http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/health/policy/14essa.html
Playing God With Birth Defects in the Nursery
By BARRON H. LERNER, M.D.
Published: June 14, 2005
What is best for babies born with a severe neurological condition? Two
doctors thought they knew. At a series of medical meetings in the
1970's, Dr. John Lorber argued that they should be left to die. Dr. John
M. Freeman said they should be saved.
The neurological defect in question, meningomyelocele, has since
declined in incidence. But the issues that the doctors debated remain
highly relevant in modern neonatal intensive-care units.
Meningomyelocele referred to a protrusion of the spinal cord through the
protective vertebrae of the back. Infants with this condition suffered
from a series of problems, including permanent paralysis of the legs,
swelling of the head, urinary incontinence and meningitis, an infection
of the tissues surrounding the spinal cord.
Meningomyelocele was the most severe form of spina bifida, a spectrum of
conditions in which the vertebrae do not close properly. All doctors
agreed that in mild cases, with minimal neurological damage, the defect
should be closed. But more advanced cases raised genuine questions about
whether severely handicapped infants should be saved.
Dr. Lorber was a renowned pediatrician at Sheffield Hospital in England,
which had pioneered many of the advances in treating meningomyelocele.
These included inserting a shunt to drain fluid from the head into the
abdomen, possibly preventing brain damage.
But in a 1971 article, Dr. Lorber argued that to spare children and
their families prolonged suffering, the most severe cases should not
undergo treatment. In a study of 524 patients, he had found that half
the children died despite maximum treatment. Most who lived had severe
mental or physical defects, or both. Only 7 percent had a life
consistent with "self-respect, earning capacity, happiness, and even
marriage."
In advocating "nontreatment," Dr. Lorber anticipated medicine's future
concerns about quality of life: just because surgeons could fix things
did not mean they necessarily should. And that was what he told the
parents of severely affected children.
Dr. Freeman respectfully disagreed. A pediatric neurologist at Johns
Hopkins University, he believed that recent innovations in treatment -
the shunt, antibiotics, kidney surgery and better rehabilitation - made
treatment almost always mandatory.
True, he acknowledged, roughly one-fifth of children wound up with
severe mental retardation, but it was difficult to predict which ones.
He was also profoundly uncomfortable with the practice of putting
children in the corner of the nursery to die.
Children with meningomyelocele at Johns Hopkins usually underwent
immediate surgical repair of their backs, followed by dozens of
subsequent procedures.
As time progressed, Dr. Lorber and Dr. Freeman found themselves making
fewer independent decisions for their patients. By the late 1970's, the
notion of patient autonomy had taken hold. In the case of birth defects,
the parents had become the appropriate decision makers.
Accompanying this development was the rise of the disability rights
movement, which argued that disabled children and adults were not
inferior. Whether it was medical treatment or access to buildings, the
disabled were entitled to the same opportunities as all others.
Parents of children with meningomyelocele - and, as they grew older,
those affected themselves - became vocal spokesmen for the value of
life. "If a child has a chance to survive," asked one mother on an
Internet forum, "who is to play God and say that they will not have a
meaningful life?"
Dr. Lorber, one of the first physicians to take an interest in the lives
of spina bifida patients, was vilified in retrospect. His terminology,
suggesting that certain children be "selected" for nontreatment, raised
uncomfortable reminders of the Holocaust. More charitably, a man with
spina bifida wrote on the Internet that Dr. Lorber was well intentioned
but wrong.
Dr. Freeman was also not spared the revenge of hindsight. Even though
his policy of aggressive surgery had become standard by the 1990's, he
received a surprise when he interviewed two of his "favorite" patients,
women in their 20's who were college graduates with steady jobs.
Reflecting on their lives spent in wheelchairs with limited social
contacts and no hope of marriage, they told Dr. Freeman, as he recalled,
"We wish we'd never been born."
