PHILADELPHIA - A Philadelphia hospital's alleged refusal to
provide a kidney transplant to a mentally disabled 3-year-old
is yet another example of the harm caused in the United
States by the Roe v. Wade court decision legalizing abortion,
according to Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput.
"The habit of treating genetically disabled children as
somehow less worthy of life is growing across the country,"
the archbishop said in a column posted Jan. 19 on the website
of his archdiocesan newspaper, The Catholic Standard &
Times.
He was commenting on the case of Amelia Rivera, whose parents
say she was denied a kidney transplant at the Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia because she has Wolf-Hirschhorn
syndrome, a chromosomal disorder that results in severe
developmental retardation.
The child's parents say a doctor at the hospital told them
that a kidney transplant would not be performed on Amelia at
the hospital using a donated kidney because she was "mentally
retarded." The hospital has declined to comment on the
specifics of the case, citing patient confidentiality, but
said that transplant eligibility decisions were "based on
widely accepted, medically valid methods, with many factors
considered."
Archbishop Chaput said it is "unwise to assume that news
media get all the details of a story like this right, or that
the motives of an entire hospital's leadership and staff are
as unfeeling as an individual doctor might seem."
But he added, "We need to understand that if some lives are
regarded as unworthy, respect for all life is at risk. We
should pray that Amelia Rivera gets the help she needs, and
that God surrounds her parents with the support they need."
Anticipating the 39th anniversary of the Supreme Court's
decision in Roe v. Wade on Jan. 22, Archbishop Chaput said,
"More than 45 million abortions later, the damage of that
decision continues to grow - undermining our reverence for
the life not just of unborn children but of the mentally and
physically disabled as well."
The archbishop said some of his friends are the parents of
children with special needs, whose doctors or genetic
counselors might have warned before the child's birth of
possible genetic anomalies.
"Some doctors deliver this information with sensitivity and
great support for the woman," he said. "But, as my friends
know from experience, too many others seem more concerned
about avoiding lawsuits, or managing costs, or even, in a few
ugly cases, cleaning up the gene pool."
Archbishop Chaput said the parents of children with potential
disabilities should not be denied "vital information" nor
given "an implausibly upbeat picture of life with a child who
has a disability."
But he recommended that those parents also hear from other
parents of special-needs children, special education teachers
and therapists, and pediatricians who have treated children
with disabilities, who "often have a hugely life-affirming
perspective."
"The real choice in accepting or rejecting a child with
special needs is never between some imaginary perfection or
imperfection," the archbishop said. "None of us is perfect.
No child is perfect. The real choice in accepting or
rejecting a child with special needs is between love and
unlove; between courage and cowardice; between trust and
fear."