You can now have your child-sized!!!

[N.O.R.F]

^^Again, with the publicity of the story i'm not surprised. This is the world we live in today. Muslims will justify it as they may have a problem accepting it (a disabled child)if they were in that position. 'Accepting' what Allah (swt)wills as a test and perservering throughout one's life in the knowledge of being rewarded greatly for the same (perserverance & patience) is something lost on many a Muslim.

 

But i guess its easier said than done.

[Naden]

Originally posted by Northerner Al Burcaawi:

Muslims will justify

it as

they may have a problem accepting it

(a disabled child)if they were in that position.

'Accepting' what Allah (swt)wills as a test and .........is something

lost on many a Muslim.

I gather the muslims you are referring to are the ones who replied to this thread. I see you've honed your mind reading skills and can make out what people accept and don't accept. Since you haven't attempted to approach any ethical detail of the child's condition and treatment, I will come up with a conjecture of my own and say that you haven't read or understood the case.

 

Speaking from atop a moral high horse is the easiest thing to do. This also applies to Khayr's uninspired rant about sentiment and revelation which he may have vomit just as diligently onto the boards if the topic was about Kraft cheese.

[N.O.R.F]

My moral high horse is huge and i may find it difficult to get down from . I was refering to many a muslim who does not consider these sort of things as tests from Allah (swt) and the rewards for accepting, perservering and gaining rewards for it. If you want to put yourself in that category its up to you. But i also mentioned that it was easier said than done or did you miss that part?

 

Are you saying the op was a necessity? If so, justify it with more than the sentimentally inclined jargon. As you understand the 'ethical' stuff along with the condition of the child etc etc

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Naden:

^ Words like 'dismember' and 'mutilate' are unnecessarily sensational and editorialyzing. Medical necessity is one determined by physicians and ultimately agreed upon by family. Have you ever carried a toddler wearing a snow suit? They're bloody heavy and may not be more than 35lbs.

You're right. I had a touch of the hysteria going around lately on SOL when I wrote that much as I tried to avoid it.

 

I'm not sure medical necessity is determined by either physicians or family. After all, breast implants are done routinely with the approval of physicians and family but hardly anyone can argue they are medically necessary. Medical necessity is directly tied to one's health. If a positive health result can be reasonably expected from a medical act without which a negative effect on health may result - then it is medically necessary.

 

I didn't understand the reference to overclothed toddlers - so what if they're heavy - get a wheel barrow.

 

Wiping the @ss of a 30lb., 50lb., or even 70lb. child is doable. Carrying them up and down a flight of stairs is difficult. Now, imagine carrying a 150lb. woman. She is also doubly incontinent and unable to turn in bed and prevent bed sores. She is not now but will have eventually become heavy and at serious risk of obesity and resultant stuff like heart and kidney damage. She may still develop health problems but remaining at about 4'5" and 80lb. is what the parents can handle at home. Reducing her health risks may also help delay institutionalization as much as possible.

I'm not sure why you keep emphasizing current weight, future wieght and large weight. What does that have to do with medical necessity? It has nothing to do with it. It has to do with convenience. And I will readily admit to that. Wiping the azz of 50 pounder is much easier than a 150 pounder.

 

As to the possible negative health outcomes mentioned. At this point - it is purely speculative in nature. And you omitted a critical component - that of diet in determining whether this child will in fact become obese ans suffer the related illnesses.

 

Comparing this family's plight to families with Down's syndrome children is inaccurate. While a range of mental and physical competency exists for this syndrome, many afflicted can gain independence in mainting personal hygiene and even social functioning.

I only brought up Down's Syndrome because of a previous post by Cara where she stated: "If I had the mental age of a 3 month infant, I would want my physical body to be in that age range, or as close as could be managed." In that case, I legitimately brought up the argument of individuals with Down's Syndrome where many have a mental age much less than their physical age. Thus, a key question related to her justification is: Do you perform unnecessary surgeries on these individuals to keep their mental and physical ages close? ie do you sterlize a mature female with Down's Syndrome who has the mental age of an 8 year old etc etc.?

 

I don't know all the details of the case and don't necessarily understand the partial hysterectomy (& leaving the ovaries), but from what I've read it's not an easy decision and certainly not one that extends itself to an approve/disapprove or agree/disagree public discourse.

I agree - it's not an easy approve or disapprove. And I fully sympathize with the family's situation. But it is important to not obfuscate the issue(and here's where an intelligent discussion can illuminate the debate). The sugeries undergone by the child have to do with convenience for the parents and little to do with medical necessity. If they(parents) and others simply stated that - I would respect that. I don't agree but I would respect that - I just dislike this attempt at cloaking their intentions with medicine.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Cara:

The parents' rationale includes a whole plethora of health reasons for their decision.

I'm at a loss at finding them Cara. Perhaps you could oblige me by listing them. Thx.

 

The slippery slope argument is old, saaxiib. It would stop at the point were the surgery would do unacceptable harm to the child, harm that outweighs any benefits. Much like any other surgery, I suppose.

You're right. The slippery slope is ancient. But it is a useful discussion to have even only to outline one's moral and ethical boundaries. Applying your boundary line to the above case - what is the benefit of removing her breast buds(eg to ease discomfort as opposed to the harm possible during any invasive surgery). I would argue that fails your test. Would you say not?