Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!rabbit!ark
From: ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Reply to Brad Andrews
Message-ID: <3264@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Oct-84 11:10:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: rabbit.3264
Posted: Wed Oct 24 11:10:39 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Oct-84 03:25:04 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 32

Brad Andrews says the following:

> They have already extended the parents "rights" to after
> birth, look at the baby doe case earlier this year where
> the starve a child.  Continueing down this path would
> lead to killing babies for not being the right sex, as they
> do in China, or for other "slight" reasons.

He is referring to the "Baby Jane Doe case."  Last year, a
baby was born with a syndrome called spina bifida, whose
symptoms included, among other things, a large hole
in her lower back that left her spinal cord exposed.
The decision involved was whether or not to perform
surgery to close the hole.

Whether or not this surgery were done, the child would be
severely retarded, paralyzed from the waist down, and
probably unable ever to care for herself.  Surgery would
probably extend her life, but she would still not live
a normal span.

What her parents decided was not to use any extraordinary
means to prolong her life and let nature take its course.
They continued to feed her and provide her with routine
medical care.

I saw an article a few weeks ago in the New York Times
about the effects of this particular course of treatment:
the hole in her back closed up without the surgery,
and her parents were able to take her home.  She recently
passed her first birthday, and, as far as I know, is
still alive.