Violation of this girl's rights?

Former Member

A thread about this was done ages ago, anyway, apparently a british couple wants to do the same.

About SCOPE

So what next? Maybe we should freeze children with downs syndrome to keep them little? Personally I'm worried that this will end up being the case... Do we really respect people with disabilities as much as we should in this country?

Should this be allowed to happen in the UK?

Former Member

Ashley was an exceptional case, and I don't think it's worth worrying about it happening on a large scale.

Most disabilities are not comparable to having your mental maturity halted at 3 months old.

Former Member

Fiend_85 wrote: »

Ashley was an exceptional case, and I don't think it's worth worrying about it happening on a large scale.

Most disabilities are not comparable to having your mental maturity halted at 3 months old.

So you don't think her rights were violated?

Former Member

I don't think ashley's rights were violated.

Former Member

Didn't we have a long thread about this case?

Former Member

Yes, so I suppose really the debate is "should there be concern about this becoming widespread or "standard"?

Former Member

Fiend_85 wrote: »

I don't think ashley's rights were violated.

Legally they were, or maybe somebody's mental abilities should determine what human rights they are allowed?

But yeah... I did mean of course where this would lead. In human rights there is always a worry that if one thing is allowed to change, then could it be a slippery slope to more things happening?

For example, the couple over her with a child who has severe learning difficulties and the mind of a baby may be allowed to force treatment upon her... But then that would prompt families who have children with the mentality of a two year old to campaign for changes... Then what if families who's children have the mentality of a five year old campaign and get those rights?

Surely a family who can afford treatment for a child which is probably that expensive, could also of afforded for carers to look after her? In fact, shouldn't SOCIETY be providing for them to help look after this girl? I mean it can't have been an easy descision to make.

Former Member

I don't want to debate Ashley again, so I'm only going to say this once. If it were a legal violation, the treatment would never have gone ahead, I don't believe that it was a moral violation either.

And lastly, Ashley's parents made it clear that the treatment they had her undergo was wholey for her benefit and to make it so that they could continue close and personal care of their daughter. It wasn't about cost.

Former Member

-[MoonRat]- wrote: »

Legally they were, or maybe somebody's mental abilities should determine what human rights they are allowed?

Legally they were not, as the treatment was sanctioned and authorised by the Government and the judiciary in the US.

Morally you may have a point, but I disagree, because I think the treatment was more important for her mental and physical care than a misguided notion that "bnature should run its course". Especially as if we let "nature run its course" she'd have the feeding tube removed and would have been dead ten years ago.

I don't think it will become widespread, and this is little more than a cynical ploy by Scope to promote their brand. If Scope can afford to wazz money away like this then they clearly don't need my money, and I shall remember that next time they come begging for cash.

Former Member

I think each case is very very different and no one here can really say whether it is right or wrong or a violation or not.

I don't think 2 cases, globally, in a year make it widespread.

Indrid Cold

Like I said with the previous case:
Two wrongs don't make a right. When someone has lost a leg, cutting the other one off isn't an acceptable thing to do. When someone's mind is a mess, making their body into a mess as well isn't an acceptable thing to do.