SDN Members don't see this ad. About the ads. This is drawn from a discussion with another SDN member, but could provide a very interesting ethical conundrum. What would you do if the parents of a retarded kid wanted to put a do not resuscitate order on their otherwise healthy (beyond the mental retardation) child? What if they refused treatment for their child as being futile, given the fact that the quality of life it experiences is not likely to improve with treatment and it could be construed as having what amounts to a terminal condition- just as a patient with a brain tumor can have treatment withheld even if the acute problem (pneumonia for example)- might be readily treated?