The Little Girl With the Gowth Stunting Surgery

[Buccaneer]

[ QUOTE ]
The slippery slope argument is nonsense. To say that this surgery shouldn't have been allowed, even while acknowledging it was justified in this particular case, because less justifiable situations might also result in surgery, is unacceptable. We can't be trusted to judge each case on its own merit especially if they occur so rarely?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the slippery slope is infact a justifible argument here. In fact this is an argument that may well become a roller coaster that someone greased the track.

As pointed out in this thread the child is nothing but a lump of cells that really has no direct input on its furture or survival. Some people want the parents to be tied to this child forever. In this country the mother has a constitutional right to remove any tissue that is dependent on her body to survive, this right is total and not compromisible for any reason. If she and her doctor agree to remove any lump of cells they may, it is her right. It does not matter if the lump of cells is a boil or a lump of cells called a fetus. This right is total and is not dependent on the cells ability to feel joy or pain, feed its self, breath on its own, mess its pants. Really the only factor is the mothers wishes and whether or not that lump of cells has passed through the lips of her labia or not.

Here is where the tracks are greased. Some are trying to tell the mother that she has less rights now concerning that lump of cells even though it will never be able to care, feed or make decisions concerning its self. The lump of cells they are trying to protect has less potential than a fetus but society is attempting to attach some type of post labial social, ethical, moral, and legal umbilical cord to the child. (copy right pending) How can this be that a tard has more rights than a healthy fetus, which has none? If the tard is totaly dependent on the parents can they not make decisions about and for the tard under the right to privacy umbrella that the care giver of a fetus has with her doctor?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
"But if we do decide to keep it alive and give it rights, we shouldn't butcher it for our own convenience"

Why do you keep saying this? It isn't like the child would be at least equally happy without the butchering and only the care givers would be less happy. Supposedly the extra convenience turns into more happiness for the child.

[/ QUOTE ]
From everything I've read, the parents are capable of providing almost the same level of care without the surgery and pills. It would just be more difficult for them. Plenty of people do it every day. Having decided in this case, should we give others the ability to cut their low -functioning tards to make caring for them easier? This is part of the slippery slope concept. I don't buy your argument that every case can be/will be decided on its merits - there is such a thing as precedent and establishing norms.

BTW, if the child could have an operation that made her larger and heavier and have more frequent periods, but which improved her comfort level and happiness a bit, do you think the parents would be as vehement in seeking her surgery?

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep saying this? It isn't like the child would be at least equally happy without the butchering and only the care givers would be less happy. Supposedly the extra convenience turns into more happiness for the child.

[/ QUOTE ]

If possible, should we just remove the brain, put it in a jar and feed it happy drugs. It'll be easier than feeding fish eventually for the parents, so they should be OK with it.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep saying this? It isn't like the child would be at least equally happy without the butchering and only the care givers would be less happy. Supposedly the extra convenience turns into more happiness for the child.

[/ QUOTE ]

If possible, should we just remove the brain, put it in a jar and feed it happy drugs. It'll be easier than feeding fish eventually for the parents, so they should be OK with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny thing is, this is actually closer to the situation where the parents leave her bedridden because transporting her around the house has become more prohibitive, than the situation where they actually go through with the surgery.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep saying this? It isn't like the child would be at least equally happy without the butchering and only the care givers would be less happy. Supposedly the extra convenience turns into more happiness for the child.

[/ QUOTE ]

If possible, should we just remove the brain, put it in a jar and feed it happy drugs. It'll be easier than feeding fish eventually for the parents, so they should be OK with it.

[/ QUOTE ]Such extreme simplification is rarely correct. Or even practical.

[betgo]

The parents and the doctors are criminals. This girl has severe disabilities and they are purposefully crippling her further. The parents have a right to make reasonable medical decisions. They don't have a right to intentionally maim their child.