Young Girl with Mental Retardation Denied Kidney Transplant at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

Young Girl with Mental Retardation Denied Kidney Transplant at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

By Brittney Hodnik
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States – On 10 January 2012, Chrissy and Joe Rivera spoke with a doctor about a kidney transplant for their disabled daughter.  Rather than receiving hopeful news, they were faced with the exact opposite.  The doctor at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) told the Riveras that their daughter, Amelia was not eligible for a kidney transplant because she is mentally retarded.

CHOP told Chrissy and Joe Rivera that Amelia is not eligible for a kidney transplant because of her mental retardation. (Image courtesy of Examiner.com)

Amelia Rivera was born with Wolf-Hirschhorn Syndrome, which is a rare genetic disorder.  Symptoms include intellectual disabilities, seizures, and a shortened life span, according to Examiner.com.

The Nephrology Department at CHOP told the Riveras that Amelia would need a kidney transplant in the next 6 months to a year.  When the parents and a sleeping Amelia sat down with another doctor to discuss transplants, the doctor informed them that she was not eligible. 

According to Chrissy Rivera’s blog, the doctor slipped her a list of reasons why kidney transplants can be denied.  Two different lines were highlighted: “Mentally retarded” and “Brain Damage.”  These two reasons are on a list with other medical problems including HIV and Hepatitis C.

When Mrs. Rivera said that the transplant list was not necessary, because someone in the family would donate a kidney, the doctor said that the surgery would not be performed at CHOP.  According to Examiner.com, the doctor insisted, “[Amelia] is not eligible because of her quality of life . . . [b]ecause of her mental delays.”

A study in 2006 showed that patients with mental retardation are just as likely as patients without mental retardation to have a successful transplant.  Originally, people with mental retardation were often turned down for transplants according to The Ohio State University Research Center, but now transplants are much more common.  “People with disabilities do have access to transplants, but whether we have reached equal access is impossible to say,” said Steven Reiss, a co-author of the study.

Many doctors refuse to do such transplants because often there are other medical problems associated with the mental retardation that diminish the probability of success.  In addition, some argue that the patients will not take all of the medications necessary to ensure success.  Opposing sides argue that caregivers of people with mental retardation are more diligent and likely to compel transplant patients to take their medications.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 25 on health says that doctors and hospitals must “recognize that persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability.  Furthermore, Article 10 says that “every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others,” according to a blog on the Care2 website.

CHOP issued a statement on its Facebook page reassuring the public that CHOP “does not have any criteria which exclude patients from being considered for transplant solely on their cognitive status.”  The statement went on to say the hospital uses a “non-discriminatory approach” in its determinations.

Reiss and his co-authors have since begun developing an international registry of organ transplants among the mentally retarded.  This way, the study can be further expanded and at the same time, help mentally retarded patients find appropriate matches for those on waiting lists.

As of now, “Mental Retardation” remains on the printed checklist of reasons why an organ transplant could be denied.  Steven Reiss says as a result of the study, “there doesn’t seem to be any reason to think the mentally retarded are not good candidates for transplants.”

Chrissy and Joe Rivera have vowed to continue fighting for Amelia, and insist that she will get the transplant that she needs to continue to live her life.

For more information, please visit:

Care2 (blog) — Hospital: No Kidney Transplant for Girl with Disabilities — 14 Jan. 2012

The Examiner — Should Disabilities Matter in  Organ Transplants — 14 Jan. 2012

The Examiner — Hospital Denies Life Saving Transplant to Child Because of Special Needs — 13 Jan. 2012

WolfHorschhorn.org (Chrissy Rivera’s blog post) — Brick Walls — 12 Jan. 2012

Research News at The Ohio State University — Organ Transplants Just as Successful in Those with Mental Retardation — 12 June 2006

Yemenis Protest Against Proposed Immunity Law

By Carolyn Abdenour
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

SANAA, Yemen – On Monday, thousands of protestors gathered throughout Yemen to rally against the approved draft of a law to provide immunity to President Ali Abdullah Saleh and his aides from prosecution.  The bill received approval from the Yemeni cabinet on Sunday, and the parliament is expected to approve it within days.

