Thursday, November 29, 2012

Jail Time for Being a Jerk?!?!

Seriously...is this how far we've sunk?  Ok, for those that haven't heard:  A man in Ohio was sentenced to 30 days and court costs, approximately $400, for mocking a mentally disabled child.  The mother of the child said he used the "R" word.  Honestly, it took me a couple of minutes to figure out what the "R" word was...rude, ruff, redd, rank, roul...is "roul" a word?  OH, OK.  "Retard".  Sounds like the man is an idiot.  Sounds like I wouldn't want to live next door to him, and especially not if I was her or her child.  Lots of us have neighbors we don't like.  Most of them aren't that rude or rank.  Ok, but sentenced to jail?  The mother claimed that he had verbally threatened them with chains while sitting on his porch.  She also claims that when his son came over to play with her other children some time in the last year that he  threatened to cut the "R" child with a knife.  All of this, coupled with a video taken by her mother-in-law, finally resulted in legal action being taken by the prosecutor.  And the 30 days and the court costs to this moron.

Ok, first, before I go into my own diatribe.  Kudos to this mother standing up for her child.  By no means is my opinion that follows a commentary to allow this man to act like a jackass or encourage his own children to act like jackasses.  (Although, I do wonder why if this jerk was acting like this for so long, why in the hell she would even let one of his kids come over and play with hers, but I don't feel like entering into a common sense discussion tonight.)  Suffice to say, my opinion of him is he's a jackass--going to court seems a bit extreme, but well, if he's being that big of a jackass and the courts have the time, apparently this prosecutor did, well, kudos to at least driving the point home I suppose.  On the other hand, the mother did say that if this opened up discussions, that was really what she was hoping for...Ok, my diatribe is probably not what she was hoping for, but well, it's definately worth a discussion.

This mother was in a car accident while pregnant, and her daughter has severe mental disabilities because she was born several weeks premature, was just over 2 pounds when she was born, had two brain surgeries before she was 2 years old and struggled just for life for the first two years.  I'm sure this couple loves this child.  I'm sure that she is a sweet and wonderful young girl.  I'm just not sure that it is fair for us to keep children alive that are so premature that we know that they will have severe handicaps.  This is something no one ever talks about.  Medicine can now keep a premmie alive at 4 months.  The life of these children is very different than the life of a child that is say born in or after the 6th month of gestation.  Drastically.  A month, or even two months premature doesn't seem to have a drastically negative effect on the child's development.  However, more than that and we find that almost all the children suffer health and mental disabilities.  How is this fair to these children?

Consider the fact that on their own, a child born 29 weeks premature--this child was only 11 weeks developed.  11 weeks.  Two weeks before the end of the first trimester.  A fetus/baby cannot survive on its own.  Many still believe that test tube children are "wrong", and that it is irresponsible to have test tube children.  Some even think it's an affront to their religious beliefs.  So, where do we start considering this irresponsible?  Oh, yes, I know, I'll hear about this from my conservative friends on how a life is a life, and I'll hear about this from my liberal friends about this child's right to be treated with respect.  I'm not disagreeing with either on either of these points.  She's alive now, so yes, a life is a life.  She's alive now, so yes, she should be treated with respect.  I'm not asking about this child now, after living several years.  But I am questioning the sense, the decision, the concept that keeping a fetus alive that is 29 weeks premature might be irresponsible.  The fact is that the life, if the fetus (or baby, whatever floats your boat) does live, what kind of life will that child have?  When do we stop and ask ourselves that hard question? 

I know I'm opening a can of worms.  Right to Life people will scream that it proves that abortion is wrong if science can keep the fetus alive.  And people who believe all people should be treated equally and with dignity, even prison inmates guilty of serial rape or murder, should be treated humanely could argue that the child and her family should be treated with respect.  But let's not go there, if at all possible.  Just ponder is it fair for us, medicine, any of us, to keep a fetus/baby alive at 11 weeks gestation?  Seriously.  I'm not talking about going back and giving a lashing to these parents or doctors involved umpteen years ago in this particular case. 

I'm asking us to consider a real question.  When do we think it's unfair to the potential life to force it to live?  I'm not sure what I think.  I certainly don't think I would hold it against parents that told the doctor to let the fetus/baby pass away at 11 weeks.  I'm not holding it against the parents in this case that did the opposite.  I'm just wondering and, as this mother said she would like, thinking this needs discussion.  If only in our own minds.  When is it, medicine, going too far?  Is this really an individual decision to the parents and doctor in each individual case?  I suspect so.  But still, when is it too soon to put a fetus/baby on life support and have major surgery after major surgery just to keep it alive?  26 weeks is the accepted point where it is possible for a baby to survive and live a healthy normal life.  So 20 weeks doesn't seem unreasonable....Does 16?  11?  5? 

Like I stated, probably not the discussion this mother had in mind when she told the media she wanted discussion, but I'm thinking a couple of you are wondering the same thing I am. 

No comments:

Post a Comment