Sunday, January 14, 2007

i dunno wat to write for my blog recently.... perhaps it's cos my life has become really stagnant recently.... and some things have left me deep in thoughts and unhappy for a while.... such tt i've been seeing dr, again, for d*********

Anyway, today wanna share with my everyone something I've Read from TIME. Hmmm... haha, guess some pple must be laughing away..... Wen reading TIME?! yes.... I'm reading National Geographic too, haha. When I was schooling, reading these magazines had been very boring, like i'd been forced. Now as an working adult, I find reading these meaningful and interesting, maybe cos I no longer have the pressure of remembering 'who say what' so I could use in my essays.... and dun have to answer questions based on certain articles. I really feel I need to upgrade myself, prove my inner beauty.... or else I would become an even more bimbotic person reading fashion magazines and at work, always mixing around with 'budgeting' pple....

So, here's the article I've jus read that left me wondering...

PILLOW ANGEL ETHICS
A controversy rages around 2 parents' decision to stop the growth of their severely disabled daughter. This news is on the TV recently, but I failed to catch it.
How many of you would really advocate such a decision? I cant find a stand for myself.
According to the parents, they fear that it would become more difficult for them to take care of their brain damaged and disabled daughter when she grows up.
Besides stopping her from growing physically, her uterus had been removed so as to prevent her from being getting pregnant if she gets raped and save her from the agony of menstual cramps. Her breasts buds have been removed too, cos she is deemed as 'no need for breastfeeding' and she has a family history of cancer and fibrocystic disease. To add on, it would save her the discomfort cos there are harness straps that hold her upright, all the way up to her chest.
is this ethical, just for some benefits in the future?
The docs argue that it was for both medical and emotional benefits
but does that signify violations of human rights?
The docs argue again that the girl would be 'better off without uterus and breasts' since she would not have a job and romance so that would save her from any social discrimination, and the girl has no concept of 'the right to grow and develop'.
Does ignorance deny her the rights? Rights dun exist juz cos the the pple concerned are aware tat they deserve them. I believe animals arent really aware that they should be entitled animal rights, but certainly, they are.
Removing her uterus would onli protect her from pregnancy, not abuse. Why not amputate her legs too, since she 'wont need them anyway'?
It's quite ironic how media make a big storm over this when it's 'acceptable' for surgeries that make someone 'unnaturally' taller but not smaller.

What's ur view then?

Posted by Buzz and Mulan at 3:13 PM