Tuesday, 19 June 2012
-
The Case of Amelia Rivera
****This is a very special guest post by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg of Journeys with Autism. She is heavily involved in raising awareness about the case of Amelia Rivera. Amelia Rivera is the little girl being refused an organ transplant because of “mental retardation”.
I spoke with Rachel and asked how I could help and she provided this post, which is the first of two. Please read these posts and help spread the word about this grave injustice.****
"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane" — Martin Luther King, Jr., March 25, 1966
By now, many of you are familiar with the story of Amelia Rivera, a three-year-old child with Wolf-Hirschhorn Syndrome who has been denied a life-saving kidney transplant at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia on the basis of her intellectual disability.
Amelia’s mother Chrissy has described the circumstances of the denial in her post Brick Walls. At a meeting with Amelia’s doctor, Chrissy and her husband were given two pieces of paper on which the words “Mental Retardation” and “Brain Damage” were highlighted in pink. Here is part of the interchange that ensued between Amelia’s mother and the doctor:
I point to the paper and he lets me rant a minute. I can’t stop pointing to the paper. “This phrase. This word. This is why she can’t have the transplant done.”
“Yes.”
I begin to shake. My whole body trembles and he begins to tell me how she will never be able to get on the waiting list because she is mentally retarded.
A bit of hope. I sit up and get excited.
“Oh, that’s ok! We plan on donating. If we aren’t a match, we come from a large family and someone will donate. We don’t want to be on the list. We will find our own donor.”
“Noooo. She—is—not—eligible –because—of—her—quality– of –life—Because—of—her—mental—delays” He says each word very slowly as if I am hard of hearing.
“STOP IT NOW!” The anger is taking over. Thank God. Why did it take so long to get here?
When I first read these words, I felt so outraged by the injustice, so heartbroken for Amelia and her family, and so disgusted by the doctor, that I was at a loss for how to respond.
Not anymore. This case is not just about one precious child. It’s about the ways in which the devaluing of disabled lives has found its way into a discussion of whether to let this precious child live.
The sheer weight of ignorance about the lives of disabled people couldn’t be any more clear than in the doctor’s presumptions about Amelia’s quality of life. As the late Harriet McBryde Johnson wrote in her brilliant article Unspeakable Conversations, the judgments of medical professionals about the quality of life of disabled people tend to be greatly at odds with the judgments of disabled people themselves: “The social-science literature suggests that the public in general, and physicians in particular, tend to underestimate the quality of life of disabled people, compared with our own assessments of our lives.” This disparity begs the obvious question: On what basis can a doctor — or anyone else, for that matter — possibly assess the future quality of another person’s life? Unfortunately, there is an answer to this question, and it’s not pretty: The basis for such a judgment is that the person will not live the life of a so-called “normal” person, and that therefore, the person’s life is diminished in worth.
The Nazis had a term for such a life: Lebensunwertes Leben. Life unworthy of life.
And because Amelia has been deemed unworthy of life, she has been given a death sentence by her doctor. As though that weren’t enough of an outrage, enter the social worker, who said to Amelia’s mother:
Well, you know a transplant is not forever. She will need another one in twelve years. And then what? And do you have any idea of the medications she will need to take to keep her healthy?”
…
[W]hat happens when she is thirty and neither of you are around to take care of her. What happens to her then? Who will make sure she takes her medications then?
For anyone who is unsure whether these words mean what you think they mean, let me translate: According to the social worker and her crystal ball, Amelia will not be capable of keeping track of her medications when she is thirty, so she should die in the next six to twelve months.
Never mind that Amelia may be fully capable of keeping track of her medications at thirty. Never mind that if she can’t keep track of her medications when she is thirty, society has an obligation to provide her with assistance to ensure her quality of life. Never mind that every human being is owed pure respect and limitless love. Never mind that we actually live in society with other people who have the choice to either help us or leave us to die. By the social worker’s reasoning, people who cannot remember to take their medications, people who cannot lift their hands to reach their medications, people who cannot put their hands to their mouths to take their medications, people who cannot afford medications in the first place, have lives unworthy of life.
