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.”