FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Surgery to stunt growth of disabled child was illegal; UPDATE: report, news story out (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Surgery to stunt growth of disabled child was illegal; UPDATE: report, news story out
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
What happens if the AMA doesn't do anything after the meetings?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Can't honestly say, Storm. I'm not the primary water-carrier on this -- just playing support, mostly.

However, there are plenty of other types of pressure tactics that can be used over time and a lot of people across the country who would like to help with the effort.

I'm guessing there'll be some concession (originally they weren't going to meet at all which is why the AP reporter wrote her lead-in that way).

They're not stupid. They can tell that there's a lot of criticism coming from the disability community and the medical/bioethics community. Activists found ways to keep up the pressure, and the core groups are headquartered here in Chicago, which is also where the AMA is headquartered. The weather is going to get warmer, making rallies and protests easier and less hazardous to the health.

And guess where the AMA national conference is being held in June? [Wink]

These things are notoriously hard to predict, but I suspect there will be some movement on the AMA side - probably as little as they figure it will take to get the heat off.

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lavalamp
Member
Member # 4337

 - posted      Profile for Lavalamp           Edit/Delete Post 
It may interest you to know that the AP news coverage of the meeting showed up on my Wii last night.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Wiis get news? *blink*



quote:
Her parents say the treatment makes Ashley more portable
*flinch* Was that word choice deliberate or unfortunate?

quote:
"Most of the supportive ones are thoughtful" and show that the senders have read the family's blog. "Most of the critical ones are clearly knee-jerk one or two sentence reactions" that appear to be reactions to sensational media headlines, the parents said.
How incredibly shocking that the would see it that way.

quote:
. . . said Diane Coleman of Not Dead Yet, who also attended the meeting.
[Big Grin]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fyfe
Member
Member # 937

 - posted      Profile for Fyfe   Email Fyfe         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd be interested to know how many of the people who are voicing such vehement outrage about this family have actually been in the position of caring for an Ashley.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
Fyfe, my problem with your question is that it depends on how a person views morality. Some people see it as greatly nuanced and situational, like in your question. Others see it as absolute. So probably half the board sees your question as irrelevant.

Besides, deciding right and wrong from an objective position is usually safer than when we're in the middle of an emotionally charged situation. Humans can rationalize anything.

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Fyfe:
I'd be interested to know how many of the people who are voicing such vehement outrage about this family have actually been in the position of caring for an Ashley.

Here's at least one:

quote:
"It was definitely a victory to at least have the dialogue that we had," said Donna Harnett of the Feminist Response group, who attended the meeting.

Harnett started a blog Monday to counter Ashley parents' blog. It includes photographs of Harnett's disabled 11-year-old son, Martin, whose medical problems are similar to Ashley's.

The Harnetts want "to show other families and inform the public that there is an option available other than the 'Ashley Treatment.' That option is to let a child grow into adulthood and exist as the human being they are destined to become," the blog says.

At least one person who has posted on this thread does so professionally.

I'd be interested in how many of the people voicing support for removal of organs and stunting of growth have been disabled.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lavalamp
Member
Member # 4337

 - posted      Profile for Lavalamp           Edit/Delete Post 
Fyfe,

Dagonee made a good pitch for NOT deciding that one should remain silent on moral issues simply because of a lack of direct experience. I think it's back on page 1.

I interpreted your question as asking something more along the lines of "how many people who are against this without actually having thought much about it have no direct experience with a similar situation."

Otherwise, your question would seem to leave no room for even an examination of the moral nature of the situation -- sorry, you haven't been in their shoes so your opinion doesn't matter.

In examining my own stance on this issue, I learned that the ethics review at the hospital was not unanimous, but rather a very close call. Does the family's website convey that? I didn't come away from their presentation with the impression that the decision was close at all.

I have lots of questions about why this seems to them to be the BEST solution for their daughter. What alternatives were considered? What assistance is available to them now and, more importantly, in the future (when presumably the size and weight of the girl will become increasingly important as the parents age. What do other people in this situation do? Is this a common decision or are these folks the first ones to have this particular surgery done on a dependant? Where did they get the idea in the first place? Are there medical disbenefits to the girl?

