"Frozen girl" debate

[Jayda]

It is, or at least should be, up to society to define the borders of medical ethics, not just the medics. You make it sound as if the public at large is opposed to stem cell research and euthanasia in all cases while 'misguided' doctors are not. Clearly, that is not the case. There are many different opinions both within the profession and outside it.

hola Trumble,

all medical ethics boards base their ethics protocols on something called the Hippocratic oath which says this:

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

alternately there is also the international Physicians Oath which says:

# I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
# I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
# I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patient will be my first consideration;
# I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession; my colleagues will be my brothers;
# I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
# I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;
# I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor

acting in the best interest of the patient, and doing no harm are essential... sometimes these things are not clear, and sometimes they are deliberately made to seem unclear so that a controversial treatment or procedure could be pushed through.

all states still revoke licenses to practice for performing euthanasia, the AMA harshly condemns it, and most ethics boards consider stem cell research unethical, no approved stem cell therapy procedure has ever passed an ethics board...

it is important to remember that a patient is a person, an individual life and not a political issue. Doctors are first responsible for protecting this life, and sometimes that can run against the better interests of larger society. when a doctor is entrusted with a life they must do everything they can to protect it...

a perfect example of the nightmare that can occur when society is given the right to a say in a patient's well being is Terri Schiavo, whos well being was being debated in congress instead of in the hands of her doctor whose ethical responsibilities were to do everything medically possible to treat her, without causing harm.

ethics and laws are not always the same, good physicians will always use their knowledge for the benefit of the patient and to cause no harm... even if society says otherwise, as was the case with many doctors in Germany when the Nazis instituted euthanasia programs, deliberately ordered doctors to run experiments on unwanted people and other such things... there were many doctors who refused and they were true to their oaths.

Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

just to say something else, the reason i find this so unethical is that it is completely unnecessary... her parents are doing this to make it easier for them to care for her at home at a later time in her life, it is almost completely unnecessary surgery. on top of this it is extremely drastic... she is having a double masectomy, extensive reconstructive surgery, a full course of hormonal treatment that will continue through the course of her natural life so that she will never have to age...

the condition doctors are treating her for is not age... age is not a disease, they are treating her for a brain disease and it is shameful to even say that their excuse is even a tentative connection... obviously this is a groundbreaking procedure with research opportunities in many disciplines, and doctors are rushing to the opportunity of "curing age" as it will be presented in the headlines...

they are not acting in the best interests of the patients, they are acting in the best interests of the parents and themselves... and they are doing harm with this needless and drastic procedure, it is altogether shameful and the ethics board that allowed this to happened should be ashamed of themselves...

 

[glo]

I hope you don't mind be saying so, Jayda, but those are rather judgmental words.

Don't you think that these may be loving parents who want to be able to provide care for their daughter, rather than having to hand her over into the care of others?
Don't you think it may be in Ashley's best interest to be cared for by those who love her the most?

I work with parents who spend their entire lives struggling and fighting for their disabled children, for care allowances, for aids and adaptations at home, for day care provisions etc ...
I would not condemn any of them. And neither would I wish their struggles on anybody else.
These are not parents who will see their children grow, mature, become independent, study and get a job, marry and raise their own families ... these are parents who know that they will care for their children as long as they have the strength to do so.

I don't know if Ashley's parents have done right or wrong by her, and if their decision was according to God's will or not, or ethical or not - but I cannot find it in my heart to have anything but respect and admiration for them ...

Peace

 

[Tania]

Just to understand Glo, because its seems you know a lot about her disease, Ashley can understand something from her house life. For example she can ask for food, to walk or other basic needs :? Or she has no idea neither who are the people which look after her, neither of the house objects.(You can talk with her because she can't understand.)

 

[glo]

Just to understand Glo, because its seems you know a lot about her disease, Ashley can understand something from her house life. For example she can ask for food, to walk or other basic needs :? Or she has no idea neither who are the people which look after her, neither of the house objects.(You can talk with her because she can't understand.)

I don't know exactly, Tania.

Ashley is described as having the developmental age of a three-month-old.
If you know any babies of that age, then imagine a 9-year-old with the level of ability a three-month-old would have: She cannot walk or talk or even express her needs clearly by other means such as signing and gesturing. She cannot care for herself, she needs feeding and changing etc ...
But chances are she knows her immediate surroundings and she can respond to (perhaps by smile or turning her head towards) familiar sounds, objects and people.

I am guessing a little here, because I don't know her circumstances exactly - but I have worked with and known a good few people with that level of functioning.

 

[Tania]

It means she did nothing from what a child is suppose to do. What a life

 

[glo]

It means she did nothing from what a child is suppose to do.

Yes, you are right.

What a life

Well, who are we to judge whether her life is happy or not. It may not be 'meaningful' in the way adults would perceive it.
But however we may feel about it, Ashley is in this world, and she should have her life made as comfortable as possible ...
Three-months-olds need very little to be happy and content: they need to be fed, free from pain, clean, warm, cuddled and loved.
As long as she gets those things, chances are Ashley is a happy person.

She will never do any of those things we may perceive as 'achievements' in life - but then, she doesn't know what she is 'missing' and therefore doesn't have any desire for it.

 

[Daffodil]

menstrual pad, what menstrual pad? if shes like a 3 month old baby then surely she wears a nappy as she cant go to the toilet so thats no issue,

im sorry but god can do miracles and its not fair on this poor little beautiful girl to have parts of her body removed just for the convenience of their own personal life.

they are messing with gods creation. they shud let her be, stop tampering with her body. i feel so sorry for the girl i want to adopt her, her parents are insane.