|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD
(1/6/2007)
Ethical Questions Presented by Art Caplan?
I read the AP article, "Surgery on Girl Raises Ethical Questions" and then "Parents who froze girl in time defend their actions" by Jeremy Laurance and Louise Jack. How interesting that Art Caplan is quoted in both. How interesting that "he", of all people, would be involved in presenting an ethical question involving this girl and her parents' decision regarding their child. Ashley was born with brain damage that holds her in the bonds and boundaries of infancy. No one knows why. Knowing might prevent this situation from happening to others, but it cannot take back the hand it has dealt Ashley and her family. But that is not the issue at hand. The issue, it seems, is how the parents chose to handle the health and care of their daughter as they saw best. A decision that Art Caplan is quoted on The Independent Online Edition, as saying, " Arthur Caplan, a medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, said the "do no harm" rule governing physicians is powerful and stopping growth is, "not the ethical way to head". Oh really!?!?!? Art Caplan who wrote the commentary "Opinion:Time to let Schiavo die"? The Art Caplan who so obviously was leaning towards Michael Schiavo's side and so worried about what Michael had been and was going through? Poor Michael. He was treated so poorly, according to Caplan, for striving to do what he (Michael) felt was best for Terri. And, according to Caplan, this was a decision for Michael to make and said, "Those who would change a system that has worked and worked well for the millions of Americans who face the most difficult of medical decisions should think very hard about whether Sen. Bill Frist, DeLay, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Bush, Sen. John Kerry or the governor of your state needs to be consulted before you and your doctor can decide that it is time to stop life-prolonging medical care." Yes, this is what he said about Michael and the Schiavo case. Not what he said about the Ashley case. In Ashley's case -- I don't know whether the parents were right or wrong in how they handled the care of their child. I'm not even going to give a guess at the moment. However, this situation does bring us back to how this world has gone mad and that there needs to be some serious soul searching going on. Art Caplan is worried about Ashley's female reproductive organs being removed? Their need would have been for what? Art Caplan worries about Ashley's parents removing a reproductive system that could never be utilized legitimately, but insists that it was okay for Michael Schiavo to remove a legitimate method of feeding his wife? Caplan also fails to mention another point, like the fact that most laws don't go "retro". (A person can only be sentenced to what was the laws during that period.) A feeding tube was not considered medical treatment when Terri first was given one. But... oh well! We can't bring Terri back, nor can we make all well for Ashley. We can, however, wonder how Caplan's opinion (and those such as he) have any true value, and maybe decide that it is time to bring the ethics back home where they worked best of all in the first place. Back home to the people that don't need any degree or specialty. Back to human beings that specialize in love and humanity. Back to the people who say, "Art Caplan? Who is that?"
Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Purchase merchandise regarding this columnist
|
|
||
