Here's a story I've seen on and off for a couple of years. I feel like I should put up a warning or something because it's not something you come across every day and I'm sure it'll be disturbing to some.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/15/ashley-treatment-rise-amid-concerns
Having no dog in this race and not being in those families' situations I don't know how I feel. It seems ethically wrong. Yet I understand why they're doing it. But it just seems wrong. But it does make managing this severe kind of disability practical. But it seems wrong. I don't know. What do you guys think?
MYSTERIOUS GARDEN
1 year ago
4 comments:
Wow..that's drastic, radical treatment. I think I understand partly why the parents would want to do this. It certainly makes the child more manageable to care for. I think I can condone it if the child is virtually a vegetable and will never improve, I think. But if a childs brain function is normal or near normal and the problem is strictly physical I have qualms...I mean...what if in the future a cure is found for whatever condition the child has...and it is stunted and dehumanized to the point where it is not feasible to cure them? What then? I don't think I could do it regardless of the situation.
Arguably, considering our rate of resource consumption, the world would better accommodate us if were all smaller, not microscopic but large enough that spaniels wouldn't throttle us for fun.
I will not judge as I do not walk in these loving parents shoes. Understandably, this is controversial, but I am sure that the parents did what they thought would be the best for their child.
What an appalling decision to be faced with. A woman I worked with had to put her severely disabled son into residential care simply because he grew too large for her to manage to wash/dress him/take him for outings. Would such a move have helped her to continue to care for her son at home where he was happier? Probably. Am I comfortable with it? No. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes I suppose.
Post a Comment