Health and Spirituality Dilemmas
Jan. 10th, 2007 04:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ltmurnauThese are just placeholders - I'll write more on this tomorrow, but for now here are the basic ironies:
ONE
Blood reatment refused for sextuplets
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=42bad0a3-d361-44bc-839c-af7baf1975af&k=72822
A woman stokes up on enough fertility drugs and treatments (SCIENCE) to have six children, three months premature and each of which could recline in your hand, cannot feed except through an IV, cannot breathe except with the aid of a machine - yet she is a Jehovah's Witness and therefore is not allowed (FAITH) to have them treated with anything that might involve blood.
TWO
Yoga in schools denounced as Anti-Christian
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=45e2300d-eabc-430e-92b9-f395d1d175f6&k=21198
Yoga turns kids' minds toward Hindu gods, Cummings said. "If you're not seeking the God of the Bible, His power, then by default you're in the other camp," Cummings said. "The other source of supernatural power is Satan."
Why does it not surprise me that this story came from Quesnel? Perhaps if Christians had come up with some form of physical exercise beyond sticking their hands in the air and rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues, we wouldn't have this story to kick around.
THREE
The Pillow Angel
Finally, something about the "Pillow Angel" case: Two parents in Seattle who sterilized and then stunted the physical growth of their mentally and physically handicapped daughter, who cannot and never will walk or talk, or have a mental capacity beyond that of a six month old infant.
Quote from their website at http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/:
"Now nine years old, Ashley cannot keep her head up, roll or change her sleeping position, hold a toy, or sit up by herself, let alone walk or talk. She is tube fed and depends on her caregivers in every way. We call her our “Pillow Angel” since she is so sweet and stays right where we place her—usually on a pillow."
"A fundamental and universal misconception about the treatment is that it is intended to convenience the caregiver; rather, the central purpose is to improve Ashley’s quality of life. Ashley’s biggest challenges are discomfort and boredom; all other considerations in this discussion take a back seat to these central challenges. The “Ashley Treatment” goes right to the heart of these challenges and we strongly believe that it will mitigate them in a significant way and provide Ashley with lifelong benefits."
Later - Three bioethicists weigh in on the case, in this article from Scientific American (
http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa003&articleId=F41E496C-E7F2-99DF-33E40A7C8187563C). All three came down on the side of the parents, citing that what was best for the caregivers in this case was also best for the child, citing among other things the lack of social and economical support for caregivers, period.
This cannot have been an easy decision for the parents. I can understand their motivations for the treatment, and acknowledge their belief that this is the best thing for their daughter. But, in effect, the parents have created a "bonsai child", one that will always have the considerable physical problems she has now, but no new ones, so will live her life at a level her parents can handle, and feel she will handle (e.g. no mental traumas about growth or menstruation, etc.).
I guess what bothers me most about this is the issue of quality of life. "Ashley’s biggest challenges are discomfort and boredom; all other considerations in this discussion take a back seat to these central challenges." Considerable medical technology and resources have been brought to bear to ensure that this child would live more comfortably at the level of an infant, which is all that was going to happen anyway. Her parents write of the love and joy they feel in caring and doing things for their daughter.
The question that isn't being asked is, "What are we all here for? Are we here to do anything in particular?" I mean, other than avoid discomfort and boredom ourselves, and allay others' discomfort and boredom. Perhaps that's all there is, but it seems a bit thin. But at a certain level it disturbs me to see life maintained, for the sake of maintaining life.
I'm not writing very clearly about this, I'm not sure anyone can, especially someone who is a parent. Nor do I have the certainty and rectitude conferred by a specific faith. It's troubling (and so it should be).
ONE
Blood reatment refused for sextuplets
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=42bad0a3-d361-44bc-839c-af7baf1975af&k=72822
A woman stokes up on enough fertility drugs and treatments (SCIENCE) to have six children, three months premature and each of which could recline in your hand, cannot feed except through an IV, cannot breathe except with the aid of a machine - yet she is a Jehovah's Witness and therefore is not allowed (FAITH) to have them treated with anything that might involve blood.
TWO
Yoga in schools denounced as Anti-Christian
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=45e2300d-eabc-430e-92b9-f395d1d175f6&k=21198
Yoga turns kids' minds toward Hindu gods, Cummings said. "If you're not seeking the God of the Bible, His power, then by default you're in the other camp," Cummings said. "The other source of supernatural power is Satan."
Why does it not surprise me that this story came from Quesnel? Perhaps if Christians had come up with some form of physical exercise beyond sticking their hands in the air and rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues, we wouldn't have this story to kick around.
THREE
The Pillow Angel
Finally, something about the "Pillow Angel" case: Two parents in Seattle who sterilized and then stunted the physical growth of their mentally and physically handicapped daughter, who cannot and never will walk or talk, or have a mental capacity beyond that of a six month old infant.
Quote from their website at http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/:
"Now nine years old, Ashley cannot keep her head up, roll or change her sleeping position, hold a toy, or sit up by herself, let alone walk or talk. She is tube fed and depends on her caregivers in every way. We call her our “Pillow Angel” since she is so sweet and stays right where we place her—usually on a pillow."
"A fundamental and universal misconception about the treatment is that it is intended to convenience the caregiver; rather, the central purpose is to improve Ashley’s quality of life. Ashley’s biggest challenges are discomfort and boredom; all other considerations in this discussion take a back seat to these central challenges. The “Ashley Treatment” goes right to the heart of these challenges and we strongly believe that it will mitigate them in a significant way and provide Ashley with lifelong benefits."
Later - Three bioethicists weigh in on the case, in this article from Scientific American (
http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa003&articleId=F41E496C-E7F2-99DF-33E40A7C8187563C). All three came down on the side of the parents, citing that what was best for the caregivers in this case was also best for the child, citing among other things the lack of social and economical support for caregivers, period.
This cannot have been an easy decision for the parents. I can understand their motivations for the treatment, and acknowledge their belief that this is the best thing for their daughter. But, in effect, the parents have created a "bonsai child", one that will always have the considerable physical problems she has now, but no new ones, so will live her life at a level her parents can handle, and feel she will handle (e.g. no mental traumas about growth or menstruation, etc.).
I guess what bothers me most about this is the issue of quality of life. "Ashley’s biggest challenges are discomfort and boredom; all other considerations in this discussion take a back seat to these central challenges." Considerable medical technology and resources have been brought to bear to ensure that this child would live more comfortably at the level of an infant, which is all that was going to happen anyway. Her parents write of the love and joy they feel in caring and doing things for their daughter.
The question that isn't being asked is, "What are we all here for? Are we here to do anything in particular?" I mean, other than avoid discomfort and boredom ourselves, and allay others' discomfort and boredom. Perhaps that's all there is, but it seems a bit thin. But at a certain level it disturbs me to see life maintained, for the sake of maintaining life.
I'm not writing very clearly about this, I'm not sure anyone can, especially someone who is a parent. Nor do I have the certainty and rectitude conferred by a specific faith. It's troubling (and so it should be).
