- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Of course a non-invasive means would have been preferrable, but 1) that's not entirely possible 2) as the article points out, continuous hormone therapy had much more health risk than this therapy.
This actually goes toward illustrating what I've been wanting to say - that in this case, we are simply not informed enough about a) the details of the procedure b) the actual extent of the girl's level of functioning c) the health risks of the procedure and d) the long-term results to make any kind of judgment, even a meta-ethical one. We are all doing the same exact thing that Frist did with Schiavo - being armchair doctors. I have no qualms with saying that in this case, only doctors with all the information about the case are entitled to make any kind of judgment. And they did, so it's settled. If you're worried about this particular committe overstepping its bounds or making the wrong decision, I believe there is some sort of nationwide government-funded medical committee (or there should be) to make specific rules for all kinds of cases like this. Who should NOT be involved in the discussion are people projecting their own neuroses and social agendas on a case they know very little about, or windbag politicians who spout whatever empty slogans those people want to hear.
