It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Severely Disabled Children Be Kept Small?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by eddie666m1980w
My wee cousin has seribal paulsey & thankfully its only his ankles that are effected & his problem is that he cannot put his feet flat on the floor he walks on the ball of his feet (his tip toes) his mucles wont relax enough for him to walk properly & he has to wear splints, he did go in for snake venom treatment but it had great effect & what but it did not last the week,
he is a very intelligent wee boy & asks alot of questions of everything
(he never ever ever ever stops) he goes to regular school so apart from walking on his tip toes hes cool,

im sort of ok with the fact that venom was used to treat him after all its made/evolved naturally, it did work for about four days & he was running around like he was on fire playing football untill the sun went down,
but the treatment ive read in your post is a bit too sickening & scary to think about its a disgrace to all that is human,
(shrink them down as if out of sight out of mind?)
[edit on 2-11-2006 by eddie666m1980w]


I'm thankful I'm not in a position to have to make a decision like this. The point is that the child in question has the mentality of an infant ... but she responds to mom and dad and her siblings, the article says she smiles and is an integral part of the family. This isn't a child in a vegetative state ... but this is a child that, like an infant, is completely uncapable of personal care.

Mom and dad faced a tough decision ... if the child continues to grow at a normal rate they would be unable to care for her after 10-12 years and would pretty much be forced to put her into some sort of care facility. If they prevent or limit her growth ... maybe to that of a 7-10 yr old ... they can care for her for the rest of their lives. They obviously love their child.

Personally, I can't say what decision I would make. I've had to deal with some tough issues with my son but, thankfully, nothing that compares to this. I can not pass judgement on someone for wanting to take care of, love, and provide for their child indefinitely. Also, she's going to be in a much better environment at home rather than in a care facility.

The doctors that made the decision to give her this treatment faced these ethical considerations. Every case is not the same ... but in this case I don't think any ethics were violated.




posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Theres absoluty nothing wrong with wanting to look after your child, disabled in any way or not, my big problem with the main posters story is the fact that the parents in that story accept the doctors advice to "stunt" the growth of that disabled child JUST to make the parents life in caring for that child a whole lot easier (what shady parents),
& its wrong- (in my view atleast) -also in the sense that the applied medicines seem to be ceaseing to cure/make better this childs life,health & fitness-
(which is or was the whole point of medicine) -& begin to just simply alter the child for the sake of being less trouble for the parents!

they are taking away whats left of natural things availible to that child, growing up etc, ok the child may not even notice growing up or even being & getting older like we do but still, doctors & medicine were not set out only to end up in this case repackaging a child to suit the needs of the parents, totaly disgusting behaviour on both parts, & a wrong turn for doctors & medicine (in my view anyway)



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by eddie666m1980w
Theres absoluty nothing wrong with wanting to look after your child, disabled in any way or not, my big problem with the main posters story is the fact that the parents in that story accept the doctors advice to "stunt" the growth of that disabled child JUST to make the parents life in caring for that child a whole lot easier (what shady parents),
& its wrong- (in my view atleast) -also in the sense that the applied medicines seem to be ceaseing to cure/make better this childs life,health & fitness-
(which is or was the whole point of medicine) -& begin to just simply alter the child for the sake of being less trouble for the parents!

they are taking away whats left of natural things availible to that child, growing up etc, ok the child may not even notice growing up or even being & getting older like we do but still, doctors & medicine were not set out only to end up in this case repackaging a child to suit the needs of the parents, totaly disgusting behaviour on both parts, & a wrong turn for doctors & medicine (in my view anyway)


They're not stunting her growth to make it easier to care for them ... they're doing it so it will be possible to care for the child. If she's in a complete vegatative state as they describe and she grows to a normal height/weight it will eventually become impossible for mom and dad to care for her daily without quite a bit of help. They would be forced, like many other families, to place her as an adult into some sort of facility. Assuming they can not afford the exorbitant charges it would be up to the state to provide for her since she is completely disabled. I can understand them not wanting her to end up in such an institution. Depending on how close the nearest facility is to them it may make it next to impossible to even visit on a regular basis.

As far as curing the problem ... as bad as this particular condition is described they will not be finding a "cure" for her condition during her lifetime. The best bet is ongoing research may find ways to prevent her condition from future generations.

I don't envy the parents having to make these decisions. They already struggle to give their child as much normalcy as possible. I doubt they jumped on the opportunity simply to make their "life easier". If they wanted to do that they would have already turned her over to some state facility, she would definitely qualify based on her condition, and they could've gone about life with their other "normal" children. Instead they recognize her role in the family and her individuality and do everything they can to care for her.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Good point, but the fact is, nature is not allowed to take it's course in today's society. Previously fatal conditions are being mitigated by the use of science and medicine. Terry Schiavo comes to mind.


exactly. Nature doesn't take course in today's society anyway. People dont die from sickness anymore, and often birth complexes that would surely end a new borns life naturally are treated and fine soon after.

The fact is that nature isnt in complete control anymore, and I question if we are making the right choices as we become the ones in control. Sure the immediate response to saving a childs life as a new born is to save it, but I sometimes wonder if we are in fact creating our own demise in the long run.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

[Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas

(They're not stunting her growth to make it easier to care for them ... they're doing it so it will be possible to care for the child. If she's in a complete vegatative state as they describe and she grows to a normal height/weight it will eventually become impossible for mom and dad to care for her daily without quite a bit of help.)


Isn't that the same thing as what i said? i got what your saying, & im STILL saying to you & everyone else that its not right in any way to stunt the growth of anyone just to make the parents lifes easier,
& i know that there would be difficulty for the parents to take care of that child but no more than any other child or even adult with severe disabilitys & everyone else does it for their disabled child without repackaging them just to make things easier for themselves, sure they struggle sure they cry about the whole situation but they still get on with it. to me its like a vanity thing or somwhere along those lines its disgusting to do that to anyone, rot in hell for it. i know you see exactly what im saying & i get a feeling you did before but i guess you just wanted to post somthing? NUFF SAID

[edit on 7-11-2006 by eddie666m1980w]




top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join