[Gvadelunar]

Sounds like a state driven lawsuit in the making.

[ZIDouglas]

Who cares?

[nakeseireo]

[globjgtyf]

Yeah I heard about this earlier. It used to be the standard treatment for the mentally handicapped to be sterilised and put in homes. It was supposed to keep them from having children, the exact same motivation that the parents had here.

The growth stunting was an additional step. Glad to see that the hospital won't be doing any more of these, but they can never restore the child they harmed again.

[neeclindy]

Pillow angel?

This could be the next pet rock.

[pharweqto]

I think that means you agree with Kuci.

-Arrian

[Arexytece]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yeah I heard about this earlier. It used to be the standard treatment for the mentally handicapped to be sterilised and put in homes. It was supposed to keep them from having children, the exact same motivation that the parents had here. Since this girl will never be able to speak, understand language beyond some primitive understanding that mommy and daddy's soft cooing sounds are nice, and never get out of diapers, reproduction outside of rape is a non-issue. Any sick bastard who raped a kid/adult in this condition should be made to dig their own grave with their bare hands, and then dispatched with a shotgun load of rock salt up their ass.

The growth stunting was an additional step. The parents' motivation was prevention of menstruation (a sanitary and care issue, plus emotional disturbance to the child, as she has panic reactions and major fits at the sight of blood, and nobody can, or ever will be able, to explain anything to her), and limitation of physical growth so that she will be able to be cared for. (She'll require lifetime care on a 24 hour basis, and who's going to do it if the parents won't or can't?)

they can never restore the child they harmed again. How exactly was she harmed? Loss of "reproductive rights?" God grant that she'd ever have the cognitive function. Staying physically smaller? Not like she was going to make the high school field hockey team or be prom queen. Potty training would be a lifetime accomplishment.

[uwJzsM8t]

She is clearly at least minimally responsive to her environment, so she has some cognitive function, rather than being in a PVS.

[plantBanceper]

Originally posted by Arrian
Why is this child still alive? QFT.

[HonjUopu]

Amoeba aren't human beings, ****wit.

Was that a troll, or are you too dumb to understand the difference?

[erroxiainsona]

ISTM we abort fetuses with more mental development than her.

[BJEugene]

Who's "we?"

[Romobencience]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Who's "we?" Jews.

[vforvandetta]

When did cognitive function become the measure of a lifeform's value, anyway?

[vipBrooriErok]

Okay, when did sentience become the measure of value?

[VDAu5p33]

Personally, I'm inclined to speciism - humans are above everyone else 'cos we make the rules.

But what I'm interested in right now is when and why the sentience criterion became so popular - as you say it is quite common these days, and sometimes taken for granted.

[dumadegg]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then why the need for sterilisation? If she isn't going to reproduce, then there is no reason to sterilise her. Sterilization was never the goal, any more than it would be a goal if a hysterectomy was performed to treat uterine or ovarian cancer. Red herring, through and through.

So unless the child is small, the child won't be cared for? I agree with you that it would be easier to care for the child if she were small, it would also be easier if the child were not alive at all.
You're ducking the issue.

You spend 30 or more years wiping her ass, changing her diaper, rolling her over from side to side several times a day to prevent rashes and bed sores, picking her up and putting her into a wheelchair to take her to school, therapy and medical treatment on a daily basis, dealing with her period every month (and you never quite know when or how much or how often without poking and prodding and checking an awful lot, which is difficult for the girl as well as intrusive and difficult for the parents. Now try it if the girl lives to mid-adult age, and the parents are attempting to provide this care when they're in their 60's and 70's, probably with their own health problems and limitations.

It's not right to stunt the growth of someone and to sterilise them just because it makes caring for them easier. In this case, why not, other than a knee-jerk ideoligical response that "oh no, can't ever do that?" What actual harm (as opposed to some theoretical, philosophical pontificating about higher principles) has been done to the girl in light of her condition, as opposed to the benefits of making sustained care over the next several decades more feasible, and reducing the difficulty of her day to day life (as well as that of the caregivers), as well as possibly extending her life by reducing risk of breast, ovarian and uterine cancer, toxic shock syndrome, yeast, protozoan and bacterial infections, etc.?

It's like chopping off a leg to make a body fit the coffin. Really bad analogy. Not relevant at all to anything. You can do better.

We should be getting a bigger coffin instead of shaping people to fit our desires. Actually, maybe next time you're in church, you should be thanking God that He hasn't burdened you in the same way this poor girl and her family have been, and asking His forgiveness for presuming that any of this reflects her parents' or family's desires. I'm sure they wanted a happy, healthy girl just like most parents, and from what I've read, they've done an awful lot and given up an awful lot to care for their daughter.

Perhaps you shouldn't assume you have the wisdom (or the right) to judge other people's options in situations like this, while not having the slightest clue what they go through on a daily basis.

My question is does this work for any other person who isn't mentally handicapped? If it's not right for them, then why is it right for the mentally handicapped folks. Define "mentally handicapped?"

Does amputation of the leg work for anyone without necrosis, massive circulatory failure, or similar traumatic injury to the leg?

This is one specific individual, with a specific medical condition and prognosis. Whether the procedure may be appropriate or not should be based solely on the relative benefit vs. risk to the patient, which includes her long-term care requirements.

[Grarypealumma]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Jews.

Well, you're a good argument for abortion, I'll grant you that.

[alicewong]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Well, you're a good argument for abortion, I'll grant you that. Are you actually this slow?

[Antelpebabe]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
I'd go with whatever House says about this.

He'd probably be all in favor of the procedure. This season alone he wanted to kill one kid to save another, tried to steal nerves from a teenager, and removed half of someone's brain.