Dr Gunther and Diekma arrested on criminal charges.

[tgrimes]

No, not really (yet):)
I'm just confused as to why no one else doubts this story. Everything points to this as a fictional case study, which is used frequently to discuss medical ethics.
These doctors, at least Douglas S. Diekema, is a medical ethicist. There is no way he would touch that case in real life, it would jeapordize his career. (If his statement that he thinks its a viable option hasn't already). Even if he and Gunther think this is ethical, there is no way it would have passed an ethics committee review. Maybe in the 1950s.
Too many things hint that this is the case, I can only think these guys are really shocked that their debate had become a really big deal overnight. Unless they sent the press release themselves.
But it is really telling of our society, that people are willing to just buy into this as a true story, even seasoned journalists. I can't believe this got past Reuters with no official vetting.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-11-01T210422Z_01_COL175800_RTRUKOC_0_US-DISABLED-CHILDREN.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-C2-NextArticle-1

All that aside, I do want to place a little poll on the issue here.

[tgrimes]

Well, I messed up the poll and didn't click allow multiple choices, so just disregard the last choice.

[Roman]

Okay whether or not the government has staff needed to lift a child is something CHANGEABLE. YOu can't predict what government will do 50 years from now. On the other hand, making child permanently small is irreverseable. I simply don't agree with makng irreverseable life long decisions based on CURRENT state of things.

Also, why take care of a child anyway? For instance, why feed a child? The reason you need to feed her is that food is needed for growth. But here they are STOPPING growth. So this kind of kills off a purpose of feeding her. And this can be made more general. In fact, since it is no longer their goal to make their child develop into a healthy adult, I don't see why take care of her at all? THe most convenient option is simply lock her in a room and forget about her. And in this case she might as well be tall since you don't have to lift her anyway.

[tgrimes]

... since it is no longer their goal to make their child develop into a healthy adult, I don't see why take care of her at all?



Wow. That's awholenother side of the slope.

[NaughtyMouse]

... since it is no longer their goal to make their child develop into a healthy adult, I don't see why take care of her at all?...There are a number of children in this world who, for various reasons, do not have the potential to grow into 'healthy adults,' or even unhealthy ones. I'm glad that most people don't feel the same way about them that you do (though I don't really believe you do).

x<BO~

[Roman]

There are a number of children in this world who, for various reasons, do not have the potential to grow into 'healthy adults,' or even unhealthy ones. I'm glad that most people don't feel the same way about them that you do (though I don't really believe you do).

x<BO~

Okay, I am NOT talknig about a potential of a chlid to grow into healthy adult, I am talking about whether or not hte parents INTEND to try their best in helping their child to do such. In the former case, yes I see why parents try to take care of a child. In the latter case, the whole thing implies that parents have contradictory intentions.

If a child can't grow into healthy adult, I say YES do help her THE BEST YOU CAN to make her into as healthiest adult as possible. But here we see parents who do just the opposite. They try to STOP a child from growing. So they are trying to make a child even LESS healthy then she already is. So, if their intention is to make child LESS healthy, why take care of her on the first place?