Saleh ruled Yemen for 33 years. (Photo Courtesy of CNN)

If the parliament passes the law without changes, Saleh and his officials from his 33-year rule will receive immunity from prosecution once Salah resigns on February 21.  Spokesperson for the opposition Joint Meeting Parties (“JMP”) Ghaleb al-Odaini projects the lawmakers will amend the proposed deal brokered by the Gulf Cooperation Council last month before codifying the law.

The deal granted Saleh immunity if he gave political power to Vice President Abdu Rabu Hadi.  Diplomats commented that Saleh would not resign if he did not receive immunity.  Yemenis suspect Saleh of trying to break the deal and remain in power.

If Saleh receives immunity, he will not be tried for the over 200 deaths of protestors during crackdowns in the Yemen uprising.

People protested holding pictures of Saleh with bloody hands holding a butcher knife while asking their country to try Saleh.  In the capital Sanaa, Protestor Abdel-Hadi al-Azazi said the law “helped the leader of a criminal gang escape legal punishment.”  At a rally in Taizz, Saleh’s loyal forces opened fire on the demonstrators killing two people and critically injuring several others.  Protests continued Friday where security forces opened fire in Aden and killed at least four protesters.

However, some people welcome the bill.  Youth activist Abdullah al-Kuraimi said, “We are against the immunity bill, but it will play a big role in ending the Saleh family rule in Yemen and give us a change to build a new nation.”  Prime Minister Mohammed Bosendowah added, “We granted President Saleh immunity to rid the country from a civil war or possible bloodshed.”

Amnesty International’s interim director for the Middle East and North Africa Philip Luther asserted the law is “a smack in the face for justice.”  Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, added Saleh’s guarantee of immunity from accused gross human rights violations or war crimes may violate international law.

The broad immunity from prosecution poses the question: Do suspected war crime and corrupt officials receive a pass for their actions, or do countries need to sacrifice prosecution of these people to move forward?

For further information, please see:

The San Francisco Chronicle – World: News Of The Day From Across The Globe – 14 Jan 2012

The Guardian – United States Defends Immunity Law for Yemeni President Saleh – 10 Jan 2012

CNN – Yemen Cabinet Approves Amnesty Law For Saleh – 9 Jan 2012

Press TV – Two Yemeni Protesters Killed In Taizz – 9 Jan 2012

The Associated Press – Yemen Immunity Law Sparks Debate Over Past Crimes – 9 Jan 2012


EU Takes Stance Against Hungary’s “Unconstitutional Constitution”

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

BUDAPEST, Hungary — The European Union has assumed a hard line stance against Hungary’s controversial political reforms.  The EU accuses the Hungarian government of violating democratic rights with its new constitution.  Hungarian authorities dismissed the accusations and await the EU’s explanation for why it so staunchly opposes the new constitution.

Hungary's new constitution has come under fire from EU officials (Photo courtesy of AFP)

Hungary’s new constitution, which was adopted at the end of 2011, contains provisions that limit the independence of the central bank, the judiciary, and the media.  Critics say the new laws are a sign of emerging authoritarianism that block the road back to democracy.

The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, released a statement calling for reform in the Hungarian government.  “The commission recalls that a legally stable environment, based on the rule of law, including respect for media freedom, democratic principles and fundamental rights, is also the best guarantee for citizens’ trust and confidence of partners and investors.  This is particularly vital in times of economic crisis. The swiftest way to lay to rest the concerns mentioned would of course be action by the Hungarian authorities themselves.”

For example, one provision of the new constitution gives the Prime Minister the power to appoint vice presidents of the Hungarian central bank.  Previously the president of the bank himself began the appointment process by nominating a candidate for the position.  This power is no more, thus depriving the central bank of its independence and giving greater power to the government.

Hungary also now has mandatory retirement rules that the government can use to oust judges and prosecutors.  This, critics say, eviscerates the independence of the judiciary.

