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

reply to post by blupblup


I think it's aboslutely fair. I see how it's horrible for the girl and her family not being given that chance, but you can't save everyone, plain and simple, and if someone can live a perfectfly healthy life given the chance, then make it so.

It's easy to condemn someone who thinks like this. I have people with similar condidtions in my family (namely so, my uncle), hard choices have had to be made, and it's easy for you to condemn that, but I have found out it's the way it is.

Life doesn't owe anyone any kind of opportunity, and to think that everyone is owed a better life is foolish. People live nice lifes, and some don't, it's horrible, absolutely disgusting, but it's the way it is.

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85

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.

Yeah.... eugenics.

Hitler also thought the same as you guys.

www.ushmm.org...

Originally posted by blupblup

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?

That's where I got confused too. I can't figure out what her intellect potential has to do with her physical health or viability. If we base life-saving procedures on potential contribution to society, then what does intellect have to do with it?

There are plenty of smart guys out there right now killing each other. I'd sooner see a morality test given to patients before I see IQ tests in the waiting room.

reply to post by kimish


FYI it was a cynical statement not meant literally. That being said, how would you know they wouldn't? And why am I racist?

www.foxnews.com...

At 69 years old, many would assume that Cheney’s chances to qualify for a heart transplant are growing slim, but Magliato said that is simply not the case.

“His age may be 69 but we talk about physiological age. There are transplant centers who will definitely consider a 69 year old,” she said. “There is no national cut off age for heart transplants; it depends on the transplant center. Some have abolished a cut off age and will consider every patient on a case by case basis.”

Usually "case by case" means $$$.

Happens all the time. Ok for PC's sake lets remove the "white" part

Originally posted by vanhippi
reply to post by blupblup

 

I think it's aboslutely fair. I see how it's horrible for the girl and her family not being given that chance, but you can't save everyone, plane and simple, and if someone can live a perfectfly healthy life given the chance, then make it so.

Well what if THIS girl can have a perfectly healthy life?
Why should she be denied one?

Because she has mental retardation?

Life doesn't owe anyone any kind of opportunity, and to think that everyone is owed a better life is foolish. People live nice lifes, and some don't, it's horrible, absolutely disgusting, but it's the way it is.

No... but hospitals do... that is their goal... to give people the opportunity of life when they have illnesses or conditions that would mean that they either suffer or die.
This hospital has a duty of care to to this girl (or at least they would here UK) and they absolutely should treat her no differently because of her mental issues,

reply to post by Cuervo



Exactly...it's insane?

Here's the study I linked to regarding retardation and transplants.

researchnews.osu.edu...


I just don't think people are grasping this properly.


Let's say it was someone with a terminal illness who had 2 months to live, absolutely no chance of living a long life and so on... if the choice was between them and someone who was perfectly healthy then yes, all of the people agreeing with the decision would be right and their arguments would make sense.


But it's not someone like that.... it's a girl with a mental disability.


Sheesh...

reply to post by blupblup


Of course they should. I know that people with those conditions live in some parts horrible lifes. I know that first hand, as my uncle lived in a care home, and he got so bad he couldn't hear, and couldn't touch things with his hands. Couldn't walk stairs, and couldn't eat by himself. and he was only getting worse.
They had to let him go.

And not becasue he didn't wanna fight, because he would have, but because his quality of life was horrible.

I know now, no matter if you have some kind of condition, you are not owed a better quality of life. I hate thinking that way, but it's the way I see things.

On a side note, he loved Elvis, Guiness and drawing. He was a lovable person. But these decisions have to be made.

Originally posted by kimish

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.

well, yes and no

there should be some standards in place for making this sort of decision - and it is a triage situation most of the time. But the decisions should be based on things like: who needs it the most - now. Who is most likely to survive the procedure, who can stand to wait a little longer, who is the best match...that is triage

if a little retarded girl doesn't deserve a chance at life - we really should ask why

if the decision was actually made based on that, it isn't a part of a triage situation - that is a personal judgment call. If she has other health problems to factor into the equation - fair enough

if someone decides she doesn't deserve a shot because she wasn't born smart - what does that sound like?

