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

This is just sick. This is what happens when you ration healthcare.

3 year old girl named Amelia that was denied a kidney transplant because she is considered to be "mentally retarded". The doctor that made this decision felt as though Amelia would not have a good enough "quality of life" to justify the procedure. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of eugenics in action and this is the kind of thing that starts happening when human life becomes cheap. When a society decides that life is not precious, all sorts of nightmarish things begin to occur.

endoftheamericandream.com...

Do the progressive have a point? Is her life worth saving if she will not contribute to society because she is mentally retarded? (FYI I don’t believe that, I’m just asking the question)

here is what the Huffington post has to say on the matter!

The stark reality then, is that a kidney that goes to one patient means it does not go to another. Giving a kidney to Amelia means that someone, whose name you will probably never know, but who will be loved just as fiercely as Amelia is, won't get one in time.

Are you for real? Is this who we are now? Im just asking the question, should we only give organs to physically fit and mentally capable people? Who get to decide this? you already know my awnser

It is disturbing but on another note, playing devils advocate here, they won't give a heart transplant to a smoker (i say that because "quality of life" was mentioned). What I mean is, there is probably someone that needs it more. Humans can live with one kidney as well.

Before I get flamed, don't skip the fact that I stated I am playing devils advocate.
Nonetheless, I think it is sad for this poor girl but I think eventually she will get a kidney, maybe from a more competent doctor.

reply to post by camaro68ss


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. That would make the stakes even, in my opinion.

BUT I can never wish that on a child. I vote for 15lb nutt cracking sledge instead. Oh yeah.. let the parents of the child do the "coup de grace".

Is this who we are now?

No, my friend. This is not who WE are. This is how we are run into the ground, no choices made by us but those that make all the money.

Isnt it funny how that works... The more money you seem to make, the more decisions you seem to be able to make over every other person who does not have...

Just friggin riot this country and shoot those bastards already! That's the emotional thought when I see stuff like this... ON A DAMN DAILY BASIS.


This make a person not only hate their country, but their life as well. Sometimes it just simply looks as though, no matter how loud you scream, how much you push... It will always be this way and there isnt a damn thing you or I can do about it. If this is life... why on earth are we here?

Two words come to mind here; Triage and Utilitarianism.

The availability of transplant organs is limited, finding matching donors is difficult, and they're weighing the options here. Triage is necessary because we have to use our resources effectively, and utilitarianism is the best way to describe how we're doing that. The greatest happiness, or greatest good, is what the utilitarianism doctrine says. Here, I'd imagine they're looking at the total contribution to society the recipient will be able to provide. I know that sounds terrible, and I don't think it's always the best way to do things, but if you think about it it makes sense. It makes sense if you look at people purely as objects, parts of the human machine. It's easy for doctors, onlookers, and us to form opinions about this incident, and justify the transplant recipient other than the little girl. But, when we imagine that little girl being our family member it's more difficult to say she shouldn't get the transplant.

I don't really think there's always an answer we can all agree on in situations like this. It looks like the person in place to make the call made the call.

Lets give it to some old rich white guy with chronic heart failure instead. Makes sense.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
Lets give it to some old rich white guy with chronic heart failure instead. Makes sense.

No, they wouldn't do that. Wise up. racist.

Medical cures and miracles are extremely withheld from the public for profit and agenda 21 reasons. Of course her life is worth saving, but in a world of fabricated shortages, tough decisions like this exist and shouldn't be made.

What if someone volunteers and offers their kidney for her, will they do the procedure then?

I'd like to know whether the kidney was given to someone else, and if so, who?

if it went to another younger child, who they think would live a nice healthy life if given the transplant, then I say it's absolutely fair. I mean, it's such a difficult call for anyone, and I'm not going to pretend to know how it feels to make such a decision.

I think the news report is quite biased though, and I think we need to know more before burning the guy who had to make the decision.

Originally posted by kimish
It is disturbing but on another note, playing devils advocate here, they won't give a heart transplant to a smoker (i say that because "quality of life" was mentioned). What I mean is, there is probably someone that needs it more. Humans can live with one kidney as well.

The smoker is choosing to kill themselves and doesn't deserve a heart, not if they are not willing to help themselves.
But the "retarded" girl has no choice how she is.... her life is as valuable and important as anyone's and she deserves every chance and every bit of help.

