From the (London) New Statesman: Hysterectomy an abuse of human rights, by Andy Rickell, executive director of Scope, a UK advocacy organization for people with cerebral palsy.

A key question in this complex case is who is really representing Katie’s wishes? The wishes of her mother and the medical professionals consulted are clear, but what about those of Katie herself? It is obvious to us that the wishes of parents do not necessarily match the best interests of the child in every situation.

… We do not believe that a child should be modified for society’s convenience, but instead that society needs to adapt and become more inclusive of disabled people. We want Government to introduce additional legal safeguards - including a duty to seek court approval for any invasive non-essential surgery and the right to an independent advocate for any child or adult in this situation. There needs to be clear framework in place for dealing with ethical decisions of this complexity, which places the rights, and best interests, of the disabled person at the heart of any decision.

From the (UK) Guardian: Parents don’t always know what is best for their disabled children, by Preethi Manuel.

Thorpe obviously sees her daughter’s menstruation as a threat to Katie’s comfort and dignity. But as a loving mother, surely she could find a less drastic solution? What about pain relief? My daughter loves lavender massage.

… We never know, in life, when we ourselves might be put in vulnerable situations, unable to make our wishes clear. Is it not better to have the assurance now that nobody, even those who love us, can subject our bodies to medical intervention when such interventions are not truly necessary? Eventually, the decision made for Katie is of concern to us all.

From the (UK) Guardian: Any request to remove a disabled person’s ability to reproduce should be treated with great caution, by Liz Sayce, executive director of Radar, the disability network.

Legally Katie should be assumed to be capable of making a decision and, if necessary, supported to do so before anyone else can decide what is or is not in her “best interests”. Ethically we have to remember that right through the 20th century many countries in Europe and beyond legislated positively in favour of sterilizing disabled people, often without their knowledge — let alone their consent.

… The most effective path through both the legal and ethical dilemmas has to be to encourage self-determination on the part of disabled people such as Katie Thorpe. Of course, the rights and needs of carers need to be taken into account as well, but it is imperative that this is never at the expense of the disabled person’s own views.

From the (UK) Herald: Listen to mother on this terrible choice, by Colette Douglas Home.

My inclination is to accept this mother’s word about her daughter: to grant her wish. But if the courts agree, they must emphasise that it is a solution for one child with cerebral palsy, certainly not for all.

From the Liverpool (UK) Daily Post: Liverpool mother begs: Give my child a hysterectomy.

A Liverpool mother has approached Alder Hey Children’s Hospital to see if they will perform an operation to stop her disabled nine-year-old daughter going through puberty.

Kim Walker’s request on behalf of her daughter, Olivia, who is mentally and physically disabled, echoes that of a similar case in Essex which is currently being legally assessed.

Earlier posts here and here.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 9th, 2007 at 4:17 am and is filed under NOT2BEMISSED, abuse, civil rights, intellectual/developmental disabilities, medicine, quality of life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.  Email This Post