I wish I could believe that the danger facing this one little girl stops with her. I wish I could believe that this case is an aberration. But I know better. Consider the following:
A 2006 article called Dispute Over Mental Competency Blocks Transplant describes the case of Misty Cargill, who was denied a kidney transplant because of her intellectual disability, and contains the following statement:
When Mary Ellen Olbrisch, a clinical psychologist at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center in Richmond, surveyed nearly 100 transplant centers, about 60 percent said they’d have serious reservations about giving a kidney to someone with mild to moderate mental retardation.
A 2010 article called Transplantation and Mental Retardation: What is the Meaning of Discrimination?, contains information on international organ transplant guidelines, some of which note that intellectual disability should contraindicate organ transplant:
A consensus report from the Pulmonary Scientific Council of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation states that the presence of MR represents a contraindication for transplantation. The report states that transplantations should not be provided on the basis of ‘the documented non-adherence or inability to follow through with medical therapy or office follow-up or both, untreatable psychiatric or psychological conditions associated with the inability to cooperate or comply with medical therapy, absence of a consistent or reliable social support system’. (728)
Please note the rather chilling idea that the lack of a “social support system” should amount to a death sentence
Another 2010 article, called What do you expect? She is mentally retarded!, contains an excellent discussion about the depth of the problem, with the testimonies of parents who have seen their children denied organ transplants:
[P]arents have reported that it has not been unusual for their sons or daughters to be disallowed recipient status for organ transplant surgery, with disability given as the reason for exclusion:
“I was told by her cardiologist that she is not eligible for a transplant because of her Down syndrome.”
“We were told that if he was ‘normal’ like us he would be a great candidate for a corneal transplant.”
“The first doctor we saw told us that no transplant could be done because our son was ‘retarded’”.
“I was told that at the university hospital they will transplant a kidney but not even consider a heart transplant for someone with Down syndrome”.
If anyone believes that the devaluing of the lives of disabled people is simply a question of architectural barriers, job discrimination, and social exclusion, think again. Sometimes, it turns lethal.
But we can act to save the life of Amelia Rivera, and all the other Amelia Riveras out there. Please do the following:
Leave a message on the Facebook page of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia:http://www.facebook.com/ChildrensHospitalofPhiladelphia
Contact the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s Family Relations Office by phone at 267-426-6983 or by e-mail at FamilyRelations@email.chop.edu.
Sign the petition at Change.org:http://www.change.org/petitions/executive-vice-president-and-chief-development-officer-allow-the-kidney-transplant-amelia-rivera-needs-to-survive
Consider contacting the following media outlets so that Amelia’s story reaches a wider audience:
http://www.facebook.com/WBRETV?sk=wall
http://www.facebook.com/PhillyDailyNews
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Philadelphia-News/129580433764477
http://www.facebook.com/phillyinquirer
http://www.facebook.com/6abc.ActionNewsAnd please, post to the Facebook page set up to support Amelia and her family: http://www.facebook.com/miastransplant
Together, we can help this child live.
—
Sources
Johnson, Harriet McBryde. 2003. “Unspeakable Conversations.” The New York Times, February 16. Accessed January 15, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/unspeakable-conversations.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.
Panocchiaa, N., M. Bossolaa, and G. Vivantib. “Transplantation and Mental Retardation: What is the Meaning of Discrimination?” American Journal of Transplantation 10 (2010): 727–730. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03052.x.
Shapiro, Joseph. 2006. “Dispute over Mental Competency Blocks Transplant.” NPR, December 22. Accessed January 15, 2012. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6665577.
Simpson, J.H. “’What do you expect? She is mentally retarded!’: On Meeting the Health Challenges of Individuals with Intellectual Disability.” The Internet Journal of Health11, no. 1 (2010). http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-health/volume-11-number-1/what-do-you-expect-she-is-mentally-retarded-on-meeting-the-health-challenges-of-individuals-with-intellectual-disability.html.
Wolfhirschhorn.org. “Brick Walls.” http://www.wolfhirschhorn.org/2012/01/amelia/brick-walls/. January 10, 2012. Accessed January 15, 2012.
—
Post a Comment
- Back to autisable's Autisable Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in autisable's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)


Recommend


Comments (33)
I would prefer if you stuck to the truth.
The child requires a CHILD sized kidney.
