Crawley reports on a case that has people debating the ethics of raising a disabled child:
Disability charities are extremely worried by the legal precedent that could be set by the case of the 15-year-old Katie Thorpe. Katie’s mother, Alison Thorpe, has asked doctors to give her daughter, who has cerebral palsy, a hysterectomy to prevent her from starting menstruation because she is concerned that Katie would be confused by periods and they would cause her indignity.
Simone Apsis of the UK Disabled People’s Council joined William to say how concerned she is about the hysterectomy being allowed to go ahead.
I think it’s entirely up to the mother. She’s the one - nobody else - who will have to deal with this child in this state for a long, long time. Frankly, it’s nobody else’s damned business, and if the UK government won’t get out of her face about her decision then I’d take the daughter elsewhere to have it done. A spastic woman is no more likely to be able to be a successful parent than the busybodies are likely to raise a spastic woman: whatever makes life simpler for both mother and daughter is at this stage of primary importance, precedence or no. I’m astonished that such a collectivist notion as precedence should take precedence over what’s important to the individuals involved. They’ve got enough on their plate without having to take all future generations of cerebral palsy sufferers and their families into account of their own private dilemma, which is theirs and theirs alone. Unless Simone Apsis wishes to be responsible for raising Katie Thorpe herself then she has no say in how the girl’s mother wishes to do it.
What say ye?
5 responses so far ↓
1 Dave Powell // Oct 15, 2007 at 6:41 am
Katie’s rights come first, then her mothers. The rights of the UK Disabled People’s Council don’t even enter the picture.
So if Katie is incapable of expressing her opinion the decision should come down to her mother and the doctors, who i’m sure are more than capable of addressing the ethical concerns.
2 Quinney // Oct 15, 2007 at 7:38 am
I totally agree. (with Dave and John) The lobbyists and councils and people who like to interfere and pretend to speak “on behalf” of disabled people but who usually are enforcing a politically correct kind of collectivism do not have rights. It is Katie’s mom who has the rights, since she is the custodian of a disabled minor.
3 Greg, Sacramento // Oct 15, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Hey guess what John? I agree for once. Great new blog layout.
4 Michael // Oct 15, 2007 at 4:03 pm
John,
I see the comment after yours on the BBC Blog you linked, they raise questions about your use of the word spastic! Just curious, was that an intention to be provocative or didn’t you even think about it?
Faithfully,
Michael
5 John // Oct 17, 2007 at 10:16 am
Michael- No, it wasn’t an intention to be provocative, although I consciously used the word in part to get attention, since this pathetic, infantile understanding of it has damned it to become a term of abuse in the UK. It needs redeemed.
Leave a Comment