And those are the questions that don't even directly touch on the moral implications, or the rights of people who are completely dependent on caregivers.

Just because MY initial reaction to this was to be squicked out doesn't mean that I (and others) are incapable of forming an informed decision, asking intelligent questions, or engaging in an open discussion of it.

just sayin'

Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
Because of how difficult it is to know in advance what such a situation would be like (both ways: how many challenges it raises and how much support can and should be available), I don't fault the parents for pursuing this. I think they were afraid of the big bugaboo of Disability. But I do fault the professionals if they did not acknowledge these parental fears and then explain how they can be addressed in ways other than major surgery and high hormonal therapy.

And the parents' understanding of early puberty and what that means seems utterly abysmal. It does not give me any confidence in their understanding of other areas of prognosis or therapy outcomes.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lavalamp
Member
Member # 4337

 - posted      Profile for Lavalamp           Edit/Delete Post 
I agree. I also think they probably have a very high cognitive barrier to seeing any downsides at this point. Basically, if they were to become convinced that they'd ultimately made the wrong choice, their lives will take on a certain nightmare aspect.

I think there's plenty here to discuss at the level of the AMA and individual hospitals' medical review boards. And that discussion need not necessarily reflect poorly on Ashley's parents. My heart goes out to them even though I believe this procedure shouldn't be performed if there are other alternatives.

Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think there's plenty here to discuss at the level of the AMA and individual hospitals' medical review boards. And that discussion need not necessarily reflect poorly on Ashley's parents. My heart goes out to them even though I believe this procedure shouldn't be performed if there are other alternatives.
I am waiting for the AJOB article to come out. Once it does, I'll read it and write up an article I am already thinking through about "groupthink" and ethics committees.

I've always liked the Galbraith quote: "Never understimate the power of very stupid people in large groups."

There's a flipside: "Never understimate the capacity of a small group of smart, moral people to collectively make stupid, irrational and immoral decisions." (Drake, 2007)

I have to add that I started out with a halfway charitable attitude toward the parents, but I've pretty much turned into an "attack dog" where they are concerned, especially when people (like on a radio show yesterday) ask me what anyone has doing judging this "private" decision.

Let's get the chronology straight:

The article was published in October 2006 and received little attention in the press. Nevertheless, at least two major advocacy organizations for people with developmental disabilities submitted letters of protest to the journal.

In January, the "Ashley Treatment" became a big news story.

Why?

Because the parents published a blog - and part of the purpose of the blog was to encourage other parents to do the same thing with their own children.

So... To put things bluntly, they didn't put up a blog because people were talking about them and they wanted to get their side of it out. They published the blog because nobody was talking about it and they wanted more attention.

They are the ones who decided this should be a public and political policy debate.

I can and do question their motives in regard to their actions in regard to their advocacy.

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Good point, Steven.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks, rivka.

But outside of Hatrack it seems like any criticism of the parents is out of bounds.

Makes things dicey since criticism of the procedures are also (correctly) interpreted as criticisms of the parents.

I'll be interested to see what kind of flack John Hockenberry gets from what he just posted about this (Hockenberry is a wheelchair user and was a journalist with NPR and NBC for many years). He doesn't mince words:

Ashley X: straight on till mourning

quote:
I am not going to argue that Ashley’s parents are immoral or unjustified in what they did. I will argue that they are no longer Ashley’s parents. Regardless of their love and affection for their daughter their decision to remove her breasts and uterus and maintain her in a state of pre-puberty is not a parental decision. It is more the kind of control one might enforce on a pet to manage the relationship. It is something a farmer managing the productivity of his or her operation would naturally enforce on livestock. This would be done humanely, morally, and no-doubt with considerable tender affection and love for the subjects. There would be no outcry and no controversy, yet no one would confuse these acts of husbandry as parenthood.

