h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Fairness/justice has been described as treating relevant equals equally and relevant unequals unequally.

So just because someone is treated differently because they have are disabled in some way does not automatically mean that it's wrong to do so. It would be wrong of me to deny an office job to someone in a wheelchair where I would give it to someone who did not use a wheelchair, but it wouldn't be wrong of me not give a job as a firefighter to a wheelchair user.

In this case, the child has a mental age of about three months, according to reports, and this will not change. So she will never be able to consent to sexual relations or to medical procedures because she's not now and will never be able to consent to either. If she was able to consent to either (or would be at some point in the future) there would be an argument for waiting. So it's true that she is being treated differently than a child with identical physical impairments (but no mental impairments) would be, but it seems to me that that difference in treatment is on entirely sensible and justifiable grounds.

This is not eugenics, and I really think that 'slippery slope' arguments are widely misunderstood and misused. I don't see any reason to think that allowing this kind of practice would somehow lead to compulsory sterilisation of people with learning difficulties who *would* be able to consent to sexual relations. That would be an entirely separate decision. There are all kinds of cases where our rules are close to the edge of some slopes, but there is no sign of 'sliding' down them - we permit abortion but not infanticide, we permit some medical experiments but not others, we allow sex selection for medical reasons but not for social reasons and so it goes on.

It's a mistake, in my view, to ban or to oppose some practice just because it might lead to some other related practice that we find morally dubious unless we can establish a real reason to think that one will lead to the other. Often these slippery slope arguments try to connect things that are actually very different, where entirely moral considerations exist at the top and bottom of the slope.

We need to trust ourselves and our moral judgements a bit more.

It's funny, I've been arguing for more moral clarity elsewhere, but that's the best argument I've seen put forward for moral relativism yet. Well said.

I think we are talking about medical intervention in two differant situations here, clearly if someone with sever learning disibilities has need of medical treatment as ill then that is one matter and to not get treatment would be a failiure of duty of care.
However the problem I have is the stunting of growth to stop the girl getting bigger as easier to lift. There may well be financial reasons that someone can't afford a carer but whether outside help is needed is a differant matter. But to me for stunting of growth to be carried out due to a lack of money is even worse than any claims it is done to aid lifting. I don't believe I said that this situation would lead to compulsory sterilisations, what I said is that it maybe regreted in future that growth stunting was carried out, just like the forced sterilisations were of years ago.
.
I was irronically about to post about people with learning disabilities working and then saw your post about working. There is a trend to close large institutions and open smaller care in the community homes with around 5-10 people. This attempt at ordinary living has raised some interesting situations about people with learning disabilities working in community and about protecting them or not from the realities of life. Lets take a hypothetical situation of someone offered a job collecting trollies in Sainsburies. The job is going well and clearly the person is able to do the job but he enjoys winding people up and throwing bottles to break on floor. Clearly this puts people at risk so can't go on so he is sacked. Now do you stop giving jobs in community to him as being sacked is truamatic or find him a job in a place like I believe it is called Remploy that employs mainly people with learning disablilities if I remember correctly or did as I believe the funding was stopped or something similar?
Getting the balance between cocooning(sp?) in cotton wool and the harsh realities of life is a difficult one.
.

May In point out a harsh realities of life situation that I was involved in.
The father of a man with learning disabilties had just died and the son needed to be told, the mother was coming to visit soon and reluctant to tell him personally in case he "kicked off", not without justification did she not want to tell him herself, so I had to do it. Fortunately he remained calm, telling someone their father has just died is never a pleasant task.....

My post is absolutely not an argument for moral relativism - not at all - if by moral relativism you mean that there's no such thing as right and wrong, only what society determines to be right and wrong. This is a very fashionable view that a lot of people at the moment seem to think that they hold, but on closer reflection can be persuaded otherwise.

It might be an argument for moral particularism, which is something rather different. Roughly, this is the view that what's right and wrong just varies according to the situation, and what's required is a moral sensitivity to the key facts rather than adherence to general moral principles or rules.

I think the finest of hairs just got subdivided

Relax, I get so used to arguing for moral clarity that it's refreshing to see an instance where it genuinely isn't applicable.

"All the other children here are...."

It's quite normal for a parent to call his/her adult-child a child, whether that adult-child has a learning disability or not. It's a sign that the parent still feels protective of his/her adult-child. It is not an insult. And, if the adult-child is still dependant on his/her parents, it's probably a good thing that the parents feel that way.

TRiG.

Deborah: "How easy is it to sit a full-grown adult with a mental age of 3 months on your knee for a cuddle and a bounce?"

We don't know what the parents motives were. In some ways, it will make their lives easier. SS assumes that this is their sole reason, that they are selfish. But there are plenty of other reasons, such as Deb's, above. Hoists won't achieve that, y'know.

SS, what basis do you have for your assumptions about the parents motives?

TRiG.

