Interesting Case Studies On Parent's Power Over Their Children

Dr X shares this case study with me that his medical school ethics class reviewed.  It left a deep impression on him, and now it has done the same with me.

Some parents of mentally impaired children become worried that they won't be able to pickup and bathe their child once he/she becomes an adult.  This becomes a serious issue for the parents.  They know they are aging, and they know that even with a severely retarded mind, that the body of their child will grow to full adult size.

In some of these more severe cases the parents legally give their children a certain type of hormone that stunts their physical growth.  Thus, their adult child stays in a body of a 5 year old.  This makes it easy for them to lift them, bathe them, and the like.  They can even continue to cuddle up with them like they are a small child.  On one hand it sounds amazingly practical, yet on another hand this is a very strange situation where a next of kin can so deeply impair or effect the life of a living being.  In whose best interest is this in?  How can we even know?

Do you think it is ethical to stunt a child's growth given that situation?  It feels so wrong to me, but, I get what they are doing.

Dr X compares this to pregnant women.  He finds it strange that pregnant women can smoke, drink alcohol, even do crack, all of which mess up their baby to some extent, without any legal repercussions.  He argues that if you imposed such actions with such repercussions on a living person that you would be thrown in jail.  But to a fetus it is okay.  

He suggests that a mother who inflicts chemical damage to their fetus should be thrown in jail and quarantined, or that their fetus should be aborted.  In his eyes, the chemical abuse of the infant is clearly unethical and abusive.  If the fetus is a person, it should be given all of the rights of a person.  He finds it hypocritical that some people are anti-abortion but would not support the imprisonment and quarantine of mothers who are abusing their fetuses.  If the fetus is human life, it should be protected not just in anti-abortion laws, but it should be protected with all human rights.  And, if it is not yet considered life enough to be protected from the abuse of cigarette smoke and alcohol, then it should not be considered life enough to protect against abortion.  (Strange how abortion seems to creep into so many issues.  Let's not make this an abortion discussion- please.).

Another interesting topic that he raises is that the mother who abuses chemical substances that leaves permanent impairment in their children give birth to a liability for society.  These impaired children frequently spend their lives on the welfare dole.  Why are these mothers not liable to the state for the expenses that their children are putting on our society?  

Dr X raises many other fascinating ethical and financial implications of medicine, and I hope to write more about it as my discussions with him goes on.