They are rare...and Amelia also has a disease that kills kidneys...over and over.
I read about this when it first happened...and there is much that is not included in the coverage...including the fact the primary reason she can't have the kidney is because her body will destroy it too quickly...and then will require another.
You do NOT help our children by buying into stories like this one.
No matter how much her need may tug the heart, there are only so many kidney's...and they are bound ethically to give them to someone who has the best chance of getting the most mileage out of it. Another child could have 30 years...and I can't argue that point.
And anyone who thinks I am being awful needs to look up Wolf-
Hirschhorn syndrome. That is the disease that is currently destroying her kidneys...and will continue to destroy any transplant she can receive. The doctor may have said the wrong thing---but a transplant BOARD makes the decision, not one person. And they choose who will best benefit MEDICALLY.
I was wondering why if this is a disabilities rights issue why the Office of Civil Rights lawyers are not involved. The previous comment explains it. I would think if this was truly disabilities discrimination OCR would be all over it. This is very sad and I can't imagine what the family is going through.
@galadrial@xanga - yeah, I'm schizophrenic, and I'm pretty sure that I don't qualify for a heart transplant in most cases. I could still go to a third world country and do the black market thing. I'm not sure what to think about that. I'll do anything to survive. I've learned this the hard way.
People just try to kill me for my benefits. They're a bit extreme. I'm like a little economy. Everything that I earn goes back into the system. And people do care about me. My mom cares about me. My dad cares about me. We just had issues growing up. My grandparents REALLY care about me. My siblings care about me. Just because I don't have many real friends doesn't mean that I wouldn't be missed.
I'm like a pet.
http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/001542.html While it might not make sense to you, it's important that we aren't excluded from these transplants. That doctor should have said, "her quality of life will not improve." This is true because her body would just reject the organ again and again and again, but retards, if they have a support system, should be included like everyone else.
I don't care how productive Sally Sue is going to be. If she is lower on the list than me, she can kiss this green world goodbye.
@galadrial@xanga - im just glad that the story makes more sense now. When I heard it the first time I thought it sounded too awful to be true. Thanks for clarifying. It's terrible she has such an awful illness, the transplant board has to make tough decisions...I would hate to be in their shoes.
I would have taken my child and gone to a different hospital right away. There are hundreds of thousands of other doctors, surgeons and pediatricians and they all have their different opinions on different subjects. I'm a nurse at a very large hospital and I am the biggest advocate for second, third and sometimes even a fourth opinion. This is truly a heartbreaking story and I can understand how it could make anyone extremely angry.
Is it bad that I read this article and agreed with the doctors who said she's not eligible? Half the reason I want government funded healthcare is because we won't be wasting millions of dollars on procedures that just prolong life. Kidney transplant after kidney transplant after kidney transplant isn't really prolonging the quality of life, it's just paying millions and millions to insurance companies and doctors to prolong a life. "It's society's obligation to ensure she has a good quality of life." Maybe, but it's not our obligation to ensure that her quality of life continues on, and on, and on.. I dunno. It sounds very harsh, but there comes a point when you have to accept reality and life and this is honestly a horrible, awful thing to read about and my heart twists in knots for this family at this hard time. The thing is, you have to look at this from a subjective point of view. The benefits have to outweigh the negatives, and simply prolonging a life of someone who needs life-long care first off, just doesn't seem humane to me. And second off, it doesn't seem like it's society's responsibility to handle either. I know that sounds harsh but I don't like the tone of this article that suggests it's society's responsibility to take care of someone who needs this intense kind of help. Yes, I ave absolutely no problem donation money to charities and I wouldn't even mind paying 50% of my income to taxes, if they were going to help people that needed it. I just feel like, yes, you wish they'd just give this girl a little more help.. a little more time. And I'm not saying her life has less value than my life or anyone else's life, I'm saying that there comes a point when you have to analyze the situation and make responsible decisions about where money is going to help those who will begin to or continue to have a good quality of life. Sometimes you have to make those harsh decisions. I hope this family comes to terms with their situation. And I hope that I'm not judged for my views, I'm not trying to be mean. But I understand if I am.. I just had to put my two cents in.
How much pain must we demand from others in our quest to respect simply life, yet rarely quality of life?
