Yeah, that's more than fair enough. If anyone perceives a difference in the situations I suspect it might be based on a concept of 'normality'. E.g. treating burns / fixing a cleft palate / repairing bone damage (etc.) are probably seen as returning a person to how they 'should be', to what is normal for them (though I don't buy into this 'should' myself).youBROKEmyLIFE said:KFunk, my understanding is that children who are accident victims/are born with defects/burns victims are regularly given cosmetic surgery which serves no theraputic purpose more than to make them look better. Other than perhaps some perception that it's different because it's genetic disorder... I can't really tell the difference?
The normal state of an individual with Downs Syndrome is probably perceived as involving the characteristic facial features and so any cosmetic surgery which makes them closer to a population norm simultaneously moves them away from their 'natural' (--> genetically encoded?) apperance. In this sense, such a procedure might be construed as unnatural or unnecessary. As soon as you have some procedure which a) is seen as unnecessary and b) has 'surgery' in its title, people are likely to throw around the consent issue. Toss moderate-to-severe mental handicap into the picture and suddenly you have an ethical issue on your hands. (Then there is also the whole 'why cant we just accept them as beautiful in their own right?' thing).
I may be way off the mark in my characterisation of the situation, but at least this is the rough vibe I get when I examine any naive aversions I harbour towards cosmetic surgery for Down syndrome kids. On the whole, however, I don't have much issue with it. Like you said, there doesn't seem to be much difference compared to burns victim cases.