“"On of ours". Yes, my husband and I say that, too. We often feel protective, proud, concerned, worried for or jubilant for, whatever the case may be, when we see "one of ours". Yep, all "soft and squishy", too. And I certainly hope that we are respectful, not calling attention to the person, but we can't but help shoot each other a small smile.”
“Please, do not ever, ever hurt your child. GET HELP.
National Child Abuse Hotline: 1-800-4-A-CHILD (1-800-422-4453) (24h US &Canada)
Autism Society of America: 1(800) 328-8476
Autism Speaks, Autism Response Line: 1 (888) 288-4762,
En Español (888) 772-9050”
diaryofamom on Apr 5, 2012 at 21:39:40
“thank you so much for adding these resources. it's so important to make the call the moment that you feel yourself losing control. if you or anyone you know ever entertains thoughts of hurting their child or themselves, please - ASK FOR HELP.”
“"NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - An amendment to a bill in the Tennessee Legislature that would have resulted in the online publication of the names of doctors who perform abortions has been withdrawn amid a flurry of controversy.
Also withdrawn from consideration is a proposal that would have required posting statistical information about women who undergo abortions. Critics said it had the potential to inadvertently identify women who've had an abortion."
“The woman you are replying to, Sunday Stillwell, has researched this pretty well, I imagine. She has spoken to the family, she has advocated hard on their behalf, and has been quoted in by USA Today and CBS news about this very issue.”
“Okay with you though, if that is indeed the truth? What about others, who may have intellectual disabilities, but no underlying physical barriers to a transplant? Required due to the result of a car accident, let's say?”
“Historically, people with intellectual disabilities have been routinely denied equal access to organ transplants all over the world. Unfortunately, this has to do with discrimination against an entire group of people because they do not have "normal IQ".”
“Her conditions include a shortened life expectency, most afflicted by this condition do not live past the age of two. She has heart problems. Her condition makes her a non-viable candidate for this procedure. The fact that these symptoms may stem from her retardation does not change the fact that she has them.”
“Even though UNOS and every humanitarian organization in the world publicly states that intellectual disability must not be a barrier to receive organ transplants?”
bdunlap52 on Jan 16, 2012 at 17:03:21
“Mental retardation was not the only thing wrong with this child receiving the transplant. The girl also has a degenerative disease that restricts her life expectancy. Organs are a precious resource, to be given to the best candidate. Retardation alone is not the only aspect to this case, just the only one that you are choosing to focus on.”
“That's the reason given by a parent who even admits she didn't hear anything beyond "mental retardation." My guess is that the mother didn't want to hear anything beyond that statement, either - and understandably so.”
janthewordnerd on Jan 16, 2012 at 18:14:17
“You take their word for it, huh?”
janthewordnerd on Jan 16, 2012 at 17:40:45
“Sorry, until I can verify that, I don't believe it for a second.”
“But the pediatric geneticist was talking about using the organ donation list. He/She didn't read the article.
"Designated donation is what the Riveras say they wanted to do from the start. 'We were never asking that she be listed," Chrissy said, reiterating that they thought last week's meeting was about the procedure for testing potential family donors. "We didn't want her on the list. We don't want to take a kidney from anyone else. We want to give her one ourselves.'"
“Putting aside your opinions of terminating this woman's pregnancy, and your thoughts on limited organ supply, do you not agree that living donors should be utilized? Amelia's mother told the medical team during their meeting that there were family members who wished to donate, that they never thought to put her on the UNOS waiting list. The procedure was denied.... initially. If you read the article you can see that after the public outcry amongs those of us in the disability community, the hospital spoke with the family and said that the transplant could proceed if she had a living donor. Interesting to know that without public pressure, this probably would not have been the case.”
rothomaha on Jan 17, 2012 at 06:56:18
“Please see my response above to another poster, while keeping in mind that with the inherent risks of anesthesia, surgery and loss of an organ, the donor is put at risk only to defer the inevitable. This is not acceptable medical practice and, while I trained at CHOP, I would not condone the hospital's decision to jeopardize two lives in this case. Public outcry has little to do with the intrinsic risks and hazards of medical practice. Finally, please keep in mind who will ultimately bear the responsibility for any death or serious injury from the procedure, public outcry notwithstanding.”
“As I said, if I was the hospital or the insurance agency I wouldn't authorize it. Good on the family for stepping up. As difficult as the situation is, at some point you have to remove emotion from the equation, and that is where the doctors must say no.”
“Family members have said they wish to be donors to this little girl, but according to her mother, Amelia was denied the surgery anyway. I think it's wonderful that the family will step up, but why shouldn't people with intellectual disabilities be entitled to a spot on an organ donor waiting list?
UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) issued an Ethics Committee report with this resolution under "Mental Capacity":
**RESOLVED, the OPTN/UNOS Board of Directors reaffirms that the eligibility for transplantation predicated on determinations of social worth is morally unjustified. Patients with disabilities should not be excluded from consideration for transplant solely by virtue of their disability.
They later amended it, and struck " the eligibility for transplantation predicated on determinations of social worth is morally unjustified" from the resolution. But it is still on record, and you can see that this is what the medical community has historically struggled with -- "determining social worth".
"Social worth." They are talking about *people*. People like my son, and people like Amelia. And yes, denying people with intellectual disabilities access to life-saving organs and transplant operations based on their IQ is definitely, and cruelly, morally unjustified.”
CampusProgressive on Jan 16, 2012 at 19:49:02
“It is morally justified to say that person with handicapped mental capacities to be considered a lesser "person." Of course they are a human, and as such should be awarded certain dignities, but personhood is separate from humanness. What makes a "person" is not well understood but it is possible for a non-human animal with enough mental capacity to be labeled a person. And it is possible for a human lacking in mental capacities to be labeled a non-person.
Dead bodies have no mental capacites, and are not considered to be persons any longer, in a sense. I am not saying that people with disabilities are a kin to walking corpses. There is a definite spectrum between no thought and fully functioning, and somewhere along the spectrum we may be able to discern when personhood rights should begin. How can we ever know exactly? I don't know. I do not think we can say that any thought at all constitutes personhood, because we do not really believe that when it comes to animals. But we can start to make broad judgements i.e. children, autistic, moderately retarded humans are persons. Dogs, people in permanent comas... we can be pretty sure to say that their is something less in their experience, they are not or have ceased to be persons.”
janthewordnerd on Jan 16, 2012 at 16:29:52
“Because it's not just an 'intellectual disability."”