This paper discusses the legal and ethical implications in conjunction with performing surgery on disabled people for social reasons. Ethical
Katie is immaturity and she has the right like other non-disabled girls to live with her body in tact and she has the same choice to give birth to her own baby. According to the Family Court in Australia and Family Law Act 1975, no person under 18 should have hysterectomy unless the procedures are necessary to prevent serious physical and psychological damage and to save life (Skene, 2008, p. 138).
This surgery is not medically necessary and it is irreversible, persistent, traumatic and painful that it results in the permanent loss of reproductive capacity. The medical complications after surgery will affect the person health.
There are lacks of access to health services and recourses, social and educational support for her and her family. Katie is lack of the basic human rights, freedoms to work, freedoms to get education and move freely about society.
The parents could not consent and the doctor does not have the right to remove the womb of Katie as non-therapeutic surgery requires court approval. This is not just a medical decision for the doctor, but the child’s best interest and the consequences of wrong decision being made. The facts
It is estimated in Australia that a child is born with cerebral palsy every 15 hours. There is no pre-birth test and no known cure for cerebral palsy (Levitt, 2010, p. 33). Cerebral palsy is a permanent physical condition that affects movement. It effects can be just a weakness from one hand ranging to almost complete lack of movement (Miller & Browne, 2005, p. 51). People with cerebral palsy may have seizures and other impairments that affect their speech, vision, hearing or intellect.
Spastic, Dyskinetic and Ataxic are the three main types of cerebral palsy. A cerebral palsy result from the neurological damage to the child’s...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document