The peter pan surgury

Stu Pidasso · #1 01-05-2007, 05:08 AM

Anyone here got a problem with this? Tolbiny, CollegeKid, Vhawk.... I'm looking your way.
link

Stu

vhawk01 · #2 01-05-2007, 07:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone here got a problem with this? Tolbiny, CollegeKid, Vhawk.... I'm looking your way.
link

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm off to class, but yes, I do find this case, and cases like this, to be interesting. I will try to post this afternoon, or else I will just bump it after the weekend.

chezlaw · #3 01-05-2007, 07:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone here got a problem with this? Tolbiny, CollegeKid, Vhawk.... I'm looking your way.
link

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
From what I've read about this, it sounds all good.

Key bit was the doctors being convinced it was in the best interests of the child and that that was why the parents wanted it.

chez

vhawk01 · #4 01-05-2007, 08:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone here got a problem with this? Tolbiny, CollegeKid, Vhawk.... I'm looking your way.
link

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
From what I've read about this, it sounds all good.

Key bit was the doctors being convinced it was in the best interests of the child and that that was why the parents wanted it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you would have to go to some pretty extreme lengths to show this wasn't in the best interests of all involved. It looks like the only controversy over this case comes from slippery-slope doomsayers, and that is usually the camp I find myself in.

Brings up one specific issue that I find interesting. Is her case different because at no point in her life will she ever be an independent human adult? She will never be able to care for herself, so do other people have a more direct stake in her medical decisions? It would certainly seem that way.

I sure hope I fit your definition of consistent, since I am now on record as being ok with abortion, designer babies, and this Peter Pan surgery.

luckyme · #5 01-05-2007, 11:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Douglas Diekema, an ethicist at Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, where Ashley was treated, said he met with the parents and became convinced they were motivated by love and the girl's best interests

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not convinced that the parents motivations are a factor to be weighed. If it's decided to be in the best interests of child is there some spin on the parents motives that should affect the outcome?

luckyme

vhawk01 · #6 01-05-2007, 05:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Douglas Diekema, an ethicist at Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, where Ashley was treated, said he met with the parents and became convinced they were motivated by love and the girl's best interests

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not convinced that the parents motivations are a factor to be weighed. If it's decided to be in the best interests of child is there some spin on the parents motives that should affect the outcome?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly have no idea. My first gut reaction is that yes, in this case, the parents motives and the parents wishes should play an important role. I think this is far less so in cases of 'normal' children, for the sole reason that this girl is going to be 100% dependent on her parents for the rest of her life. At no point, ever, will she do anything that doesn't directly impact her parents, and their lives are going to be inextricably tied to their daughter for as long as she or they live.

I am uncomfortable considering her as less of a person, or at least less of an independent person, than any 'normal' child, but I see no other way.

I would be more than happy to listen to someone explain to me why I am wrong on this issue...I am far from comfortable with my position.

luckyme · #7 01-05-2007, 05:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am uncomfortable considering her as less of a person, or at least less of an independent person, than any 'normal' child, but I see no other way.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's touches on what was gnawing at me. If an unbiased hospital board decided that certain procedures are 'best for the child' and the parents also wanted them but for more selfish reasons than the ones they expressed ( perhaps "easier on my back getting her into the tub" and such) is there some pro-procedure statement that the parents can make that will cause the board to say "that's it ! these parents have impure motives, so the child doesn't get these procedures".

It struck me that leaving the parents motives out of it keeps the child the only consideration and thus as important as any other child.

luckyme

vhawk01 · #8 01-05-2007, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am uncomfortable considering her as less of a person, or at least less of an independent person, than any 'normal' child, but I see no other way.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's touches on what was gnawing at me. If an unbiased hospital board decided that certain procedures are 'best for the child' and the parents also wanted them but for more selfish reasons than the ones they expressed ( perhaps "easier on my back getting her into the tub" and such) is there some pro-procedure statement that the parents can make that will cause the board to say "that's it ! these parents have impure motives, so the child doesn't get these procedures".

It struck me that leaving the parents motives out of it keeps the child the only consideration and thus as important as any other child.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

But in this case, how can you possibly extricate "parents motives" and "child's wellbeing?" I mean, even if it is something exactly like "my back will hurt less," this DIRECTLY influences the child's quality of care, and quality of life. The more miserable the parents life becomes, the worse the child's care will be. This isn't often the case in child v. parent medical decisions (like Jehovah's witness exemptions, things like that) but in this case it really is.

surftheiop · #9 01-05-2007, 06:30 PM

'Is her case different because at no point in her life will she ever be an independent human adult? She will never be able to care for herself, so do other people have a more direct stake in her medical decisions? It would certainly seem that way."

I dont wanna start a huge debate here but your implying that future growth/ future ability plays some factor in this decision. why is the future of an entity often dismissed in abortion debate? (not saying you specificaly b/c i dont know your stances, but in general)

hmkpoker · #10 01-05-2007, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
University of Pennsylvania ethicist Art Caplan said the case is troubling and reflects "slippery slope" thinking among parents who believe "the way to deal with my kid with permanent behavioral problems is to put them into permanent childhood."

[/ QUOTE ]

What slippery slope? The girl has a rare and severe brain disorder that will forever prevent her from having adult privileges/responsibilities. Young children are much harder to take care of than adults (who very usually become fully independent). Does anyone honestly think that allowing this option is going to result in "oh billy has ADD, better castrate him and keep him on hormones so he can't age physically."