In their paper published in the June issue of the Pediatrics, the authors define profound cognitive disability “as including nonambulation and requiring assistance with nearly every aspect of daily living, remaining completely dependent on others for even basic care after careful attempts at training, and the inability to understand or express oneself in nuanced ways”. [...]
Archive for the ‘The doctors' medical paper’ Category
The mystery of the definition of profound cognitive disability in the new growth attenuation paper
Posted in Dr. Diekema's explanation, The doctors' medical paper, generalization of growth attenuation, tagged Ashley treatment, Ashley X, bioethics, breast bud removal, disabilities, disability rights, Dr. Diekema, ethics, ethics committee, growth attenuation, hysterectomy, involuntary sterilization, medical decision-making, medical ethics, mentally disabled, pillow angel, Seattle Children's on June 20, 2009 | Comments Off
The new growth attenuation paper by Dr. Diekema, Dr. Fost with others
Posted in Dr. Diekema's explanation, The doctors' medical paper, generalization of growth attenuation, the WPAS report, tagged Ashley treatment, Ashley X, bioethics, breast bud removal, disabilities, disability rights, Dr. Diekema, ethics, ethics committee, ethics consultation, growth attenuation, hysterectomy, medical ethics, mentally disabled, pillow angel, Seattle Children's, University of Washington, WPAS on June 20, 2009 | Comments Off
I read the full text of the growth-attenuation paper written by Dr. Diekema and Dr. Fost with others in the June issue of the Pediatrics. So many questions and mysteries again. I will just point out some of them here for now. Some of the questions and mysteries will be reviewed more closely in my [...]
Dr. Diekema and Dr. Fost wrote a new paper on growth attenuation
Posted in Dr. Diekema's explanation, The doctors' medical paper, information, tagged Ashley treatment, Ashley X, bioethics, disabilities, disability rights, Dr. Diekema, ethics, growth attenuation, medical ethics, pillow angel on June 6, 2009 | Comments Off
Dr. Diekema and Dr. Fost with others wrote a paper on growth attenuation in the June issue of the Pediatrics. Check this up.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/6/1556
Growth-Attenuation Therapy: Principles for Practice
Pediatrics Vol. 123 No.6 June 2009, pp. 1556-1561
Also see here for information about Dr. Fost. Actually there’s a lot more to know about him. More info will follow in future [...]
Links 5：the Katie Thorpe case in UK
Posted in The doctors' medical paper, information, tagged Alison Thorpe, Ashley treatment, breast bud removal, disabilities, disability rights, ethics, growth attenuation, hysterectomy, involuntary sterilization, Katie Thorpe, medical decision-making, medical ethics, mentally disabled, parental decision making, pillow angel on April 8, 2009 | Comments Off
January, 2007: Alison Thorpe in the Ashley case
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/nashley06.xml #
I want my girl to have the ‘Ashley Treatment’
The Telegraph, January 8, 2007
http://www.thisissouthend.co.uk/display.var.1113652.0.0.php #
If only we could have stopped our child growing up, as well
Echo, January 10, 2007
Octore 2007 : Alison Thorpe’s request for her daughter’s hysterectomy
October 7
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2603965.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2604771.ece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-486217/Why-I-want-surgeons-remove-disabled-daughters-womb.html ##
http://itn.co.uk/news/fb4df1157c5ed40c826a4b5e06e53411.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7032736.stm
October 8
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2609442.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2610704.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643172/Let-disabled-Katie-Thorpe%27s-mother-decide.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/oct/08/medicineandhealth.uknews
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23415544- details/Why+I+want+surgeons+to+remove+my+disabled+daughter’s+womb/article.do
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/08/hysterectomy/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail
October 9 -13
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1565509/Disabled-girl-to-have-womb-removed.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-487155/The-humbling-true-story-mother-wants-disabled-daughter-womb-removed.html [...]
When did the father decide the treatment should be made widely available?
Posted in Ashley's father, The doctors' medical paper, tagged Ashley treatment, Ashley X, bioethics, breast bud, disabilities, disability rights, ethics, growth attenuation, medical decision-making, medical ethics, pillow angel, Seattle Children's, sterilization, University of Washington on December 25, 2008 | Comments Off
One of the questions I have been considering since the news break two years ago. When did the father decide that it would be a good idea to promote the treatment widely and make it available for other children like Ashley?
As is obvious in the title of his blog, Ashley’s father is trying to [...]
Just a hypothetical: what if the doctors really didn’t want to write the paper?
Posted in The doctors' medical paper, tagged Ashley case, Ashley treatment, Ashley X, breast bud removal, disabilities, ethics, growth attenuation, pillow angel on December 12, 2008 | Comments Off
What if the doctors were aware of the ethical problems of the case and didn’t want to go public but were somehow forced into writing a paper? It is just a hypothetical for argument. But wouldn’t that explain some of the mysteries and questions surrounding the doctors’ inconsistent justifications rather well?
If they had no choice [...]
Did the father write the blog in order to “correct” the doctors’ paper?
Posted in Ashley's father, Dr. Diekema's explanation, The doctors' medical paper, tagged Ashley treatment, Ashley X, disabilities, ethics, growth attenuation, pillow angel on October 24, 2008 | Comments Off
Reading his blog, we can see how proud Ashley’s father is of the idea of “Ashley treatment.” When the doctors use the words “novel and controversial”, he uses “new and unusual.” He even calls it “this pioneering treatment.” Of course he is proud. “Ashley treatment” is his idea, his creation. He believes it is the [...]
Why is the father consistent while the doctors are not?
Posted in Ashley's father, Dr. Diekema's explanation, The doctors' medical paper, tagged Ashley treatment, Ashley X, breast bud removal, disabilities, ethics, growth attenuation, hysterectomy, pillow angel on September 26, 2008 | Comments Off
One of the things that struck me as odd when I first read Ashley’s father’s blog and the doctors’ medical paper along with their comments in the early media reports was the distinct difference between the father and the doctors in their tone of voice. Why is the father always specific, clear-cut and even [...]
Dr. Diekema’s own conditions disapprove Ashley’s hysterectomy
Posted in Dr. Diekema's explanation, The doctors' medical paper, tagged Ashley X, disabilities, ethics, growth attenuation, involuntary sterilization, medical ethics, pillow angel on August 18, 2008 | Comments Off
Dr. Diekema wrote the following paper on involuntary sterilization of people with mental disabilities in 2003.
Involuntary sterilization of persons with mental retardation: an ethical analysis.
Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2003; 9(1):21-6 (ISSN: 1080-4013)
Its abstract is available here.
According to the abstract, Dr. Diekema gave four conditions for involuntary sterilization of mentally disabled women to be considered. He said [...]
Dr. Diekema did hide the breast bud removal
Posted in Dr. Diekema's explanation, The doctors' medical paper, the breast bud removal, tagged Ashley X, breast bud, Dr. Diekema, growth attenuation, pillow angel on June 9, 2008 | Comments Off
It’s been pointed out by Wesley J. Smith, Dr. Carole Marcus and some others that Dr. Gunther and Dr. Diekema didn’t mention the removal of Ashley’s breast buds in their paper. Dr. Marcus wrote a letter “Only Half the Story,” in the Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med magazine last June and criticised that their paper was “very [...]