The EU stands opposed to the new constitution and threatens legal action if the constitution is not reformed.  EU officials allege that there are a “number of the new provisions may violate EU law.”  If found in violation of EU law, the EU “reserves the right to take any steps that it deems appropriate, namely the possibility of launching infringement procedures.”

Hungary has dismissed the accusations.  The Prime Minister Viktor Orban objected to the European Commissions admonishment of Hungary, saying the criticism of the new constitution was not “convincing.”  He said, “Our general approach is that we are open and flexible, we are ready to negotiate all the points but what we need is not political opinion but arguments…. And when the arguments on behalf of the EU are convincing that it’s better to accept and follow that line, there is no reason not to do that.”

At a time when the Eurozone is struggling to stave off economic crisis, Hungary will likely have to bow to EU demands.  Hungary cannot afford to alienate the EU at this time.

Zoltan Arokszallasi, an economist for Erste Bank Hungary in Budapest, opines that Hungary will have to take steps to be amenable with the EU’s requests.  “It is likely the government will take adequate steps,” Mr. Arokszallasi said. “From a financial point of view there is no alternative.”

For more information please see:

The Star — EU Ready To Hit Hungary — 13 January 2012

CBS Money Watch — Hungary Awaits EU, IMF Argument Against New Laws — 12 January 2012

New York Times — European Union Gives Hungary An Ultimatum — 12 January 2012

Reuters — Hungary PM: Waiting For EU’s Arguments On Disputed Laws — 12 January 2012

Wall Street Journal — EU Hardens Line In Hungary Fight — 12 January 2012

Washington Post — Summary Box: Hungary’s Prime Minister Dismisses EU’s Opposition To Country’s New Constitution — 12 January 2012

New York Times — The Unconstitutional Constitution — 2 January 2012

Fledgling South Sudan Faces Humanitarian Crisis

By Zach Waksman
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa

JUBA, South Sudan – Six months after its recognition as a sovereign state, South Sudan already faces a massive humanitarian crisis.  Since then, long-dormant ethnic tensions have resurfaced in the newly independent country.  Thousands of people have died, and efforts to stem the tide of bloodshed have failed.  Thursday, Murle youths from Pibor County killed 37 people in Uror County of Jonglei State.

Displaced Pibor residents make their way home following last week's attack by Lou Nuer fighters. (Photo courtesy of the New York Times)

The Murle and Lou Nuer, rival ethnic groups in Jonglei State, have a long-standing conflict that subsided in 2009 for purposes of gaining independence for South Sudan.  But in August, only a month after independence became reality over 600 Lou Nuer died at the hands of Murle forces, who also abducted dozens of children.  On January 3, 2012, John Boloch of South Sudan’s Peace and Reconciliation Commission told the BBC that he estimated at least 150 deaths during the first two days of the year.  Pibor was a particular nexus of the conflict, with 6,000 Lou Nuer fighters surrounding the town last week.  That outnumbers the combined forces of the country’s army and a contingent of peacekeepers from the United Nations.

Due to this lack of firepower, the UN felt that, other than warning villagers of the coming assault, which the Lou Nuer publicly announced prior to their attack, it could not do anything to protect the Murle from its rival.

“Protection of civilians in the rural areas and at larger scale would only have been possible with significantly more military capacity,” said Hilde F. Johnson, head of the UN mission in South Sudan.

Part of the problem may be that politicians in the area used incited violence for their own gains.  Boloch wondered why peacekeepers were protecting government buildings instead of people. Government spokesman Dr. Barnaba Marial addressed the media earlier this week, announcing that the government was forming a committee to investigate and arrest those who used their positions for such a purpose.

“[T]hose politicians trying to incite conflicts between our communities are warned that this is not the way to do it,” he said.  “There are certain politicians who are trying to agitate for demonstration. Please let us help our government to develop instead.”