***

Caregivers who are parents in the eyes of the law have the option to do anything they want in a case like this. Clearly there is no law standing in the way of doctors performing these sorts of procedures nor is there likely to be. Ashley’s parents are undoubtedly humane, caring, loving, custodians of their “Pillow Angel.” They are just no longer parents. It’s a choice they, themselves made.

I've excerpted just a couple of paragraphs here. I really recommend reading the whole piece - it's one of the best I've seen over this past couple months.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
My favorite bit is this:
quote:
The idea of parents wanting their children to remain young babies is a longing that is familiar and this longing is not to be begrudged to Ashley’s parents. Yet to medically enforce such a longing on the grounds that these parents will be better caregivers for disabled Ashley for longer can hardly be justified as a right or responsibility of parenthood. I am undoubtedly better able to care for and protect my two five year olds if I keep them from growing up and never let them out of my sight. It is equally certain that I would be taken away to the funny farm if I tried to make it happen.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Breaking News:

This release isn't on the web yet, but is making the rounds via email. There will be lots more info on Tuesday, May 8. For one thing, the full report mentioned below will be emailed to me - but it should also be available online sometime Tuesday.

Edit: I had to delete the press release as there has been some confusion about the status of its ability to be distributed (it's got an "embargo" date on it, telling the media not to report until the day of the press conference). I received two copies in email from third party sources, one with the embargo status and one without.

I contacted the national office and they were aware that the info had kind of flown out of control (it's to be expected when you send it via email to hundreds of people). At the time, they seemed to be adjusting to the fact that it's out there and didn't express concern about further distribution.

Now they are freaking so I am taking it off until Monday night when I'll post it again.

But summary of press release is as follows:

**Washington Protection & Advocacy, a private, nonprofit organization that protects the rights of people with disabilities, investigated the "Ashley Treatment."

**Investigation revealed that the hospital violated the state law and the child's constitutional rights by performing the sterilization without a court order.

**The hospital admits this, is very sorry, and has a plan to make sure it doesn't happen again.

There will be a press conference at Seattle Children's Hospital on Tuesday, May 8, with representatives of the hospital administration and the disability community.

I'll repost on Monday and issue the link to the full report when it becomes available.

[ May 04, 2007, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dead_Horse
Member
Member # 3027

 - posted      Profile for Dead_Horse   Email Dead_Horse         Edit/Delete Post 
Thank you for posting this, Stephen. I am looking forward to seeing the report. It's nice to know that a court order was required by law in this situation, even though it was not obtained. It's good that the hospital is taking responsibility and adding safeguards, too.

Rain

Posts: 1379 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eaquae Legit
Member
Member # 3063

 - posted      Profile for Eaquae Legit   Email Eaquae Legit         Edit/Delete Post 
[Smile] Thanks, Stephen.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Rain and Alison,

You are welcome. I'm wondering if I should do a separate thread just on this breaking development or not. The reappearance of the thread might look like "old news" to most people.

As to the hospital, I don't think they had a choice but to admit they broke the law and then to formulate a corrective plan.

To me, this should spark many questions about ethics committees in general. The only reason we know this hospital and its ethics committee ignored the law is due to an outside investigation. The reason there was an investigation at all is because this all went spectacularly public - with the publication of the journal article and the publication of the parents' blog. If this had never become public, the breaking of the law would never have become known.

How often does this happen with hospitals and ethics committees? Most of these matters don't become public or get reviewed by outsiders.

I'm not suggesting I have an answer. There is a glaring lack of data, which is the way the medical profession likes it.

But people who suggest this is *rare* aren't making data-based statements, either. They don't know and shouldn't pretend that they do.

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
I definitely thik this deserves it's own thread, unless Kasie happens by and can change the title. Thanks for posting it.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eaquae Legit
Member
Member # 3063

 - posted      Profile for Eaquae Legit   Email Eaquae Legit         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd enjoy seeing a new thread, too.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Two votes is enough for me. [Smile]

Done!

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
OK, I didn't bother to update the press release section. Sorry about that.

