It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


3 Year Old Girl Denied Kidney Transplant Because She Is “Mentally Retarded”

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:57 PM
If one can judge a life more worth saving than another then we should be able to conclude that a reality based on that same tier system of human worth should permit free market harvest and sale of organs barring any assaults or theft of the property in question. No?

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:52 PM
reply to post by camaro68ss

The doctor said "quality of life" ..opposed to her being dead? So he must think she'd she'd be better off dead? Is he a Spartan or something?

I agree it's eugenics.. having a lower than average intelligence doesn't mean a lesser quality of life. It's obvious he means "quality of life" as in quality= measurable value as a human being.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:54 PM
reply to post by camaro68ss

By this logic, we should not give politicians quality health care either. I'm pretty sure many of them qualify as "mentally retarded." Anyone else with me on this?

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:57 PM
I hate that I can't post my opinion here because people would call me monster. I think I have made my support of eugenics clear on other threads though.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:00 PM
maybe if the idiotic stances on stemcell research by the republicans had been ignored instead of embraced this little girl would have her own commercially available organ transplant.

God and religious idiots killed this girl if she dies.
edit on 17-1-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:12 AM
reply to post by camaro68ss

Didnt I dont know...Hitler think this way?

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:52 AM
This girl has no "right to life". Either she can survive or she can't, if she can't survive naturally "society" owes nothing to her. It's not eugenics, it's nature. You know, natural? Competition for resources and the such--I suppose it's not really that important, I mean who needs evolution?

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:18 AM

Originally posted by blupblup

This is not eugenics. Do you even know what that means?

Eugenics- study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits.

In simple terms it is the belief in the possibility of creating a superior breed of humans, through controlling who can and cannot reproduce. That has NOTHING to do with picking the best candidate for a transplant. So quit throwing that word around.

Unless you are implying that they are telling this three year old girl not to have sex.

Here is why they are not giving her the kidney.

They will give a heart transplant to a younger person over a 90 year old bed ridden paraplegic. Why? Because that 90 year old has a crappy quality of life and they want to give the heart to some one who may get better use out of it.

There is a very limited supply of organs to give to people so they take their time to find the best match for each organ. It's not as easy as just handing out a kidney. First, they have to match blood types etc....

Then, they use morals and ethics to decide who is better suited for the transplant.

Who would you give a transplant to if YOU had to choose like these doctors had to choose? Would you give a transplant to a bed ridden paraplegic or to an 18 year old who can live a long healthy life, with the transplant?

I bet you pick the latter.... And I wont accuse you of thinking like Hitler for doing so.

Now,think about this girl and ask yourself a similar question.

They give the transplant to the person most likely to get the most use out of it. So, she goes back on the waiting list just like everyone else who was hoping to get that kidney. It will be that way until medical science advances to the point of being able to bio-engineer custom organs for people in a lab....

Until then... People have to understand that the organs we do have will be given to the one who is best suited for it.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:58 AM

Originally posted by theRhenn
I lothe to say this... But that Doc should have his own down syndrome child... with kidney problems, and another doctor to tell him the same about his child.

I don't think this is about the girl being "retarded" so much. It is about money.

This excuse would have been made by the loving health insurance company so they can save a buck. If it happened to a doctor, I'm sure he could write a check and make the "mental retardness" disappear.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:52 AM
I wonder how many of these 'repliers' have personal experience with raising a disabled child. I have 26 years of it. I don't know if I'd really go with a transplant if our son needed it. Our son is confined to a wheelchair and his quality of life if good but he's never going to travel, meet people, or get married and have children. If the kidney was going to a young person who did have a full life in front of them, I'm not sure how I'd react. There are chances that the so called 'normal' recipient could totally screw up their life but our son's life is pretty well mapped out (all dependent on his parents). We have a DO NOT RESUCITATE order so if our son goes into cardiac arrest, the EMT';s will not take extraordinary attempts to keep him alive. Sounds cruel but his life is what it is. The sooner he's released into the next level of life, the better off he might be. Maybe that's it. Maybe it depends how you look at life. Being a String Theory supporter, I believe we are all just existing on this particular frequency and when we 'die', we change frequencies and keep going. Given the choice, I think I'd let the kidney go to someone else.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:55 AM

Originally posted by mossme89
reply to post by camaro68ss

By this logic, we should not give politicians quality health care either. I'm pretty sure many of them qualify as "mentally retarded." Anyone else with me on this?

No, sorry. That's a ridiculous statement (I guess your kidding). You cannot be serious to say that organs should only go to the people who think along the same political ideas as yourself... Sounds like you should move to China.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:23 AM
You have one organ to transplant into one person.

if given the choice between one who is mentally impaired and requires a lot of care, or another who is perfectly healthy mentally and physically besides the offending organ, which do you choose? Which would benefit society more? Which will be more cost effective in the long run?

Emotions tend to cloud sound judgment in our society. My only regret is that there is not enough organs, or even scientific technology to help all those in medical need. But that is another story of greed, suppression, and an industry that profits off the suffering of others while using the doctors and nurses on the front line to fight their battles for wealth.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:24 AM
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

Well I actually linked to an article which wasn't actually about eugenics, (as you see it) and yes, I'm well aware of what Eugenics is and was.