I have a friend who has raised a mentally 'disabled' son. He's autistic, he will never be like you or me, or many othe people - but he is funny and charming - and she loves him dearly

a decision to not save a life based on something like this is not just denying a little girl a chance at a full life (yes, a full and rewarding life) but it's essentially telling her parents that they don't matter either

we don't know that the child that does receive the kidney won't grow up to be a serial killer (if we want to get all overly dramatic about it)

what value does a human life have - and how do we decide that?

there aren't enough parts to go around - so, yes - tough decisions have to be made

how smart are you - or the next guy - how smart am I?

do any of us deserve to be saved based on this kind of scale? what does it mean to be a human being if we actually start deciding who is worthy of life and who isn't?

The Nazi persecution of persons with disabilities in Germany was one component of radical public health policies aimed at excluding hereditarily “unfit” Germans from the national community.

www.ushmm.org...

yes - I went there

The problem with the world today is that everyone is looked at as an economic unit. The people who made this decision looked at this girl and asked themselves "How much is this girl going to contribute economically to the world?"

They didn't look at her as a human being with hopes and aspirations much like their own. People are trained to look at each other nowadays and only see dollar signs indicating the potential worth of that human being to the economy.

This is the same society that has changed the "Personnel" department into the "Human Resources" department. We are no longer seen as people by the world but, as resources to be used by our buisness masters until we are no longer of any potential economic value, at which point they would prefer we left the world of the living.

In a world that views people as resources, is it any wonder that they use terms like "quality of life" to determine our economic worth? "Quality of Life" is just another term for eugenics in a world only concerned for the amount of money you can make for the business elites.

Perhaps I wrong here but once you have a transplant don't you have to take meds to prevent your immune system from rejecting the "new" organ?

My understanding is that you take meds for the rest of your life. I also thought that the meds you take can compromise your immune system.

Perhaps part of the thinking is that you need to be able to deal with the taking the meds and/or other lifestyle changes to keep you alive. A person who is compromised mentally may not be able to grasp what needs to be done for the rest of their life.

This rule has always been around, older people, terminally ill, retarded, drug/acolhol addicted, HIV and other dangerous virus positive, they all get it on the last minute before the item expires. This happened to my grandma, they kept couple of blood packages until it was 3 hours before expiry. They said this would go to someone younger who might need it, mind you, she was in ICU and they said that.

It makes sense, overall benefit is achieved by someone who is able(healthy) and could live longer(young) because they provide more for the general economy and country.

If that kidney is about to expire, then they can give it to her, but until then they need to hold it off until someone else really needs it.

This is just logic, i'm sorry if someone you know have one of more of the listed attributes, but it is what it is, kinda like government generated survival of the fittest. I can assure you, if i was terminally ill and need of kidney and someone very young just got kidney failure because they drank something, i will gladly give up the kidney that was suppose to be mine.

reply to post by luciddream

This rule has always been around, older people, terminally ill, retarded, drug/acolhol addicted, HIV and other dangerous virus positive, they all get it on the last minute before the item expires.

a list of people who deserve a chance less than - who?

even if that list were accurate - and decisions are made based on the condition of the potential recipient - how on earth do you figure 'retarded' should be included on that list?

in other words - why do the mentally challenged not deserve a chance at life?

This is just logic

I'm not sure that it is - but, even if the choices are logical - how does logic determine you're making the right choice?

your values are not necessarily my values - so your sense of logic doesn't necessarily mean anything to me

who gets to decide then - majority rule?

you might see this as an attack - I really don't mean it to be anything like that - but this subject is not an easy subject. I personally see it as an incredible important question - how do we determine the value of a human being - what are our lives worth? It applies to everything - culture, race, intelligence, creativity - who gets to decide what we are worth as either individuals or as a group?

you mention the value a person might have when contributing to society somewhere up above - in all seriousness, I ask you - what exactly have you contributed to the herd?

you might as well ask me the same question

is there an easy answer? I think it depends on who's asking - and who is answering

Originally posted by FortAnthem


The problem with the world today is that everyone is looked at as an economic unit. The people who made this decision looked at this girl and asked themselves "How much is this girl going to contribute economically to the world?"

They didn't look at her as a human being with hopes and aspirations much like their own. People are trained to look at each other nowadays and only see dollar signs indicating the potential worth of that human being to the economy.

