posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:24 PM
Now this is an unpopular opinion, don't flame me too much, but I just need to say that babies with severe malformations should be allowed to die
because why would you condemn a child like that to a life where all they do is just lie there in a wheelchair or a bed, making the occasional grunt or
whine for attention?
Granted, I am lenient to higher functioning handi-capable people who can actually contribute to society, but when someone has to provide all their
time, energy and money into caring for a person who has the mentality of a newborn when they are adults, this is where a line needs to be drawn.
Take a look at this case study:
Abstract This paper considers the financial burden of parents caring for severely disabled children. A model to predict parents' out-of-pocket
expenses and caregiving time demands is described..
IN THE UNITED STATES, an estimated 10-15 percent of all children have a chronic illness, and 1-2
percent have a severe chronic illness (1). Because
the care of these children is often demanding and
expensive, many families face financial difficulties....children limited in their activities use
more medical services than other children, especially hospital-based services and nonphysician
health services, and that out-of-pocket expenses
were two to three times higher.
] Financial and Time costs to parents of severely disabled
There's more info and graphs provided in the link than what I've posted as a preview, but it shows how long term care is financially draining,
despite programs like Medicaid.
May I also allow you to visit the case of Ashley X as well?:
Pillow Angel- Ashley X case
The Ashley Treatment refers to a controversial set of medical procedures undergone by a Seattle child, "Ashley X". Ashley, born in 1997, has
severe developmental disabilities due to static encephalopathy of unknown etiology; she is assumed to be at an infant level mentally and physically.
The treatment included growth attenuation via estrogen therapy; hysterectomy, bilateral breast bud removal, and appendectomy. The principal purpose
of the treatment was to improve Ashley's quality of life by limiting her growth in size, eliminating menstrual cramps and bleeding, and preventing
discomfort from large breasts. The combination of the surgery and the estrogen therapy attracted much public comment and ethical analysis in early
2007, both supportive and condemning. The hospital later admitted that the surgery was illegal and should only have been performed after a court
order, a position that is disagreed upon by the attorney of Ashley's family. Ashley's parents granted their first interview (in writing) to CNN
Health in March 2008.
What is more humane now? Allowing a severely disabled infant to pass away, or let said infant live and deal with crushing costs and unethical
I also believe that instead of the dehydration/starving bit, there should be a more quicker and painless death for parents who want to spare their
child from a life of invalidity because how do you explain to them that they can't do anything like other children?