Heart-breaking yes, but she still shouldn't get the transplant. She has a disease that will destroy every kidney she gets given. Kidneys from children are hard to come by anyway, and I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but a kidney that her body WILL destroy in a few years could be given to another child who could keep it for the rest of their life. The doctors could have explained it better, but they have a duty to give organs to those who are most in need - this little girl (through NO fault of her own) just doesn't meet those specifications, and sad as it is, there's a good reason for that
I don't know how much of this I buy into. If you actually look into the disease, it would make sense that they're denying her the transplant because there is a high risk the kidney will be rejected by her own body (which is VERY painful), & considering child sized kidney's are very rare, even if a family member did it, that child would sacrifice a kidney (that will significantly shorten their own life) that the disease would kill in a few years, anyway. As far as basing it on mental retardation, I don't believe that. There are significant reasons why she can't receive the transplant so why make up one, especially when it will cause such an uproar?
Yes, she's been denied this because of her disease.. but we're not looking at a case of simple mental retardation, here, are we?
@galadrial@xanga - Agreed.
12 years is a long time. If it was 6 months or a year, I would agree
about not "being entitled to" get it. But if it is 12 years like the
social worker says it screams "excuse for genocide" to me.
I know a boy/young man who is 18 and has his second transplant now. As a kid he was bullied, and his parents were pitied. He could not tell his birthday by the age of 8, and could not play with the rest of
kids, because he always had trouble breathing. When his mother had a misscarriage everyone was secretly happy because "another one like that" would have been awful.
The young man now finished school and works in a nursing home as a waiter. He is sort of transgender/ very girly-ish and sometimes comes around to chat with me about hair accesoires and nail polish and I swear he is just better than me at that beauty stuff. He is the only one in the world who dares to tell me "wow that is ugly" or that I got fat. It makes me laugh. He talks normally about normal stuff, you don't see he has disabilities other than in the way he walks and his mimic a little. The most important thing is he is a nice human being and HAPPY.
The only reasons that make sense to me are that a.) the kidney really doesn't change much about her condition meaning it can't be used and b.) it cannot prolongue life for a significant time.
12 years IS a significant time 8to me). And if any assumption about her mental state plays into the boards or the doctors decision bout HOW significant this time is, it is disgusting.
The question is, would a mentally 'normal' person who say, may die in 12 years be above her on the list?...and does the life span alone decide? If so is it a decision I can support (12 years????)?...It doesn't seem like that to me.
@PocketfulOfDreams@xanga - Except from what I've read, she will not get 12 years. The disease killed her kidneys in less than two years, and it is aggressive. If this transplant would save her life, or eradicate the disease, I would say fantastic. Instead, it is likely the kidney will not last longer than her original organs. And then in two years, she will need another.
It's tragic...but so is letting other children die to simply extend, not save a life.
Everyone is reacting to the "she is reatrded!" thing. Really, if you have a disease that kills kidneys... you have to really decide if you want to destroy other children's chances of living their whole lives with each one of the kidneys she'd go through. I say you'd have to humble yourselves and say let the others live.
galadrial@xanga - Then the medical "professional" who let the parents know the reason why needs to be straight and truthful and tell them that Amelia's disease will destroy her kidneys, not that she is too mentally slow to receive a transplant. As such, the Doctor in question, nor the medical board he represents are representing the truth, if what you say is true. If it is because of the disease and her condition, then let it be said straight. Simply saying that the daughter is too dumb to receive a transplant is not only callous, but it is also a slippery slope; after all, if Amelia is too dumb to receive a kidney, then where do we draw the line on who is and who isn't too clinically dumb to take a transplant???
I agree with most the posters' opinions here, she was not denied on means of her mental state but because of the disease.
Also, in my frame of thinking, it kind of sounds like you were getting stuck on the details that you wanted to see. In other-words, you focused on the words "mental retardation" and "Brain Damage", I'm not for sure that this is the case in this situation, but that is what it sounds like.
And on a side note, Myself nor anyone in "society" has an obligation to take care of your child after you were gone. This might just be my frame of reference but no one should have to take care of someone else simply because they are at a disadvantage.