Your comments (although you're just playing devil's advocate) are disgusting.

Originally posted by Mapkar
Two words come to mind here; Triage and Utilitarianism.

The availability of transplant organs is limited, finding matching donors is difficult, and they're weighing the options here. Triage is necessary because we have to use our resources effectively, and utilitarianism is the best way to describe how we're doing that. The greatest happiness, or greatest good, is what the utilitarianism doctrine says. Here, I'd imagine they're looking at the total contribution to society the recipient will be able to provide. I know that sounds terrible, and I don't think it's always the best way to do things, but if you think about it it makes sense. It makes sense if you look at people purely as objects, parts of the human machine. It's easy for doctors, onlookers, and us to form opinions about this incident, and justify the transplant recipient other than the little girl. But, when we imagine that little girl being our family member it's more difficult to say she shouldn't get the transplant.

I don't really think there's always an answer we can all agree on in situations like this. It looks like the person in place to make the call made the call.

Reread this post, the member NAILED it.
Second line.

Originally posted by vanhippi
I'd like to know whether the kidney was given to someone else, and if so, who?

if it went to another younger child, who they think would live a nice healthy life if given the transplant, then I say it's absolutely fair.

Are you serious??

Man... some of you people need to seriously think about the **** you post on here.

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by kimish
It is disturbing but on another note, playing devils advocate here, they won't give a heart transplant to a smoker (i say that because "quality of life" was mentioned). What I mean is, there is probably someone that needs it more. Humans can live with one kidney as well.

The smoker is choosing to kill themselves and doesn't deserve a heart, not if they are not willing to help themselves.
But the "retarded" girl has no choice how she is.... her life is as valuable and important as anyone's and she deserves every chance and every bit of help.

Your comments (although you're just playing devil's advocate) are disgusting.

Ok, so I used a bad analogy. They wouldn't give the kidney to someone who contracted heart disease, naturally.
Is that better? The point still stands @

Its hard to be judgemental about this without knowing all the facts. On a simple note, if there were two kids who needed the organ. And only one organ. I'd choose the healthiest kid of the two. Simple.

reply to post by camaro68ss


This a difficult one about ethics.
Not enough people approve of "reusing" their organs after death.
So usable organs are scarce.
Not enough to go around.
difficult, but doctors have to look for the best person.
That means technically, so best HLA fit. (Human leukocyte antigen)
That means best chance for a good outlook. So a real alcoholic can not get a new liver, he or she would ruin that one also.

I can't say I know all the answers, but usually it should be logic to guide this process of decision making.

I'd like to know what they mean by quality of life, I've known people with down syndrome who have worked, contributed to society and had kids etc and full lives.

My cousin has down syndrome and she is a very happy child (most of the time) just like any other.

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by vanhippi
I'd like to know whether the kidney was given to someone else, and if so, who?

if it went to another younger child, who they think would live a nice healthy life if given the transplant, then I say it's absolutely fair.

Are you serious??

Man... some of you people need to seriously think about the **** you post on here.

Maybe you need to think outside the box? And logically?

Originally posted by remyrange
Its hard to be judgemental about this without knowing all the facts. On a simple note, if there were two kids who needed the organ. And only one organ. I'd choose the healthiest kid of the two. Simple.

But what if both kids were perfectly healthy?
There is nothing that states that the "retarded girl" has any real health issues or will not live or has serious medical conditions?

In a 2006 study, Ohio State University found that “the one-year survival rate for people with mental retardation who received kidney transplants was 100 percent, and the three-year survivor rate was 90 percent.” These seem to be good statistics, but it would appear that the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) either hasn’t seen this study or has a drastically different opinion on the matter. Amelia Rivera was born with a condition called Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome.

www.aroundphilly.com...



Study

researchnews.osu.edu...

Originally posted by kimish
Maybe you need to think outside the box? And logically?

Yeah... really?

So explain to me your logic and explain how I'm "in the box" with my thinking.

Thanks.

Originally posted by kimish
Maybe you need to think outside the box? And logically?

Lots of people here on ATS have a problem to think logically, once a "cute animal" or a child comes into play.
I fully agree with what you said, if there was another child waiting for that transplant and that one wasn't retarded or had other illnesses, it's just logical to help that one first.