A growth attenuation campaign is started

Watch the 3-minute video in the Q13 FOX article below.It says,

Now, four years later, a Seattle based group studying the ethics surrounding “Ashley’s procedure” has decided it is “morally permissible” and has written a report on the subject……

Curt Decker of the National Disability Rights Network spoke out then. “The majority of the disability community is clear. That this kind of procedure is not acceptable at this time in our country’s history.

But times have changed and so have opinions. The Seattle-based group of doctors, ethicists and parents including Sandy looked at and studied the case determining growth-stunting procedures should be “morally permissible” under certain circumstances.

Growth Stunting Procedure For Disabled Children Is “Morally Permissible”

A look at parents rights and their children’s care

Q13FOX.com, December 5, 2010

.

Here are some other examples of what is happening.

.

Stunting disabled children’s growth is ‘morally permissible,’ group says

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 30, 2010

.

Recommendations issued on controversial ‘Ashley’ procedure for disabled children

Science News, November 30, 2010

.

The Hastings Center Release: Recommendations Issued on Controversial “Ashley” Procedure for Disabled Children

BioSpace, November 30, 2010

.

Seattle Children’s Hospital that stunted growth of Ashley X reacts to ethics center decision that treatment is “morally permissible”

Media dis&dat, December 1, 2010

.

Ethics group says stunting disabled kids’ growth is “morally permissible”

MYNorthwest.com, December 2, 1010

.

Disabled children: Is it Ethical to Restrict???

Barash’s Bioethics Blog, December 6, 2010

.

Some disability related sites write about this, and not necessarily critically.

http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2010/12/02/stunting-growth/11471/

http://specialchildren.about.com/b/2010/12/02/group-debates-growth-stunting-calls-it-ethically-acceptable.htm

.

.

Quite mysteriously, they all started, all of a sudden, on November 30, almost a month after the paper in question was published in the Hastings Center Report.

These articles are full of misinformation. Most explanations of the Ashley case are not correct and often misleading, some articles are wrongly titled as if the Hastings Center had decided that growth attenuation is morally permissible or that it was some kind of “guideline” for practice. None mentions the fact that “the Seattle group” is far from independent or adequate for discussing ethical issues of growth attenuation, with half of its members employees of the hospital or the university which have yet to fully justify the Ashley case.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s