@galadrial@xanga -
not to mention that a child that donates a kidney decreases their quality of life, and life span. to ask multiple family members to do that for a continued expanse of time is unethical, imo.@loveable_lush@xanga - The kidney would not come from a "donation", but likely from a child's death. I could be wrong, but most parents would not put their infants or toddlers at risk to "donate"...too much could go wrong in such a young child. I read that the parents were tested---but an adult kidney is far too large---and unlike a liver, they can't use just a part. It can't be "cut to fit". Further, Amelia is small...I am betting the donor could not be much older than two...and that is really a huge decision.
As of today, there are almost 100,000 people waiting for a kidney. That would include children.
http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/policiesAndBylaws/final_rule.asp
That's the website that contains the Federal guidelines regarding transplant...including a prohibition against "futile" transplants. I wish there were enough organs so no child, or adult could be turned away...but there are not. Thirty years ago, a dear friend got a kidney from her mom, and it saved her life. But transplanted organs don't last forever. She now needs a replacement, but is ineligible for the waiting list. Every day, hospital boards make heart breaking choices...but they do the best they can.
kidney donor lists are already so excruciatingly long. on one hand, it seems cruel to let a little girl die - but on the other, it seems much more cruel to take one of the few available children's kidneys, which could benefit another child for a good deal of their life (and possibly save their life) and give it to someone who has a medical condition which will destroy the kidney within a number of years. it times of scarcity, you really have to see who benefits the most. it's a heart breaking and loathesome situation.
the doctor was either tactless, mis-informed, or completely misquoted. i have a hard time believing these decisions were made with hostility toward her mental "retardation", but the world is always full of surprises.
I agree with the doctor. If she was denied because of the disease that would kill the new kidney, and not because of mental retardation...it makes sense. The kidney should be given to a kid that will use it for a lifetime, not a few years if lucky.
I also disagree that it is society's obligation to provide her with assistance to take her medications at age 30 if she would live that long. It's not society's obligation to do anything. A good samaritan may volunteer to help her, but society is not obligated. People aren't even obligated to take care of their own flesh and blood. Look at all the deadbeat fathers who disappear when a positive pregnancy test shows up. It's selfish, but I work hard for my money. I want to spend it on what I need and want. I don't want to spend more in taxes because I'm obligated to help someone I have never met and never will even know to get their medications because they aren't capable of monitoring that themselves.
Once again, another inflammatory and inaccurate post from autisable. Sad.
@Face_Of_Innocence@xanga - "The kidney should be given to a kid that will use it for a lifetime, not a few years if lucky." So if someone with AIDS is in a car accident and loses a lot of blood, you would not support giving them a blood transfusion, right? Or do you have some double standard for that?
A kidney transplant isn't as simple as giving her a shot and there are people who have a higher percentage of their bodies accepting that kidney. Obviously they didn't list her mental retardation just because they felt like being dicks, but because it had some kind of medical relevance. Like that her body probably wouldn't accept it. There are millions of non retarded people who get rejected for transplants. It's not like there are free for all kidneys and hearts lying around in jars for everybody who needs one.
Also, her quality of life IS lower than everyone else's, how can you possibly deny that? She's never going to experience life in full, never have friends who like her instead of simply pity her, she can never be normal. Subjecting someone to live a life with mental retardation IS CRUEL. I know because I'm socially awkward, which sometimes feels as bad as having mental retardation. In fact, it IS a form of mental retardation. And honestly, most days I'd rather be dead than "different". No one should really speak about her life on behalf of her when she can't even speak for herself on the subject. Maybe your view on life is that life is "special" because you're normal. Maybe it's not that special for someone whose life sucks.
@bombshell_couture@xanga - blood transfusions aren't on quite the same level as organ transplants, especially when we're talking about a very young child.
@daydreams_nightmares@xanga - It's exatly the same thing, it's a matter of saving a life. A child's life is not worth less than an adults. But whatever justification people can use for their own discrimination, they will.
@x_sweetautumnmisery@xanga - Have you consulted any mentally retarded people before deciding that they shouldn't be "subjected to a cruel life"? Or do you think these people should be allowed to live or die based solely on your decision?
@Face_Of_Innocence@xanga - I have a cousin who is mentally retarded. I'm so glad it isn't up to you.