This is the same society that has changed the "Personnel" department into the "Human Resources" department. We are no longer seen as people by the world but, as resources to be used by our buisness masters until we are no longer of any potential economic value, at which point they would prefer we left the world of the living.

In a world that views people as resources, is it any wonder that they use terms like "quality of life" to determine our economic worth? "Quality of Life" is just another term for eugenics in a world only concerned for the amount of money you can make for the business elites.

indeed in addition there's the irony concerning transplants, a cannibalistic practice, IMO

oh! it's selfish [to some] that i should wish to not donate any spare parts *cough* i mean organs i may have
Lol, there's like a generalized belief that there's a right to our fellows spare parts *cough*

especially considering the advances in stem-cell research, [that we know of] we should already have the tech to regenerate broken parts and even limbs.

of course transplants are a big business, but i digress...

and denying the girl a kidney does make sense...

to a cannibal

After doing a bit of research on this case, I discovered that this child has a condition called Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome (Source: www.trentonian.com... ).

What is Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome?

Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome is a condition that affects many parts of the body. The major features of this disorder include a characteristic facial appearance, delayed growth and development, intellectual disability, and seizures.

Almost everyone with this disorder has distinctive facial features, including a broad, flat nasal bridge and a high forehead. This combination is described as a "Greek warrior helmet" appearance. The eyes are widely spaced and may be protruding. Other characteristic facial features include a shortened distance between the nose and upper lip (a short philtrum), a downturned mouth, a small chin (micrognathia), and poorly formed ears with small holes (pits) or flaps of skin (tags). Additionally, affected individuals may have asymmetrical facial features and an unusually small head (microcephaly).

People with Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome experience delayed growth and development. Slow growth begins before birth, and affected infants tend to have problems feeding and gaining weight (failure to thrive). They also have weak muscle tone (hypotonia) and underdeveloped muscles. Motor skills, such as sitting, standing, and walking, are significantly delayed. Most children and adults with this disorder also have short stature.

Intellectual disability ranges from mild to severe in people with Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome. Compared to people with other forms of intellectual disability, their socialization skills are strong, while verbal communication and language skills tend to be weaker. Most affected children also have seizures, which may be resistant to treatment. Seizures tend to disappear with age.

Additional features of Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome include skin changes such as mottled or dry skin, skeletal abnormalities such as abnormal curvature of the spine (scoliosis and kyphosis), dental problems including missing teeth, and an opening in the roof of the mouth (cleft palate) and/or in the lip (cleft lip). Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome can also cause abnormalities of the eyes, heart, genitourinary tract, and brain.

ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

Aside form the myriad of health issues related to this syndrome, the mortality rate is significantly higher than the general population. (Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...$=activity ).

In cases such as this, I am of the opinion that the individual whom has the higher probability of having a full and healthy life should be given priority.

Originally posted by Muttley2012
After doing a bit of research on this case, I discovered that this child has a condition called Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome (Source: www.trentonian.com... ).

What is Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome?

Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome is a condition that affects many parts of the body. The major features of this disorder include a characteristic facial appearance, delayed growth and development, intellectual disability, and seizures.

Almost everyone with this disorder has distinctive facial features, including a broad, flat nasal bridge and a high forehead. This combination is described as a "Greek warrior helmet" appearance. The eyes are widely spaced and may be protruding. Other characteristic facial features include a shortened distance between the nose and upper lip (a short philtrum), a downturned mouth, a small chin (micrognathia), and poorly formed ears with small holes (pits) or flaps of skin (tags). Additionally, affected individuals may have asymmetrical facial features and an unusually small head (microcephaly).

People with Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome experience delayed growth and development. Slow growth begins before birth, and affected infants tend to have problems feeding and gaining weight (failure to thrive). They also have weak muscle tone (hypotonia) and underdeveloped muscles. Motor skills, such as sitting, standing, and walking, are significantly delayed. Most children and adults with this disorder also have short stature.

Intellectual disability ranges from mild to severe in people with Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome. Compared to people with other forms of intellectual disability, their socialization skills are strong, while verbal communication and language skills tend to be weaker. Most affected children also have seizures, which may be resistant to treatment. Seizures tend to disappear with age.