But, as promised, here's the site you can go to for the full report in pdf(I'll post some links to news stories later): Washington Protection & Advocacy System

And as an added bonus, here's the executive summary for your reading pleasure. And it confirms my suspicions in terms of "groupthink.":

quote:
WASHINGTON PROTECTION &
ADVOCACY SYSTEM

The following is an excerpt from the
Investigative Report Regarding the “Ashley Treatment”

Executive Summary

• The Washington Protection and Advocacy System (WPAS) is the federally
mandated protection and advocacy (P&A) agency for the state of
Washington. The P&As, which exist in every state and territory, are
“watchdog” agencies with legal authority under federal statutes to
investigate allegations of abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities and
to advocate for their legal and human rights.

• Pursuant to its federal authority, WPAS initiated its investigation of what
happened to Ashley in regards to her “Ashley Treatment” after publication of
a medical journal article describing the medical interventions provided to a
young child with developmental disabilities and suggesting it might be
appropriate for others. WPAS also received numerous complaints after
widespread media coverage of the situation.

• Ashley is a girl with developmental disabilities who was six years old at the
time the interventions began. The intervention included surgical removal of
her uterus and breast buds, as well as high-dosage hormone therapy to limit
her growth and physical sexual development.

• The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that when a parent or anyone
else seeks to sterilize an incompetent individual with a developmental
disability, the individual must be afforded due process and a multi-factored
test must be proven by clear and convincing evidence before a court can
authorize the sterilization.

• The “Ashley Treatment” was conducted by physicians at Children’s Hospital,
at the request of Ashley’s parents and after review by the Hospital’s Ethics
Committee. There was, however, no court order sought or obtained before
the sterilization portion of the “Ashley Treatment” was performed.

• FINDINGS: The sterilization portion of the “Ashley Treatment” was
conducted in violation of Washington State law, resulting in violation of
Ashley’s constitutional and common law rights.

o The Washington Supreme Court has held that a court order is
required when parents seek to sterilize their minor or adult children
with developmental disabilities, and that the individual must be
zealously represented by a disinterested third party in an adversarial
proceeding to determine whether the sterilization is in the individual’s
best interests.

o Courts have also limited parental authority to consent to other types
of medical interventions that are highly invasive and/or irreversible,
particularly when the interest of the parent may not be identical to the
interest of the child. Thus, the other aspects of the “Ashley
Treatment” – surgical breast bud removal and hormone treatments –
should also require independent court evaluation and sanction before
being performed on any person with a developmental disability.

o The implementation of the “Ashley Treatment” also raises
discrimination issues because, if not for the individual’s
developmental disabilities, the interventions would not be sought.
Such discrimination against individuals because of their disabilities is
expressly forbidden by state and federal law.

• The violations appear to have occurred as a result of:

o a lack of policies at Children’s Hospital regarding the
sterilization of minors with developmental disabilities;

o an opinion of Ashley’s parents’ counsel that no court order
was required. This legal opinion was not supported by
Washington law;

o reliance upon that opinion by doctors at Children’s Hospital
and the mistaken belief that the opinion of Ashley’s parents’
counsel constituted a “court review;” and

o insufficient internal controls at Children’s Hospital to ensure
that Ashley’s independent legal interests were protected.

• As a result of the WPAS investigation, Children’s Hospital has agreed to
take the following corrective actions:

o Develop and implement a policy to prohibit sterilizations of persons
with developmental disabilities without a court order. The policy will
assure that all appeal periods and appeals, if any, are exhausted
before any procedures are performed;

o Improve internal controls and oversight to insure that no sterilizations
can take place without the necessary court order; and

o Give notice to WPAS of requested sterilization of persons with
developmental disabilities so that it can continue to act as a
watchdog on behalf of individuals with disabilities.