Trig, no she was refering to all other adults with learning disabilities there as children, they were not related to her, it was not how you would describe non related adults.
......................................
I don't know where Deb got that from, my opinion is that to bounce a grown adult up and down on your knee would be wrong full stop, just 'cause the adult has learning difficulties doesn't make it right!
You can still be sympathetic and careing to an adult with learning difficulties and treat them in a respectful and adult way.
I have to be honest to deliberately restrict the growth of a 50 year old woman so they can be bounced up and down on your knee somewhat nausiating.

If I had the mind of a child I would want to be cuddled and bounced on my parents' knees. Ashley has the mind of a child. So what you're saying, SS, is that she should be allowed to grow as "normal" but be denied one of the joys of being the child she is (in her mind)? Have I got that right or am I completely midunderstanding you? Yes it would possibly be a "nausiating" sight to see a parent bouncing their 50 year old daughter on their knee. So stopping Ashley's growth allows her to continue to live the life of a small child without it looking "nausiating" to outsiders.

BTW when I mentioned sitting a child on your knee for a cuddle and a bounce I was referring to Ashley specifically who will never be a "grown adult".

Deb

I think 'learning disabilities' is a very broad label, and it's worth making the point that this term has the potential to cover an enormous range of conditions from mild dyslexia through Downs' Syndrome through to the condition that Ashley has, whose case started this thread.

And for me, rights, treatment and responsibilities for people with learning disabilities just have to be handled on something like a case-by-case basis. Some people with conditions like Downs or Fragile X are capable of working if the right jobs can be found and the appropriate support given. They can select hobbies and make decisions about their lives. It would be very wrong to treat such people patronisingly, or to belittle their abilities.

On the other hand, if someone has the mental age of a young child, it wouldn't unnecessarily be inappropriate to treat them like a young child in some ways. If an adult with learning difficulties enjoys (say) finger-painting, playing with a ball, or building towers from lego bricks, it doesn't seem to me that the fact of that adult being 40 or whatever is a reason not to play those games with her. I'm not sure what I think about making baby noises to adults with the mental age of a baby - I want to say that if they enjoy it, why not, but I can also see the argument that it's patronising. But perhaps the point being made was that it was the assumption about a person's abilities that was patronising.

Some ethicists sometimes talk about the 'yuck factor', and I wonder if that's what's at work here with SS's comment about finding it 'nauseating'. The 'yuck factor' is when people can't quite place what it is they don't like in terms of moral argument about some new procedure or practice other than it sounds distasteful or 'yuk'. But the yuk factor is not a moral objection - there was plenty of 'yuk factor' objection to organ transplants which are now relatively uncontroversial.

She will not look like a child, she will look like a very short 50 year old adult person with wrinkles in her skin just the same as any other adult.
As I have already said, I have known an almost exactly same situation adult who has not had surgery or chemical treatment for around 11 years. Talking ga ga noises, bouncing on your knee, etc is not needed, being caring and sympathetic, smiling and talking generally and keep the person informed works well.
Although too late due to age anyway, I would fight tooth and nail to stop such a thing as chemical therapy being carried out on the person I know as it is unnecessary. Indeed if such a thing were to be carried out I still wouldn't carry the person around by hand as it would be putting the person, and me at risk.
.
If I ever end up in a care home due to an accident and it is quoted that I have a mental age of X years then please talk to me in a respectful way as it is not always possible to be certain, and to be talked to like a baby for 30 years would surely be a hell on earth.

Otto post 51, well said,
My post was a simultaneous post.

I think it is mainly the changing someones size to make them easier to move around that I find the most upsetting, the other parts of what were done to her still maybe dubious, but the size thing is almost genetic engineering after a birth.
It is somewhat irronical that I am not the sort of person who gets up and spouts "Community, presence and participation" and other buzz words, strewth if I hear mission statement once more I will scream, I am more of the lets make sure people with learning disablilities are able to go down the pub for a pint when they want to person, but certain things like changing a persons height to suit someone else, however well intentioned, do get my goat!

From 20 minutes time, I shall be working until around 2.0pm tomorow afternoon, so if I don't reply I m not being rude, just not here for 24 hours!

Deakie, post 37.

The phrase 'Pillow Angels' made me ignore the rest of the site. Anybody that would use such a trite phrase is beneath contempt.

Right, off to read the backlog.

Actually, I'm quite drunk and reading the backlog is beyond me!

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, I think they did the right thing. Obviously, every case will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but for this patient and her family, I believe that with the knowledge available to them, the right thing was done.

I am going to unsubscride as this is now going around in circles, and I have said as much as I want to, bye peeps.

A letter to the Dublin Metro free newspaper (Wed, Jan 10, 2007):

"I was shocked to hear
about that poor girl Ashley,
although I have to agree with Kate
(MailMetro, Mon). In this case we
have to ask the question: Why
was the choice of child euthanasia
not available to this couple? This
child would be better as an angel
in Heaven with no suffering."

Discuss.

(I'm afraid I do not have Monday's Metro to hand.)

TRiG.