit or something.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Are you actually this slow?

No, I've always thought you were a little prat. You just used to be slightly entertaining.

[Kuciwalker]

You're starting to sound like AAHZ. Aren't you worried?

[MichaeltheGreat]

As long as I don't start to sound like you, no, I'm not.

[MRT144]

Can we force parents to take care of children without giving them money?