MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2377914821 · doi:10.1093/pch/13.5.367

The decision to accept disability: One family's perspective

2008· article· en· W2377914821 sur OpenAlexaff
Barbara Farlow

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueChild and Adolescent Health
Établissements canadiensCanadian Patient Safety Institute
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDaughterPerspective (graphical)PsychologyMedicineComputer scienceLawPolitical scienceArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

At 21 weeks'gestation, we were informed that our daughter, Annie, had a genetic condition associated with profound disabilities. Thus began the most difficult but, ultimately, most enriching journey of our lives. We realized it was highly likely that Annie would require life-saving interventions in her infancy. From the outset, we wrestled with an agonizing, moral question: Would these interventions and the preservation of her life be in the best interests of our daughter and our family? To make an informed decision, we began to research. We discovered children who were certainly very impaired, and we were afraid. However, as our knowledge increased, and we met more families with children deemed to be ‘severely disabled’, our fears were alleviated. Shortly after Annie's diagnosis, I attended the funeral of a young man with severe cerebral palsy, who had never walked or talked. The midweek service was filled beyond capacity. After the service, I spoke to his teacher. Tears fell freely from her face as she told me that her student had ‘changed her life’. How could that be? Children with Annie's condition seldom live into their teens, yet we have observed that when their child dies, the families are absolutely devastated and by no means relieved to be free of their ‘burdens’. These children were loved in the very same way as any child. We did some very deep soul-searching about the purpose of life. We realized that the quality of our daughter's life was not ours to judge. We understood and accepted the many challenges and sacrifices Annie's life would entail. It would not be easy. Nothing worthy ever is. Annie was born full-term and was mildly afflicted. Her only serious issues were hypoglycemia and an undiagnosed airway problem. Without a doubt, there were challenges. We spent the first six weeks in the hospital with Annie, and a family member was with her at all times – night and day. Our children instinctively rose to the occasion to contribute. Our 12-year-old son took over lawn maintenance and prided himself in having the best grass on the street. Our teenage daughter left her summer job to help out. Even the youngest wanted to contribute, and drew endless pictures with ‘I love you Annie’ on them. We were so very proud to witness their automatic responses of protection, love and self-sacrifice for their sister. We took nothing for granted, and we lived each day to the fullest. We laughed when Annie came home soaked from a sudden, unexpected downpour when she was out for a walk. One clear, hot night, when everyone was asleep, we took Annie outside and looked at the stars together. Indeed, we viewed life differently once Annie was born. Her first smile was like magic. Annie's life came to a sudden end within 24 h of arriving at the hospital at 80 days of age. She had been having episodic respiratory distress in the preceding days, and her paediatrician told us that it was best to take a conservative approach because the suspected tracheal condition might improve on its own. It was with incredible and inconsolable sadness that we had come to discover that Annie's pulmonary health had deteriorated weeks earlier because her carbon dioxide levels were rising to critical levels. Because we were unaware of the plan of treatment, and had no understanding that high levels of carbon dioxide could lead to rapid death, Annie's death was most difficult for us. She did not have the comfort we would have wished for her in her final days and hours. Annie's siblings rushed to the hospital only to discover that their sister had died just minutes earlier. The coroner and his committee noted issues about our daughter's final admission. An effective ‘do not resuscitate’ order had been placed on her chart, yet this had not been discussed with us. There are no words to describe the pain we felt when we discovered that our rights as Annie's parents, to provide input into critical decision-making, had been overlooked. The infant with predicted disabilities lives the most fragile of human lives. The fate of our child rested in the hands of the physicians and health care providers. Unilateral treatment decisions and the absence of our input into or awareness of these decisions caused a double tragedy. We were denied both a chance to prolong Annie's life and a plan for her to die a dignified and peaceful death with her loving family by her side. Some would say that helping a child like Annie live longer by offering more aggressive medical interventions would be unfair and burdensome to the child and family, and an irresponsible use of limited societal resources. We believe that parental involvement and consent in treatment decisions are acutely important issues. When they are overlooked systemically and without cause, there is a necessity to reflect on the implications. We have learned that accepting and making sacrifices for Annie was deeply personal and purposeful. It was a privilege. It was about reaching beyond the definition of ‘perfect’ provided by consumer culture endeavours and health care policies. In short, it was an act of love.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,046
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,093

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,021
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0320,029
Communication savante0,0110,011
Science ouverte0,0030,009
Intégrité de la recherche0,0200,026
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,054
Tête enseignante GPT0,391
Écart entre enseignants0,337 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child Health→Même sujetChild and Adolescent Health→Travaux en français237 207→