Additional features of Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome include skin changes such as mottled or dry skin, skeletal abnormalities such as abnormal curvature of the spine (scoliosis and kyphosis), dental problems including missing teeth, and an opening in the roof of the mouth (cleft palate) and/or in the lip (cleft lip). Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome can also cause abnormalities of the eyes, heart, genitourinary tract, and brain.

ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

Aside form the myriad of health issues related to this syndrome, the mortality rate is significantly higher than the general population. (Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...$=activity ).

In cases such as this, I am of the opinion that the individual whom has the higher probability of having a full and healthy life should be given priority.

Take notes to the info that muttley provided to us, Blupblup

So it wouldn't necessarily make sense to give the little girl the transplant because she ultimately will live her life unhealthy and with a myriad of ailments/problems. Granted, something should be done to help her but I believe that the info that muttley provided us reinforces the belief that logic was the determining factor as to whether or not the girl got the kidney.

Originally posted by kimish
Take notes to the info that muttley provided to us, Blupblup

I did actually look the condition up earlier... but thanks.
And also... you didn't know this when we were talking earlier, you and others were talking about letting a mentally retarded girl go without because she had mental retardation.

I didn't know whether the story was true when I posted, didn't know whether her condition would mean she would live long or anything.... my point for posting in this thread was the attitude and way people were talking about this girl, and that was when she only had mental issues, not health problems too.

People in this thread should be ashamed with themselves.

So it wouldn't necessarily make sense to give the little girl the transplant because she ultimately will live her life unhealthy and with a myriad of ailments/problems.

Yes it would make sense.... if you can improve ANYONE'S quality of life, that is a good thing.
35% of people with her condition don't make it past 2 years old.... she already did....maybe she'll live until she's 20.... maybe 50??

She is THREE YEARS OLD.

She deserves to have as much help and as greater chance as possible.

It's a relatively new disease and breakthroughs in science and medicine are being made all the time.

Who knows what they'll discover in 5 years?

So yeah... seriously... you have no point, reposting someone else's post and addressing it to me proves what?

Your comments were still insensitive and people in this thread need to show a little compassion.

reply to post by blupblup


I can agree. And looking back I still stand my ground because people with retardation, without knowing to what extent or even the diagnoses, do unfortunately live their lives with other health issues such is why I posted what I did. Regardless, It is sad to say the least about this little girl. I can't imagine what the parents are going through, my heart does bleed for them.

I do apologize for coming across soo crass. I have two children of my own, one of which scored extremely high on the GARS test but I always try to use logic. Sometimes it is flawed and I do appreciate being called out on it because it can only make me better.

reply to post by kimish



Well it's one of those emotive subjects you know, as fortanthem posted, people are often looked at as if they are products or commodities or on their "cost" or value or investment to society. and this, IMO, is wrong.


But yeah, no worries

reply to post by vanhippi

Life doesn't owe anyone any kind of opportunity, and to think that everyone is owed a better life is foolish. People live nice lifes, and some don't, it's horrible, absolutely disgusting, but it's the way it is.

on the other hand...

:-)

there is always the other hand

Life owes nobody a single thing - you are correct :-)

what do we owe each other? I'm always amused (seriously, I am) by people who dole out bits of life is hard and then you die - deal with it philosophy in situations where they don't want to really think about difficult things

life is unfair, life is disgusting - but that's just the way it is - accept it

well, no - I don't accept it. I can't and I won't

we are more than a bunch of outcomes of circumstance - we have some say in how we live our lives and how we treat each other

Is this what you really believe? Life is hard - life is unfair. Nothing to be done about it - turn a blind eye or just roll over?

every man for himself?

:-)

I read from her parents blog site directly and they were told that she will need the transplant within the next 6 months to a year. From what I understand it is just at CHOP they are being told no. It is possible another hospital might do it. They have their article posted at www.wolfhirschorn.org and it's titled brick walls if you would like to read their side of this. I am torn on this subject. I had a realitive who needed a transplant and had something happen that would have disqualified him from being able to get one. He did die from that event anyway, but had he lived he could have been removed from the list. The argument about who will give her her meds and such when her parents are gone, well, there are many people who do just that everyday. If she is not able to get one due to another issue such as her heart or other health problems that is one thing, but to deny her a chance of life due to a ID, is a sad picture of what our own future will be soon enough if we allow this type of selective process to continue. Also wanted to mention I believe one of her parents or near realitive were going to be the donor.