Dr. Diekema’s official view of “surgical risks” and its contradiction to his justification of the Ashley case and the HCR article by the growth attenuation WG

Dr. Diekema attested as a qualified doctor in a case of botched circumcision in the superior court of Washington in January 2006. What he said there is quite interesting when we think of his Ashley case justification. I find his views of “surgical risks” and “pediatrician’s moral and ethical responsibilities to analyze risk vs. benefit independent of parents’ desire” totally relevant to the “Ashley treatment” debate.

http://www.circumstitions.com/ethics-diekema.html

For example, he says, “Non-therapeutic procedures that involve excessive risk should be avoided. An appendectomy on a healthy child, who has no history or symptoms of an appendicitis and who is not undergoing an abdominal surgery for other therapeutic reasons, for instance, would not be ethically justifiable because the absence of benefit to the child would not justify the surgical risks.” Continue reading

Rebecca Dresser, UW professor and member of the growth attenuation working group, comments on the Maraachli case

Commenting on the Maraachli case where Baby Joseph was moved to U. S. after Canadian court ordered removal of his respirator, Rebecca Dresser, a professor of law and medical ethics at Washington University in St. Louis, said in the article below that U.S. courts generally side with families in such cases that want to continue treatment for loved ones even in seemingly hopeless medical cases, that similar end-of-life cases will likely become more common, “Because of the growing concerns about costs, we’re going to see more of this.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/954061–baby-joseph-moved-to-u-s-after-canadian-court-rules-docs-can-remove-breathing-tube?bn=1

Please note that Dr. Dressor is one of the members of the growth attenuation working group set up by Seattle Children’s and was quoted many times by Christine Ryan Continue reading

Seattle Children’s bioethics conference will discuss prioritizing care to children “based on social, physical or mental status”

The Seattle Children’s Hospital will hold the seventh annual pediatric bioethics conference in July. This year’s theme is “Who’s Responsible for the Children? Exploring the Boundaries of Clinical Ethics and Public Policy.” On the conference page of the hospital web site, they lay out some of the issues that will be discussed. One of them goes, “Should care to children be prioritized based on social, physical or mental health status?” and there are some examples of children such as:

Children who have expensive technology-intensive care needs, such as ventilators, dialysis or transplants?

Children with intellectual disabilities who require special resources, yet will remain dependant on society?

Children who have mental healthcare needs?

“Girl X”, the National Theatre of Scotland’s new production for Spring 2011

The National Theatre of Scotland will present with an original play based on the Ashley X case and its controversy. Robert Softley, wheelchair user, public speaker, actor and script writer who started the project four years ago, has written two posts on this in the theater’s blog. Continue reading

Questions about the growth attenuation working group article in HCR Part 3

The WG article makes the divide between proponents and opponents look far smaller than reality to make the controversy itself look far less grave than it actually is.

It notes at the beginning of the article that the group members share the views about profound disabilities as below.

1)    They are concerned that people with profound disabilities are devalued.

2)    They believe more investment in medical and social services is priority.

3)    They think societal attitudes toward people with profound disabilities should be improved.

4)    They also think that parents of profoundly disabled children should be “afforded respect and considerable deference in making the complex and difficult decisions unique to their child’s care.”

They can’t share the first three views, because opponents’ point is that the rationale of growth attenuation is incompatible with these concerns. Its rationale discriminates and devalues children with profound disabilities. Continue reading