And the girl in this story would probably not have even been allowed to live (she would have been killed for being disabled) and maybe not even have been born as her mum would have been sterilised.

AN OPEN SECRET On July 14, 1933, the German government instituted the “Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases.” This law called for the sterilization of all persons who suffered from diseases considered hereditary, including mental illness, learning disabilities, physical deformity, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, and severe alcoholism. With the law’s passage the Third Reich also stepped up its propaganda against the disabled, regularly labeling them “life unworthy of life” or “useless eaters” and highlighting their burden upon society.

The term “euthanasia” (literally, “good death”) usually refers to the inducement of a painless death for a chronically or terminally ill individual. In Nazi usage, however, “euthanasia” referred to the systematic killing of the institutionalized mentally and physically disabled. The secret operation was code-named T4, in reference to the street address (Tiergartenstrasse 4) of the program's coordinating office in Berlin.

Ashes from cremated victims were taken from a common pile and placed in urns without regard for accurate labelling. One urn was sent to each victim's family, along with a death certificate listing a fictive cause and date of death. The sudden death of thousands of institutionalized people, whose death certificates listed strangely similar causes and places of death, raised suspicions. Eventually, the Euthanasia Program became an open secret.

On August 18, 1939, the Reich Ministry of the Interior circulated a decree compelling all physicians, nurses, and midwives to report newborn infants and children under the age of three who showed signs of severe mental or physical disability. At first only infants and toddlers were incorporated in the effort, but eventually juveniles up to 17 years of age were also killed. Conservative estimates suggest that at least 5,000 physically and mentally disabled children were murdered through starvation or lethal overdose of medication.

The point is, saying that because the girl is disabled she doesn't deserve the same treatment or quality of care as a "normal person" IS EXACTLY the way that Hitler thought.... and you can roll your eyes all you like at that.
It isn't just about Eugenics (and Euthanasia), it's about treating disabled people as less than citizens.

Under the Nazi eugenics program, was also Euthanasia....
When you understand what their Eugenics program was, maybe come back and try again... you can quote dictionary meanings all you like, but I was specifically talking about the Nazi program.

The plan was set in motion when the Nazi regime issued numerous laws and regulations during the 1930's to implement its eugenic and racial program. German science was rapidly synchronized with Nazi ideology, especially after "any scientists opposed, as well as those with the wrong background, were fired." Friedlander cites a couple of cases in which scientists actually took a harder line toward the unfit than Himmler himself, who wanted to spare illegitimate children.

Although "Blood Protection Laws" were a crucial steppingstone toward the final solution, Jews and Gypsies were not the immediate targets. The exclusion of Jews, a significant group of German people, took a number of years. The sterilization of the handicapped, however, could begin immediately, and in 1934 the courts imposed sterilization in 62,463 cases.

By 1939, the period of sterilization was ending, the period of the killings had begun. Although the party and the state sometimes struggled over who had the final say-so in implementing "euthanasia," the killing system depended on the cooperation of bureaucrats, physicians, nurses, and staff, all of whom deluded the parents of those who were killed to the financial gain of the state. Many physicians were eager to use the deaths to advance their own training as well as their economic and professional status; the euthanasia killings served as a laboratory for the "advancement of science." Friedlander concludes that it is "not surprising that Mengele used Auschwitz as a research laboratory."

I already made your other point about an old, dying person... and said it makes sense to give it to a younger person....if you actually read my post you would have seen that... your whole post is just noise...

And also, if she was on the waiting list and then got to the top.... then she waited her turn, she deserves a transplant just like anyone else.

Nothing you say can change that.

edit on 18/1/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 09:41 AM
I asked a friend about this case. She teaches severley handicapped students and had read about this case. She said that, no, "mentally retarded" persons are not denied transplants/medical care based solely on their developmental condition. In her own classroom, she said, is a student who had a liver transplant and others who receive brain surgery regularly as needed.

She went on to say that many times a severely handicapped person may be "medically fragile", where a procedure and resultant care could actually be harmful for the patient. She has found that sometimes when doctors list all the reasons that medical care should not be provided to a patient who is "mentally retarded", parents react only to the words "mentally retarded", as if that were the only reason for denial.

Little Amelia obviously has educated, actively supportive parents who love her greatly, and she seems to have received the best of medical care. Not all children are so lucky.

This story got me to thinking that all the people who advocate that every conception must be brought to birth need to expect to shell out money to give those children the highest quality of Life, which includes medical care. And much of this care to "mentally retarded" is funded through govt programs. Take away the govt programs and then see how many transplants are performed, even for people who are not "mentally retarded". (Medicare/Medicaid paid medical expenses for a colleague's kidney donor's expenses.)

A society cannot save all those millions of babies without giving how will those children be taken care of. Right to Life sadly does appear to start with conception and end with birth. Amelia is lucky to be surrounded with the best Life has to offer. Too many children are not this lucky. I am amazed and humbled at the other lucky Amelias and their families I know. For all those children not so lucky, I am saddened.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in