Home / Thoughts / Surgeons’ hypocrisy
Surgeons’ hypocrisy
Written by Sean on Sunday, September 23, 2007
I watched a fascintating documentary on a show like 60 Minutes or 20/20, that talked about the forced sterilisation of people with disabilities, in particular women with cognitive disabilities. This was mandated under law in Texas until the mid 1970’s. It was mandated under law in Australia until the 1980’s! Controversial topic, which I won’t really comment on. But some thoughts came out of that documentary that are worth sharing.
They were saying that in Australia, the law now protects people with disabilities, and parents can’t get their children sterilised (for women, read full hysterectomy!) anymore. It is possible in some circumstances, if you go to court and prove your case. And some parents, for whatever reasons, think they must do this for the "good" of their children. One mother travelled to the United States to get her 15 year old daughter sterilised, as it was easier to find a surgeon willing to do it there.
This woman was asked if she thought that there were surgeons in Australia that did these surgery. She smiled and said "I’m sure of it". It did not sound like a guess.
So, we have surgeons practicing illegal and irrevocable surgeries on patients that are often unaware, and most certainly aren’t able to understand what is happening to them, much less consent, if they were told about it. Some people and disability rights groups are unhappy about it, but it doesn’t seem to generate the kind of outrage that came out when the elective amputations at Falkirk became known.
What would the ethicists and moralists say of these practices?
What, in the eyes of those surgeons, is the difference between forced sterilisation of youths with disabilities, and the elective amputation (or spinal cord transection, or, or, or…) of a fully informed and consenting adult?
Could it perhaps be a bias against people with disabilities? They are certainly not going to "create" more people with disabilities by amputating them or making them paralysed or blind or deaf. And they are certainly not going to let the disabled procreate and risk giving birth to more disabled kids(!)
I know I’ve spoken about this medical bias against people with disabilities often enough. I also know that it might be unfair of me to generalise so. I’ll gladly admit that there surely are medical practitioners who don’t have such a bias against people with disabilities. Yet, there are so many example that point to such a bias, it is hard to ignore.
And the moral and ethical argument gets very thin when you consider what these surgeons are willing to do to youths with cognitive disabilities.
As for the legal argument, well, that also goes out the door. If you’re willing to provide one illegal surgery, you can’t hide behind the fact that "it’s illegal to provide elective amputations/spinal cord transections". Especially when it’s not actually illegal, it’s not written into law that it can’t be done. It just flirts with the fringes, the edges of what is considered acceptable under law.
Yeah, it makes one wonder.
Vote if you like
this post.0
Vote
This entry appears in Sean's Thoughts, Thoughts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You may have your say, or trackback from your own site.
5 Comments
I think that, more than a bias against those with disabilities, it’s the belief that our bodies belong to anyone but ourselves - God, parents, the state, our husbands, etc.
Very interesting topic. I can see the civil or malpractice defense argument. There is very little chance that a developmental disabled person would ever seek civil remedy (lawsuit) against a surgeon or guardian that permitted or performed a sterilization. The rationale behind the sterilization is the ultimate well being of the child, etc. etc. etc.
Yet, the surgeon who operates on a rational patient who wishes to become disabled could very well be forced to pay damages if the patient is not satisfied with the irreversible result.(huge malparctice issue).
Criminal or non criminal behaviour is neither a cause for, or a defense of, civil litigation.
Let history also remind us about forced sterilization in 1930’s Germany.
I see the sterilization issue as too far detached from our needs.
Let me throw this into the hopper. A severely handicapped individual, say with Down’s Syndrome is in desparate need of an organ transplant. Because death is near, the patient is put at the top of the recipient list. Survival of the patient to a healthy old age is guaranteed with the transplant. Is this right or wrong?? How does this fit into our ideas with the legitimacy of elective surgery for our needs??
4 On 24 September, 2007, Sean said:
Ronald, your question about transplant is completely irrelevant here. Transplants are not illegal, nor considered ethically wrong or immoral. FWIW, I don’t have a problem with providing someone with Down Syndrome a transplant.
Re the forced sterilisation in the 30’s in Germany, let us also not forget that Hitler’s “ideas” (and many practices) came straight from the USA, where the concept of eugenics was born… But that’s also another controversial topic entirely.
You are probably right, however, that a good part of refusal has to do with fear of being sued. But perhaps we should sue them for refusing to assist us instead! ok, I know, we wouldn’t stand a chance, but I like the idea, I hope it would raise attention enough that *something* positive would come out of it.
Thank you very much for this great story. You are so true that many from the medical community are full with bias towards disability.
This is highly schizophrenic, shouldn´t these people have a lot of sympathy and empathy for the weak, the ill and all who are different?
I have tried to talk with an public health officer, I have to say I´m a BIID person who lives beyond sole fantasy and you cannot imagine how upset this guy was.
I tend to suppose more and more many health care professionaly live in there own world of their own rules and they lost contact to reality. The reality which is our reality and of sufferers who may suffer from whatever disease or syndrome.
Post your comments
© transabled.org - 1994-2008 - All Rights Reserved.
1 On 24 September, 2007, Marie said:
I’d love to get the contact details for one of those surgeons and see if they would perform surgery on TA people!