Controversial Medical Procedure

[Jack-Hammer]

I was watching an episode of Law & Order the other night and the show featured a married couple looking to perform an extremely controversial medical procedure on their daughter.

The backstory is that the child, I think, was born with severe brain damage or she may have been form with some disease, I can't exactly remember what the cause of it was. She can't walk, talk, crawl or really do anything for herself. It's probably about as close to a vegetative state without actually being in one. Her parents were loving and caring and the girl had to have round the clock supervision & care. Some information was introduced such as how much it costs to take care of her on a monthly basis, which ultimately comes to over $70,000 a year with very little help in way of financial assistance.

Now the procedure involved having surgery to remove her uterus, her overies and to undergo a number of hormone treatments to keep the girl from physically maturing. The reasoning of the parents and the doctor agreeing to perform the procedure is that it will make her long term care easier for both the child and the parents. As she grew into an adult, the girl would almost certainly have to be moved into a medical facility for the rest of her life and her parents want her at home with them. Even though the daughter's problems have been a strain on the marriage, her parents love her and are devoted to her.

The show goes on to tell how extremely controversial the procedure is and how many doctors won't do it for fear that it'll get out that they're doing it. Of course, you'll have various human rights activists, Pro-Life organizations, etc. coming out of the woodwork.

In the show, the parents are prosecuted by the Assistant District Attorney for conspiracy to assault their child. He's vehemently opposed to the procedure and sees it as nothing more than assaulting a child due to the procedure not being necessary because the child's life isn't in any danger.

As for me, just like most things in life, it's just not cut & dry. On one hand, it's commendable that a child's parents are so devoted to his/her care that they're willing to spend all their time to care for the special needs of such a disabled child. On the other hand, the long term effects of the procedure are something of an unknown, different children will have different reactions in the long term, and the procedure isn't "medically necessary". The thing is, sometimes you just get dealt a shitty hand in life. I know it sounds cliche` but it's also true. Parents have to make difficult decisions in the raising and care for their children all the time and have to do what they think is best even when there really aren't any "good" options to choose from.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

L&O is always dropping interesting storylines with a "real life" twist on them. They do a pretty good job of making you think, probably one of the reason it's been on TV so many years, anyways onto the actual question.

I pretty much agree with everything said in your closing paragraph JH, getting dealt a shitty hand, having to make difficult decisions, it's all true, and varies on all levels. Parents make tough decisions their entire life while raising a child, from the "simple" tough decisions that would fall under basic care, to the "tougher" decisions like your scenario above. Either way, these decisions fall in the hands of the parents, as a child at that age obviously cant make those decisions. I'll tell you whose hands these decisions don't fall into, and that is the DA. In a situation like this, the DA has no rights to tell you how to raise your child.

These parents are trying to do in all likely hood what is best for their child, if there child is all but a vegetable then they should be able to try and make their child and their lives easier. This is like the DA coming in and saying you can pull the plug on your vegetable state grandma because the government is making too much money off of grandma being in a vegetable state. The DA shouldn't be making these decisions, charging parents with crimes for simply trying to improve the state of their child's well being.

In all honesty, in a situation like this, would it not be humane to put the child down? The DA is charging these parents with a crime for trying to improve the child overall well being, the DA would also charge them is they where doing the exact opposite. They try and help the child, DA files suite, they try and put the child down, DA files suite.

Seems as if the DA is going to go after the parents no matter what the try and do in this situation. The only "good" option is the one the parents see fit, this is such a drastic, 1 in a million kind of situation that there really is no wrong answer. The only thing wrong is the fact that the DA decided to press charges against the parents who where only trying to do what is best for the future of their family. How the parents could be in the wrong is absolutely ridiculous, and is just one of the many, many, MANY reasons that I don't trust the powers to be in the country.

 

[Mustang Sally]

In a situation like this, the DA has no rights to tell you how to raise your child.

True, but today's world is permeated by groups of people whose primary purpose in life is making it their business to decide how other people live and to affect the decisions those people make. The decision being discussed in this thread is of an acutely personal nature and, in fact, has nothing to do with the DA's personal life: i.e., he doesn't have to deal with the child as she grows, nor does he have to bear any of the expense of placing the child in a long-term facility away from her parents, nor does he have to suffer the emotions and pain they have to endure. All he wants is to control how the parents and daughter live the rest of their lives; to get his way and then never have to see or deal with them again.

Isn't this also the essence in the eternal debate on abortion? I'm not talking about the pros and cons of the issue, which have been debated to pieces on this forum. I'm talking about the colossal nerve of people trying to determine how others should live when the situation has nothing to do with them personally.

Do you know what I've always wondered? How many women in this world campaigned against abortion for years, maybe even worked for organizations such as Birthright, in an effort to stop all other women from having abortions. Yet, when they were faced with their own unwanted pregnancy, they had an abortion.

The thing is, the question I'm asking could never be answered, because is the woman who chose this course going to admit she had the abortion, in effect saying: "Oh yes. I was one of those hypocrites!"

Of course, she isn't. It's just so easy to decide for others when you have no personal stake in the outcome, isn't it?

In the L&O case cited in this thread, the parents had to make a decision since their daughter is incapable of making it herself. I don't see the decision as being anyone's business but theirs and I'm sick and tired of people who try to interfere with a strangers' life because of their personal feelings on the matter.

 

[Calderownz]

Personally, I don't believe in groups/the government telling you how to raise your child unless you're attempting to harm your child for the sake of harming your child.

While something like this MIGHT harm your child, it's not simply a parent slapping their kids around. This is to hopefully make the best of a horrible situation. From the sound of this situation, I wouldn't even be opposed to euthanasia in this case. It's awful to think about, but it's a very difficult decision to make.

Still, I don't have kids so, honestly, it's hard for me to know what I might do or how I might feel about.

I have several reasons as to why I will not have a kid. Decisions like these are one reason.