Posted on 01/03/2007 1:14:08 PM PST by Lorianne
SEATTLE — This is about Ashley's dignity. Everybody examining her case seems to agree at least about that.
Ashley is a 9-year-old girl who has static encephalopathy, a severe brain impairment. She cannot walk or talk. She cannot keep her head up, roll over or sit up by herself. She is fed with a tube. Her parents call her "Pillow Angel" because she stays right where they place her, usually on a pillow.
Her parents say they feared that their angel would become too big one day — too big to lift, too big to move, too big to take along on a family outing.
And so they decided to keep her small.
In a highly unusual case that is stirring ethical debate in the medical community and elsewhere, doctors at Seattle Children's Hospital and the parents involved are describing how Ashley has received treatment over the last few years designed to stunt her growth.
The treatment, known as "growth attenuation," is expected to keep Ashley's height at about 4 feet 5 and her weight at about 75 pounds for the rest of her life. Doctors expect her to have a normal lifespan. Had she not been given the treatment, doctors estimate, she would have grown into a woman of average height and weight — about 5 feet 6 and 125 pounds.
The parents' decision has drawn criticism and even outrage from some doctors and caregivers, who say such treatment is a violation of a person's dignity. Some say it's also a violation of the medical oath: First do no harm.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I read that post and there was no comparison to Hitler. To suggest that xs compared the parents to Hitler requires either a very careless reading of the post or a deliberate misreading of the post, and would also require that you think she compared them to the Pope.
do i care if you care what i say? no. i am secure enough not to need validation from people on a website, but i will defend the point that both sides should be heard.
Whatever...she brought the HITLER into it to provoke and emotion...she got it and now she doesn't want it.
LOL! i own my comment, stand by it and it speaks for itself.
Then you've just outed yourself. Congratulations.
You say there are ethical limits ... fine. We all agree.
But you refuse to tell us what you think those limits are; you even refuse to say whether or not this case is within them.
What "sides" are there in this debate? How do we even know that you have a side, when you refuse even to tell us what defines the "sides" at all?
It's really odd that you're trying so hard to avoid this particular case -- strange enough that one is forced to wonder whether your reticence has its roots in something less wholesome than a commitment to "both sides being heard."
One might almost think, in fact, that you really don't want both sides heard in this case.
outed myself? as what? i have been here as long as you have. i have never had so much as a warning or a handslap from a moderator. i am comfortable with my reputation on FR, and your feeble attempts to impugn it don't really bother me.
Obviously, it does.
Ah ha! You brought up Hitler first, not xs. You lose. Liberal.
as i said i feel for the parents and i have grave concerns about the ethical limits of such situations. i have made no secret of it, but i think it is far more important that people feel free to express their opinions without the THOU SHALT NOT JUDGE flag being waved in their faces. i have seen it happen many times. question my motives all you like, as i said i am comfortable with my posting history and reputation on FR. i don't engage in flamewars, don't call names or cast aspersions. i am calling for civil discourse on this thread from both sides and that makes me suspect? odd.
: ) you'd like to think so.
You're quite right, not that the facts will have any influence.
The relevance of your expertise in this field is that without either medical knowledge or personal experience, you don't have anything other than an opinion. I have personal experience as the father of a severely handicapped child who can't hold his head up or roll over. THAT makes my opinion worth reading to most but probably not you.
It's kind of like me going on a mid 20th century history thread and arguing my points. I would probably look foolish......
I give no credence to Jimmah. You and I agree on that.
************
Agreed.
And yet you avoid any discussion of this case. Why?
Show me where I bought Hitler into this first...then check #142
why does it bother you that i won't discuss this case. why do you care what my opinion is. and, indeed, i gave it, i said i can see the parents point in what they did but i have grave concerns about unlimited ability to surgically alter another human being. is that not understandable? do you not agree that often one side of a debate is stifled on FR by those that scream that we are not to judge? that is my primary concern here and guess what? i am entitled to have an interest other than the one factually presented on the thread. and i think it's an important one. i will understand if you don't share it and won't think any less of you for it : )
And what was the first questionable decision? We're all dying to know.
Because you've made so many poorly capitalized and hyperventilating posts about "hearing both sides," and yet flatly refuse to tell us your side.
Let's just say that your approach offers nothing to the debate you claim to want to foster. In fact, it makes one doubt your honesty.
If you really want to foster debate, why not try giving us some specific arguments?
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.