Severely retarded girl undergoes surgery to keep her in childlike state

They shouldn't euthenize her. That goes against centuries of human rights developments right there.

In all actuality, I think what they are doing is smart in a technical sense, but decidedly creepy. I agree with this, but I don't really do it wholeheartedly.

Originally Posted by Gecko3

I would also disagree with euthanizing her, as logical as it may seem to some people. The Nazi's would've no doubt studied her for a bit, then after concluding that there was no way to help her, they'd offer the parents an "experimental drug", one that's "worked" in other cases similar to this, but that there's a chance it may kill her. Of course, they're just saying this to get the parents to agree, and accept what happens (followed by the doctors poisoning her, and then telling the parents the girl's body rejected the treatment, a few months afterwards of course, so they could continue billing the parents for a little longer).

Why are we talking about Nazis?

Edit: After reading the blog and not just the article, I have to say that the family seems very secure and the parents very loving. And they made a good case. The procedure isn't quite as disturbing as I thought.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

You know, I've noticied there is a difference between what should be done and what can be done, here, and a lot of us is forgetting it.

Yes, she is a vegetable; yes, she is never going to go beyond where she is. Perhaps if I was some college student on the internet I would simply say, "oh, kill her, please". But you all keep forgetting that this is someone's child.

I find it disturbing that it's the ones who don't have kids (most cases, never plan on having kids) telling the world that the parents are wrong for wanting to make their child's life (what little she has) more comfortable merely because she is a 'drain on society'. What society do we live in? Last I checked, you don't support her. There is nothing inherently illegal or even unethical in these procedures. Let the poor family do what they will, then, if that is the charge they chose to accept, regardless of what you would do.

And Christ, that some of us is arguing for experimentation on this human being... I wonder who in particular should be euthanized, here.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LeHah

This being said - it obviously IS unethical. If it wasn't - why would there be a thread about this in the first place? Your obvious moral certainty belies a certain amount of ignorance that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole or care to honor you to wipe my asshole with.

There's a thread because there is a certain moral ambiguity; I am making my point, saying that it isn't. Who here is guilty of moral certainty? Clearly, I am. So are you in believing it's absolutely unethical. Be a bit more mature, here.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Oh boo-fucking-hoo, how could this heartless college student wish that the parents would kill this abomination? Her only worth lies in the sentimental value she provides to her parents and family.

Which is a lot more important to them than you are recognizing. I can see your point; she is worthless to society. My question is, sincerely, are we judged as human beings on our worth to society? She's clearly worth something to her family. Seeing as how it does you no harm, I don't see what's wrong with letting a mother keep her "abomination". (Abomination - to whom? God?)

Originally Posted by pb and spanglish

What the heck, Lehah? First, you should stop belittling people as your main method of arguing--sure it makes them feel inadequate, but it doesn't really help your case any.

His goal isn't to argue; it is to (attempt) to make them feel inadequate. I don't mind it, though. His insults are always over-the-top humor. I assume it's intentional.

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

At least that's what many religions tell me.

You're not helping your argument, here.

How ya doing, buddy?

You've made a compelling argument.

However, this goes to the original question I had, which is can vs. should. Seeing that this girl isn't a drain on anyone but her parents' finances, do you still want to euthanize her? Question of society aside, her parents clearly want her alive.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

By the way, I wanted to mention something I noticed in the article. The parents claim that her dignity isn't being damaged, but is instead being preserved by the operation. However, how can something possess dignity if it is incapable of understanding the concept? It would seem that by purposely stunting the growth of their daughter, the only people whose dignity is being preserved by this operation is the parents, which I think may be good grounds for declaring the operation unethical.

I noticed that one of the doctors said that the child had no concept of dignity, himself. So the entire 'it's more dignified' argument seems to stem from the parents. In fact, it does seem to suggest that they perhaps feel somewhat guilty leaving their child like this forever?

Which brings me to a point I was thinking. I understand they are keeping her like this for everyone's collective ease and whatnot, ok. But it seems to me that they want to keep their "Pillow Angel" (Christ) a little girl for ever because they probably think she's cute like this in some way. I doubt a forty year old woman who has the mind of an infant is nearly as cute. In that sense, it's certainly selfish of the parents, but then, maybe I'm overanalyzing, here.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Thats not making a point, thats making a statement. Saying the sky is falling does not make it so, and your post did absolutely nothing to bolster your viewpoint at all.

I beg your pardon.

What I intended to say was that it was the unethical choice because I felt no one was harmed. I usually go by this definition. Clearly, it's a bit... well, simplistic, and I'm not absolute about it, but generally speaking, a surgery that doesn't harm the child, makes a burden easier to bear for caregivers, and only takes money out of the pockets of those who wants it isn't too terrible in my book. But I live a life that's very forgiving, as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

The moral ambiguity involved is that there are some dignity issues (I suppose) and also the fact that this procedure involves mutiliating the human body. It's right up there with circumcision in terms of questionable.

Quote:

Your post does that well enough without my pointing it out. So why do I do it? I expect more from people, thats why.

What more, exactly, were you expecting?

I was speaking idiomatically.