• Additionally, Children’s Hospital has also agreed to take the following
additional steps to protect the rights of children with developmental
disabilities for whom the “Ashley Treatment” or other growth-limiting
interventions are sought:

o Develop and implement a policy to prohibit growth-limiting medical
interventions on persons with developmental disabilities without a
court order. The policy will ensure that all appeal periods and
appeals, if any, are exhausted before any procedures are performed;

o Give notice to WPAS of requested “Ashley Treatment” and other
growth-limiting interventions of persons with developmental
disabilities so that it can continue to act as a watchdog on behalf of
individuals with disabilities; and improve internal controls and
oversight to assure that no such procedures can take place without
the necessary court order. To the extent that it is medically viable, the
policy will include provisions to monitor the prescriptions for high
dosages of hormones that the Hospital’s pharmacy has been asked
to fill; and

o Include a disability rights advocate on the Hospital’s Ethics
Committee. The Committee will also bring in experts in particular
relevant areas as it relates to medical care and interventions for
individuals with developmental disabilities, as appropriate.

• NEXT STEPS: In order to continue advocating for the rights of people with
developmental disabilities for whom sterilization or growth-limiting
interventions may be contemplated, WPAS will:

o work with Children’s Hospital in ways identified in Section V of this
Report and monitor the implementation of the Agreement between
Children’s and WPAS;

o conduct outreach to courts and guardians ad litem to advise them of
WPAS’s availability to provide technical assistance to guardians ad
litem and/or representation for children with disabilities for whom a
court order is being sought to perform a sterilization, the “Ashley
Treatment,” or other growth-limiting medical interventions;

o provide technical assistance to other P&As and disability rights
related organizations throughout the country who wish to address
issues related to sterilization, the “Ashley Treatment,” or other
growth-limiting interventions for children with disabilities, and conduct
activities similar to those WPAS is doing in Washington State;
o participate in opportunities to educate the public on legal and other
issues related to sterilization, the “Ashley Treatment,” or other
growth-limiting interventions for children with disabilities, from the
perspective of the disability community;

o promote the availability of WPAS’s advocacy services to obtain
assistive technology to facilitate mobility and ease of providing
personal care where funding is required by law; and

o widely disseminate this report to various organizations and agencies
in an attempt to draw attention to the need to take proactive
measures to protect individuals with developmental disabilities.
WPAS will also collaborate with our partners in the disability
community to:

o identify and promote the best candidates who have a “disability
perspective” for participation in hospital ethics committees around the
state;

o conduct outreach to hospitals throughout the state to encourage
them to adopt policies similar to the ones being developed for
Children’s;

o develop a strategy for reaching and educating doctors who may be
considering providing high doses of hormones for the purpose of
growth attenuation of individuals with developmental disabilities on
an outpatient basis in their offices and without the involvement of any
hospital;

o create and disseminate educational materials and make
presentations to train doctors, medical students, members of hospital
ethics committees, judges, guardians ad litem, lawyers, law students,
people with disabilities and parents of people with disabilities on legal
and other issues related to sterilization, the “Ashley Treatment,” and
other growth-limiting medical interventions for children with
developmental disabilities from the perspective of members of the
disability community;

o work with agencies involved in certification, accreditation, and
licensing of hospitals and health care providers to assure that
standards, criteria and requirements related to the provision of
sterilization, the “Ashley Treatment,” and other growth-limiting
medical interventions for children with disabilities are clear,
consistent with the law, and communicated to those who need to
know;

o work with health insurance companies operating in Washington State
and around the country to assure that their policies for reimbursing
costs of the “Ashley Treatment” and other growth-limiting medical
interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities are clear,
consistent with the law, and communicated to those who need to
know;

o work with the disability community in Washington State and around
the country to identify and advocate other ways to restrict the
performance of the “Ashley Treatment” and related growth-limiting
medical interventions for children with disabilities to the furthest
extent possible;

o to the extent necessary, seek the means necessary to accomplish
the above in a timely manner; and

o work with people on every side of the debate to join together to
improve the services and supports for children with disabilities and
their families.

To view the complete Investigative Report Regarding the “Ashley Treatment”,
please see www.DisabilityRightsWA.org. To receive this document in an
alternative format, please contact DRW Administrator Jessica McDaneld at
206-324-1521 or TTY 206-957-0728.



