The Little Girl With the Gowth Stunting Surgery

[David Sklansky]

As usual my focus is on the arguments. The subject itself doesn't particularly concern me. What bothers me is that those who think the surgery was wrong miss the argument with merit and use two others without merit.

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?

The argument that we shouldn't "play God" is beneath contempt. If there is a God he gave some people brains to figure out how to make people's lives better. That may one day include giving people an eye in the back of their head. So what?

If the surgery shouldn't have been done, the reason should be because the girl would be better off without it. Or at least there needs to be some chance of that. Right now she has the mind of a three month old. If that never changes what possible downside to her accrues if she doesn't get larger? And there are apparently upsides.

The argument on the side of not doing the surgery is that there might be some hope she would get better. I have no idea whether that is a logical impossibility. If not there is reason for debate. Otherwise it is a slam dunk.

[Gobgogbog]

Well, I agree with you completely there.

This is just another case of people valuing their opinion far above people who are far more qualified on the subject and have far more details about the actual subject, and backing up that opinion with illogical arguments.

I turned to CNN today, the host of the show had a doctor on. The doctor was saying the surgery was a good call. She was accusing the doctor of being unethical, and then asked him why they had to take out her female organs. This is a fine question, but she was not asking it honestly, she was accusing him of supporting mutilation.

I thought to myself, "lady, you aren't a doctor, why would you feel your medical opinion is worth anything?"

The doctor started to explain, medically, why removing her female organs was beneficial to her. The news lady immediately says "Whoa whoa whoa, slow down, I'm a lawyer not a doctor."

That's right. So get a clue and listen to the doctors.

[goofball]

Duh.

[Deorum]

Link to the story, please.

[Xhad]

Article with accompanying video from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/condi....ap/index.html

[Xhad]

After reading the above, relatively objective link:

People Being Outraged

Biggest pile of nonsense:

[ QUOTE ]
Using their logic, why not just perform quadruple amputations? I mean, really, she's not going to use her arms and legs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think even a mental infant would notice if a large percentage of their body suddenly went missing. On the other hand, "Ashley" won't notice not being an adult because she was never going to be one anyway.

Ethicist Explaining Why This is Fine

I was going to quote the best part but I couldn't narrow it down. Definitely worth a read if you care about this at all.

[willie24]

i think the horror that hits some people when they hear this story is at the idea of people are making drastic life-changing, "unnatural" decisions for someone else, with that person having no say. this can be a scary idea...we empathize with the girl...we think "god, to be castrated...what right does someone else have to do that to me? I wouldn't even know it" many of us want to believe completely in freedom of the individual, personal rights etc, even to the point of lowered overall satisfaction for said person. a problem with the argument for inalienable personal freedom is that in nature, the real world, whatever you want to call it, all people are completely dependant on things outside themselves at many times in their lives. the obvious example is that you needed your mother for survival, and even existence at all as a baby. did she owe that to you? if so, isn't that an infringement on her personal freedom? if she didn't owe it to you, aren't you forever indebted to her (and others who you rely on at other points in your life who also don't owe you anything) to the point where your rights aren't really inherant, because your existance and survival aren't?

you can think about abortion this way- is mother killing fetus wrong? is mother killing baby wrong? is mother abstaining from getting pregnant wrong? is mother killing adult child wrong? in all cases mother is preventing a life completely dependant on her from existing...if any of them are wrong due to baby's personal rights, isn't this burden an infringement on mothers personal rights?

this dilemma seems to suggest that the idea of personal rights might not always be morally justifiable...which in turn raises the question of whether there is even such a thing as morality. the argument that society's best interest is the basis of morality doesn't appear to be consistent with nature/biology and doesn't seem like much of an obvious candidate for having any supporting evidence...depending on your definition of morality i guess.

without morality, what are we left with?

the parents love their kid. the kid wouldn't exist without them. the kid's life would be much worse without them- she needs them more than she needs her sex organs. they think its best for the kid to have the surgery. i'm not going to argue with them.

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument that we shouldn't "play God" is beneath contempt. If there is a God he gave some people brains to figure out how to make people's lives better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not know what this thread is all about. I did not read the original post. But this comment concerning "beneath" contempt caught my eye. First, I do not believe in God. But I have to say that what is beneath contempt is someone that does not believe in God saying that "If there is a God he gave some people brains to figure out how to make people's lives better." How in the hell do you know why God gave people brains and how do you know they aren't misusuing them by helping others? The nerve of some people.

leaponthis

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
The slippery slope argument is nonsense.
...
The argument that we shouldn't "play God" is beneath contempt.

[/ QUOTE ]Check. And check.

[ QUOTE ]
If the surgery shouldn't have been done, the reason should be because the girl would be better off without it. Or at least there needs to be some chance of that. Right now she has the mind of a three month old. If that never changes what possible downside to her accrues if she doesn't get larger? And there are apparently upsides.

[/ QUOTE ]The main arguments offered by her parents about their decision seem to be, when all is said and done, about how better off they will be, in caring for her, by having her go through that operation. In their own words "Ashley will be more comfortable at a smaller size; large breasts would have made lying down difficult; it will be easier to include her in family gatherings if she is lighter and easier to carry around."

So that's one thing to consider: To that extent the afflicted person's (loving & caring) parents or guardians are allowed to go, as to the living conditions and physical status of that person, in order to take care of some of their own comfort ? (Remember that disabled persons such as Ashley did not survive until a few decades ago. At other times, they were not even allowed to survive!)

[ QUOTE ]
The argument on the side of not doing the surgery is that there might be some hope she would get better.

[/ QUOTE ] Plus, the (admittedly secondary) argument about the message being sent to other afflicted persons. I notice that most complaints have come from horrified disabled persons or parents of such persons -- not necessarily religious or "anti-science" people.

Personally, I generally tend to go with the default option in surgery, which is "Do Nothing"! Or, at least, "Do The Minimum!" Let the organism take care of itself; it usually does better than what the quacks do. The argument about whether she might have gotten better is worthy of more consideration, on account of the significant unreliability of modern medicine to care for the patient's well being above everything. The race for more recognition, fame and money is very prevalent. The need to get one's name in the history book weighs a lot on doctors' minds. I guess it's the same in any profession but this is doctors of medicine we're talking about - and our f*cking bodies on the surgery table.

So let's be careful out there.

Mickey Brausch

[mjkidd]

David -- Would you say that the slippery slope argument is almost always nonsense? I haven't once found the slippery slope argument to be compelling.