I tried to upload a video of our therapeutic clowns here, but it didn't work. Click here and then scroll down to the videos at the bottom. Click on "clowns with child" on the left to see them in action and "clowns together" on the right to hear an interesting interview.
-------------------------
In other news, our very own Amy Julia Becker, who has written a number of BLOOM guest blogs, has a piece on the New York Times' Motherlode blog today about choosing not to test for Down syndrome in the child she's carrying: Why prenatal testing harms as much as it helps.
The October issue of The Atlantic magazine has a fascinating piece about a man diagnosed with autism 67 years ago -- apparently the first known case -- and about the issues facing adults with autism: Autism's first child.
And this disturbing comment was brought to my attention in a story about a lawsuit that could set a precedent in end-of-life decisions. The case alleges that physicians unilaterally went against the stated wishes of a patient and his daughter that he receive "full code" if he went into arrest. The patient was not resuscitated and died.
This comment from a professor of health law about whether end-of-life decisions need to be negotiated with family has ominous overtones for people with disabilities. It suggests a doctor can withhold treatment based on his own definition of a 'meaningful' or compromised life:
“If the patient’s life cannot be saved in a meaningful way and if intervention would deny resources that would benefit other patients . . . then the doctor is justified in clinical judgment to withhold treatment,” says Bernard Dickens, professor emeritus of health law at U of T. “Clinical judgment is not negotiated with patients.”
The October issue of The Atlantic magazine has a fascinating piece about a man diagnosed with autism 67 years ago -- apparently the first known case -- and about the issues facing adults with autism: Autism's first child.
And this disturbing comment was brought to my attention in a story about a lawsuit that could set a precedent in end-of-life decisions. The case alleges that physicians unilaterally went against the stated wishes of a patient and his daughter that he receive "full code" if he went into arrest. The patient was not resuscitated and died.
This comment from a professor of health law about whether end-of-life decisions need to be negotiated with family has ominous overtones for people with disabilities. It suggests a doctor can withhold treatment based on his own definition of a 'meaningful' or compromised life:
“If the patient’s life cannot be saved in a meaningful way and if intervention would deny resources that would benefit other patients . . . then the doctor is justified in clinical judgment to withhold treatment,” says Bernard Dickens, professor emeritus of health law at U of T. “Clinical judgment is not negotiated with patients.”
0 Response to "This and that"
Posting Komentar