sad tidings / and my dander up !!

[Guest guest]

gosh , i wish i hadnt recieved this post below this morning , its upset me

tremendously to see this view being shared yet again ....but important to me

, it not be buried just because it makes me soo uncomfortable ......so please

give it thought ....be aware there have been sucides and infants left

untreated by those affected ....and take a stance , should it become a public

issue again ! i honestly dont know why it surfaced again through drees

......but it is back in the disablity rights org chain of discussion , and

does have a dirrect impact on the lives of many of us ! read on , shed those

tears if it brings em on , and know our fight , for the right to exist , is

still being fought !

sarah in paradise ( sad , but trying to see value in the fight at least !)

Eugenics Movement Article

The Eugenics Movement in the U.S.

Many people are unaware that Hitler's extermination policies began with the

large-scale elimination of people with disabilities. Proponents of physician-

assisted suicide are offended when allusions are made to this piece of

disability history in the course of

debate over the so-called " right to die " . The fact is that Hitler stole most

of his ideas on eugenics from publications originating in the USA.

Popularity of eugenics and social Darwinism continued in the USA during WWII.

In 1942, the American Journal of Psychiatry published a " debate " on the

ethics of killing children with severe disabilities. The following was

written by Kennedy:

I believe when the defective child shall have reached the age of five

years - and on the application of his guardians - that the case should be

considered under law by a competent medical board; then it should be reviewed

twice more at four-month intervals; then, if the board, acting, I repeat, on

the applications of the guardians of the child, and after three examinations

of a defective who has reached the age of five or more, should decide that

that defective has no future or hope of one; then I believe it is a merciful

and kindly thing to relieve that defective - often tortured and convulsed,

grotesque and absurd, useless and foolish, and entirely undesirable - of the

agony of living.

In an unsigned editorial in the same issue, Kennedy's views were

enthusiastically endorsed in this official publication of the American

Psychiatric Association. It is probable that the opening of the concentration

camps (built by a regime devoted to eugenics) was a major factor in driving

this sentiment underground.

That was over 50 years ago. Proponents of physician assisted suicide would

argue, as many would, that times have changed.

Perhaps, on the other hand, they haven't.

Below is an excerpt from an invited " Commentary " by Singer that

appeared in a 1983 issue of Pediatrics. Singer is a philosopher whose

contributions to the field of " bioethics " have included the assertion that

there is no justification for regarding

infants as having any more rights than animals and that parents of babies

with certain disabilities be given the right to order the death of the infant

within those first 30 days. First, on the issue of treatment withdrawal or

refusal:

Although many doctors would sharply distinguish the active termination

of life from a decision not to treat a patient for whom the foreseen outcome

of this decision is death of the patient, the distinction is a tenuous one,

and the claim that it carries moral weight has been rejected by several

academic philosophers.

Singer complains in this same article that the " right " to release from pain

(through euthanasia) will be denied to individuals unable to espress

themselves.

This was a bad year for people with disabilities in Pediatrics. Three issues

later and article appeared with the title Early Management and Decision

Making for the Treatment of Myelomeningocele. A medical team at Oklahoma

Children's Memorial Hospital used a " quality of life " formula to decide

whether to give parents of infants with spina bifida an " optimistic " or

" pessimistic " prognosis. Parents given an optimistic prognosis were informed

of all available treatments and urged to start them immediately. All parents

so informed agreed to treatment. The parents of children given " pessimistic "

prognoses were advised to forego intervention and treatment as the child

would be too disabled to ever enjoy life even if they survived. Most parents,

having been told this was in the best interest of their children, agreed. A

very few did not. Here are the results in the authors'

own words:

The " untreated survivor " has not been a significant problem in our

experience. All 24 babies who have not been treated at all have died at an

average of 37 days.

Ignored were the implications of the fact that three out of the five babies

who were given treatment (surgery and antibiotics) were alive and doing well

at the time the article was written. It could be fairly assumed that a

majority of children deprived of treatment would also have been alive and

well with appropriate medial intervention.

The trail on this issue in professional journals is clear. There is a ready

acceptance of the physician's " duty " to judge the quality of life of

patients, to deem when it will be unacceptable, and to act as executioner

when it is felt to be desirable according to

professionally determined criteria. None of the current debate is really new.

It just took 50 years to come back out in the open.

References

Gross, R.H., et al. (1983). Early Management and Decision Making for the

Treatment of Myelomeningocele. Pediatrics,

72 (4), 450-458.

Kennedy, F. (1942). The problem of social control of the congenital defective

- Education, sterilization, euthanasia.

American Journal of Psychiatry, 99, 13-16.

Singer, P. (1983). Sanctity of life or quality of life? Pediatrics, 72 (1)

128-129.