Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T02:41:01.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Canadian Question: What's So Great About Intelligence?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Tom Koch
Tom Koch
Affiliation:
A writer and researcher in the fields of on-line information and gerontology, and Forum Associate at the David-See-Chai Lam Centre for International Communications, Simon Fraser University, Harbour Centre, Vancouver, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A personable teenager with Down's syndrome became a Canadian cause célèbre a few months ago when University Hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, denied him a position on the organ transplantation waiting list. Terry Urquart lacked “reasonable” intelligence, hospital officials said, a criterion for all transplant candidates at that hospital. Protests by the boy's family, and by groups active in the cause of those with developmental disabilities, became well-photographed stories on the nightly television news and in the nation's newspapers. It did not hurt the Urquart cause one bit that the 17-year-old teenager had won a gold medal in skiing at the International Special Olympics.

Type
Canadian Perspective
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , Spring 1996 , pp. 307 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. See, for example, Dawson, C. Supporter rally for teen's transplant. Calgary Herald 1995;03 28:B3;Google ScholarHearts needed. Toronto Star 1995;04 18:A20;Google ScholarPubMedHealth service trying to play God. Calgary Herald 1995;04 13:A6.Google Scholar

2. [Anonymous], Child a human being. Calgary Herald 1995;04 23:A7.Google Scholar

3. Donohue, T. Morally outrageous. Ottawa Citizen 1995;03 22:A12.Google Scholar

4. ]Anonymous[.Transplant rules revised. Edmonton Journal 1995;04 5:B2.Google Scholar

5. Henton, D. Wasted transplants under fire in Alberta. Toronto Start 1995;04 7:A10.Google Scholar

6. Eichler, M. Frankenstein meets Kafka: the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. In: Basen, G, Eichler, M, Lippman, A, Eds. Misconceptions: The Social Construction of Choice and the New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies, Vol I. Prescott, Canada: Voyageur Publishing, 1994:Chap 12.Google Scholar

7. See note 6. Basen, , Eichler, , Lippman, , Eds. 1994.Google Scholar

8. For a review of the impact of these cases, see Lantons, J. Baby Doe five years later: implications for child health. New England Journal of Medicine 1987;317:444–7;CrossRefGoogle ScholarYork, GY, Ballarno, RM, York, RO. Baby Doe regulations and medical judgment. Social Science and Medicine 1990;30:657–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Van Leeuwen, E, Kimsma, GK. Acting or letting go: medical decision making in neonatology in The Netherlands. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1993;2:265–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Senate of Canada On Life and Death: Report of the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Ottawa, Canada: Senate of Canada, 1995.Google ScholarPubMed

11. See, for example, Varda Burstyn's report on genetics, NRT, and the view of German historians. Burstyn V. Breeding discontent. Saturday Night Magazine 1993;15/16:62–7.Google Scholar

12. Oliver Sacks' work on the capabilities of those neurologically damaged is central to these questions. See The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. New York: Summit Books, 1985:Sect 4;Google ScholarPubMedAn Anthropologist on Mars. New York: Knopf, 1995:188–204.Google Scholar

13. After winning the 1994 Nobel prize, Kenzaburo Oe said he was no longer going to write fiction because he had completed his mission: to speak somehow for his severely brain-damaged son, Hikari. For a review of Oe's work, his mission, and his views of the “birth defective,” see Remnick, D. Reading Japan. The New Yorker 1995;02 6:38–43.Google Scholar

14. Goundry, SA. The new reproductive technologies, public policy and the equality rights of women and men with disabilities. In: Basen, G, Eichler, M, Lippman, A. Eds. Misconceptions: The Social Construction of Choice and the New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies. Prescott, Canada: Vouageur Publishing, 1994:158;Google ScholarMessing, K, Oulette, G. A prevention oriented approach to reproductive problems: identifying environmental effects. In: Basen, G, Eichler, M, Lippman, A, Eds. Misconceptions: The Social Construction of Choice and the New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies. Prescott, Canada: Vouageur Publishing, 1994:56–62.Google Scholar

15. Jacquard, A, Moriarty, MM. Trans. In Praise of Difference. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984:169–70. “The goal is, therefore, no longer the Improvement of individuals,' but the preservation of diversity.”Google Scholar