Because of the conflict, which has claimed an estimated 2,000 lives, many have fled Pibor and the surrounding area.  According to Liz Grande, humanitarian affairs coordinator of the UN office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), at least 60,000 South Sudanians have been displaced from Jonglei, with still more fleeing as best they can.  Addressing the situation will be difficult, as South Sudan lacks an extensive road system that would make delivery of aid easier.  It will instead have to be brought in by air, which is much more expensive.  Grande called the present situation the worst humanitarian crisis the region has faced since the signing of a peace agreement six years ago.

“This emergency operation is going to be one of the most complex and expensive in South Sudan since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in 2005,” Grande said.

For more information, please see:

Gurtong Trust — 37 Killed in Uror County of Jonglei State — 12 January 2012

Gurtong Trust — Government Warns Politicians over Conflict Instigation — 12 January 2012

New York Times — Ethnic Killings Fray Unity Marking Birth of South Sudan — 12 January 2012

Voice of America — South Sudanese Continue to Flee Violence Along Border — 09 January 2012

New Nation — South Sudan Facing Worst Humanitarian Crisis since CPA — 08 January 2012

BBC — South Sudan’s Jonglei Clashes: UN Begins Aid Effort — 07 January 2012

BBC — South Sudanese “Massacred” after Fleeing Pibor — 03 January 2012

A Decade of Gitmo, A Decade of Shame: We Must Close This Symbol Of Torture

By Morris Davis And Rev. Richard Killmer
Originally published by The New York Daily News on 11 Jan 2012

One of us is a career military officer and former chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; the other is a minister and the executive director of an interfaith coalition.

We have seen the power of symbolism.

Religious symbols inspire people of faith to do good and courageous acts. Some religions even see God in their symbols.

An American military uniform has always symbolized honor and humanity. When Iraqi troops encountered American soldiers during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, tens of thousands of Iraqis lowered their weapons and rushed forward to surrender rather than fight. The Iraqis knew the U.S. military’s reputation, and by surrendering, they felt certain they would be ensured humane treatment.

But a symbol can also be destructive. The power of negative symbols to foment harm is at least as great as the power of positive symbols to foster good.

The detention camp at Guantanamo, opened 10 years ago today, stands as an internationally recognized symbol of a dark period in our nation’s history. For a country built on a foundation of courage and hope, one that is supposed to stand as a bright light on a hill and an example for the world to follow, Guantanamo symbolizes the exploitation of fear that enabled some to say no to the rule of law.

In the months between the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the arrival of the first prisoners at the detention camp, Bush administration lawyers worked to rationalize turning our backs on what for two centuries was America’s unique strength — the law. The results of their work led to conclusions that detainees in the fight against terrorism were neither criminals nor prisoners of war and therefore had no rights under the laws of war or the Constitution — and that interrogation methods that did not produce pain equal to death or major organ failure did not rise to the level of torture.

Many of those interrogation methods — including the simulated drowning known as waterboarding — were practiced on suspected terrorists held in legal limbo at Guantanamo Bay.

Although President Obama banned torture shortly after taking office — and pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp within a year of becoming President — the facility remains open. Congress has resisted bringing detainees to the U.S. to be held and tried; Obama has failed to win the argument.

This is an outrage. The enduring, infamous symbolism of Guantanamo weakens our influence around the world and puts our troops and our citizens abroad in danger.

Even now, as we continue to hold 171 prisoners in indefinite detention on Cuban soil at our prison at Guantanamo, we undermine the credibility of our demand for the Cuban government to release American Alan Gross from two-plus years of confinement in a Cuban prison. How then, do we condone the continued indefinite detention on the other side of the island of so many people who have not been charged with crimes — or even, in the case of 89 of them, have been approved for release?

We may have allowed a legitimate fear of terrorism to cause the needle of our collective moral compass to waver for a moment, but our fundamental principles remain centered on true north. As a nation founded on religious and moral values, we cannot begin to move past the shameful symbol of the past decade until we ensure that U.S. government-sponsored torture never occurs again.

We take a major step on that path when we turn out the lights at Guantanamo.

Davis is former chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay and is now on the faculty of the Howard University School of Law. Killmer is executive director of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.