Today, the use of folic acid in pregnancy and the availability of
abortions have made meningomyelocele rare, affecting fewer than 1 out of
1,000 live children.
But the issues raised in the 1970's persist, with the treatment of other
birth defects and infants of very low birth weight. New technologies can
ensure the survival of such children, but many will have severe
developmental problems, like learning disabilities, behavioral disorders
and motor skill deficits.
How aggressively should such infants be treated? Studies hope to answer
that question, providing parents and doctors with the type of predictive
data that Dr. Lorber generated. But as Dr. Freeman learned, each case is
different. If we want to know whether saving particular children was the
right choice, we may need to wait 20 years and ask them.
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
Robert J. Kolker - 14 Jun 2005 09:30 GMT
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/health/policy/14essa.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> 1970's, Dr. John Lorber argued that they should be left to die. Dr. John
> M. Freeman said they should be saved.
Neither. I think these unfortunates whould be harvested for their good
usable parts (if any). To save them is to acquire a burden which society
(that means all of us) will have to schlepp. Just leting them die will
mean the usable parts with rot or whither. Slice them and dice them
while they are fresh.
Bob Kolker
Roy. Just Roy. - 14 Jun 2005 14:36 GMT
In one of the few lucid moments in television, an episode of ER touched
upon this. A father had twins, each with a genetic defect in the liver
(apparently dear ol' dad was a carrier). They needed a transplant to
survive. The mother died in a car accident, and they only had enough
liver left for 1 of the twins. The father had to choose.
He thought for a moment, and then said, "Save the daughter." The blonde
intern beyitch went ballistic - she screamed, "How could you make such
a decision??" The father, obviously terse, replied, "How could you ask
me to decide?"
The right to life is one of the absolutes upon which our republic is
based - life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Anytime we make
exceptions to that rule, we degrade the bedrock under which it stands.
Killing someone just because they are a "burden to society" is no
reason at all. Society EXISTS to shoulder burdens - everything from
police to hospitals to welfare to the troops in Iraq. Government only
exists for 2 reasons - to serve the people, or to serve itself.
/Roy
patrick - 14 Jun 2005 17:38 GMT
The right to life is a blunt instrument.It is useless in deciding these
kinds of case.
In Sparta children were examined by the elders of the state and those not
seen as likely to be competent soldiers were taken from their weeping
mothers and dropped over a cliff. They had no time for weakness.
patrick
> In one of the few lucid moments in television, an episode of ER touched
> upon this. A father had twins, each with a genetic defect in the liver
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> /Roy
Roy. Just Roy. - 14 Jun 2005 18:41 GMT
Patrick put down his D&D dice long enough to type:
> In Sparta children were examined by the elders of the state and those not
> seen as likely to be competent soldiers were taken from their weeping
> mothers and dropped over a cliff. They had no time for weakness.
And yet, the ancient Greeks were conquered by the Romans. Their genetic
selection was ineffective against the superior Roman weapons and
tactics.
Or, to put it another way, problems are only burdens to society when
it's somebody ELSE'S kid on the chopping block.
/Roy
patrick - 14 Jun 2005 19:17 GMT
Animals tend to favour the healthiest in the litter. It makes good
evolutionary sense if they want their genes to survive.It is not just a
question of applying it to other people.
It makes sense at an individual level and society level.
patrick
> Patrick put down his D&D dice long enough to type:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> /Roy
royls@telus.net - 16 Jun 2005 07:45 GMT
>Patrick put down his D&D dice long enough to type:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>selection was ineffective against the superior Roman weapons and
>tactics.
Actually, the Romans had been doing a similar sort of thing with
_their_ less promising infants...
-- Roy L
Robert J. Kolker - 14 Jun 2005 20:17 GMT
> In Sparta children were examined by the elders of the state and those not
> seen as likely to be competent soldiers were taken from their weeping
> mothers and dropped over a cliff. They had no time for weakness.
Spartan mothers did not weep. Strong women produce strong sons.
Bob Kolker