[ May 08, 2007, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Flaming Toad on a Stick
Member
Member # 9302

 - posted      Profile for Flaming Toad on a Stick   Email Flaming Toad on a Stick         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks. That's very interesting.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vonk
Member
Member # 9027

 - posted      Profile for vonk   Email vonk         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The Washington Supreme Court has held that a court order is
required when parents seek to sterilize their minor or adult children
with developmental disabilities, and that the individual must be
zealously represented by a disinterested third party in an adversarial
proceeding to determine whether the sterilization is in the individual’s
best interests.

I'm not fluent in legalese, so could someone please explain how one could be 'zealous' and "disinterested" at the same time? And why would either be appropriate for the defendent of a mentally/physically disabled person? Why wouldn't it be preferable to have a well educated, interested and calm person making the defence? I don't see how zeal or interest really come into play.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Toretha
Member
Member # 2233

 - posted      Profile for Toretha   Email Toretha         Edit/Delete Post 
what's this adversarial proceeding going to consist of? What if the third party also thinks sterilization would be better? Who plays adversary?
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
romanylass
Member
Member # 6306

 - posted      Profile for romanylass   Email romanylass         Edit/Delete Post 
My guess would be a Guardian ad Litem, not related to the family but familiar with disability rights issues.
(not a legal expert)

Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Vonk - that means someone - not connected to the parents or the hospital - advocate for the child. This is done more often than you think in cases where families might have mixed motives in terms of what they want done (in Ashley's case, part of the parents' rationale that keeping her small would make their own lives better, for example.)

The specific term for this person is a guardian ad litem - their job is to advocate for the best interests of the individual (incapacitated adult or a minor).

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vonk
Member
Member # 9027

 - posted      Profile for vonk   Email vonk         Edit/Delete Post 
Ok. The disinterested part means having no personal interst, not having no interest in the case at all. Requiring someone to be zealous still sounds weird to me.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
"Zealous" is taken from the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the practice of law. Here is the relevant section of the ABA Model Rules: "As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system."

It should be noted that "illegal" in this sense means that the proper procedures were not followed - literally, a denial of due process. Based on the posted information, there's no ruling that the decision made was erroneous. Just that it was made improperly.

That's not to denigrate the finding nor to defend the actual decision. Due process violations are very serious - so serious that we will exclude absolutely reliable evidence and allow a murderer to walk free in order to protect it.

The key here is the irreversibility of the "treatment." It is in such cases where process is the most important, because a mistake can't be fixed.

Elements of due process include notice and hearing. The type of hearing is largely determined by the importance of the right at stake. The right invoked here is considered amongst the most important, so the process must be extensive: the right to present evidence, to hear evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, impartial arbitrator, and legal representation are all critical.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kasie H
Member
Member # 2120

 - posted      Profile for Kasie H   Email Kasie H         Edit/Delete Post 
Just thought I'd point out that the report is currently the main story on CNN.com (with the picture & headline, etc).

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/05/08/ashley.ruling/index.html

Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
erosomniac
Member
Member # 6834

 - posted      Profile for erosomniac           Edit/Delete Post 
In possibly related (and somewhat late) news, Dr. Daniel Gunther, the man who led the surgery on Ashley, killed himself in September.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
From the article sndrake linked:

quote:
"Sterilization is not the intent of the 'Ashley Treatment,' but a byproduct of it," they wrote, adding that while they support laws protecting against involuntary sterilization, they believe the law is "too broadly based" to "distinguish between people who are or can become capable of decision-making and those who have a grave and unchanging medical condition such as Ashley."
This attitude really annoys me. The investigative report called for a court hearing. It didn't say the procedure shouldn't have been done at all. It simply said that, before such a permanent and life-changing decision should be made, a neutral decider (a judge) should have heard evidence of the benefits and costs of this procedure before deciding if it was in her best interest.

In order to "distinguish between people who are or can become capable of decision-making and those who have a grave and unchanging medical condition such as Ashley," someone has to analyze the evidence. A court exercising the review described by the investigators can easily make such a distinction.

It's like saying that the criminal justice system should distinguish between the innocent and the guilty.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2