Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Surgery to stunt girl’s growth sparks debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Surgery to stunt girl’s growth sparks debate

    Parents say drastic treatment allows them to take better care of their child
    The Associated Press
    Updated: 5:45 p.m. CT Jan 4, 2007
    In a case fraught with ethical questions, the parents of a severely mentally and physically disabled child have stunted her growth to keep their little “pillow angel” a manageable and more portable size.

    The bedridden 9-year-old girl had her uterus and breast tissue removed at a Seattle hospital and received large doses of hormones to halt her growth. She is now 4-foot-5; her parents say she would otherwise probably reach a normal 5-foot-6.

    Some ethicists question the parents’ claim that the drastic treatment will benefit their daughter and allow them to continue caring for her at home.

    The case has captured attention nationwide and abroad. “Offensive if not perverse,” wrote one person on MSNBC.com's bulletin board. “This smacks of eugenics, but I understand the parents thought process,” another wrote.

    Right or wrong, the couple’s decision highlights a dilemma thousands of parents face in struggling to care for severely disabled children as they grow up.

    “This particular treatment, even if it’s OK in this situation, and I think it probably is, is not a widespread solution and ignores the large social issues about caring for people with disabilities,” Dr. Joel Frader, a medical ethicist at Chicago’s Children’s Memorial Hospital, said Thursday. “As a society, we do a pretty rotten job of helping caregivers provide what’s necessary for these patients.”

    The case involves a girl identified only as Ashley on a blog her parents created after her doctors wrote about her treatment in October’s Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The journal did not disclose the parents’ names or where they live; the couple do not identify themselves on their blog, either.


    Left in an infant state
    Shortly after birth, Ashley had feeding problems and showed severe developmental delays. Her doctors diagnosed static encephalopathy, which means severe brain damage. They do not know what caused it.

    Her condition has left her in an infant state, unable to sit up, roll over, hold a toy or walk or talk. Her parents say she will never get better. She is alert, startles easily, and smiles, but does not maintain eye contact, according to her parents, who call the brown-haired little girl their “pillow angel.”

    She goes to school for disabled children, but her parents care for her at home and say they have been unable to find suitable outside help.

    An editorial in the medical journal called “the Ashley treatment” ill-advised and questioned whether it will even work. But her parents says it has succeeded so far.

    She had surgery in July 2004 and recently completed the hormone treatment. She weighs about 65 pounds, and is about 13 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than she would be as an adult, according to her parents’ blog.

    “Ashley’s smaller and lighter size makes it more possible to include her in the typical family life and activities that provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love: meal time, car trips, touch, snuggles, etc.,” her parents wrote.

    University of Pennsylvania bioethicist and MSNBC.com columnist Art Caplan said the case is troubling and questioned how preventing normal growth could benefit the patient. Treatment that is not for a patient’s direct benefit “only seems wrong to me,” Caplan said.

    But Dr. Benjamin Wilfond, a pediatric bioethicist at Children’s Hospital, said that while he "was a little startled" when he first learned of Ashley’s case, he understood the parents’ decision.

    "In this case, being short is a benefit to the child," Wilfond told NBC affiliate KING-TV of Seattle. "There are other parents that make decisions to make their children taller because that may be a benefit to the child. And so I think what all these cases have in common is an intention to help the child."

    Comfort and convenience cited
    Ashley’s parents say keeping her small will help reduce risks for bedsores and other conditions that can afflict bedridden patients. Also, they say preventing her from going through puberty means she won’t experience the discomfort of having periods or growing breasts that might develop breast cancer, which runs in the family.

    “Even though caring for Ashley involves hard and continual work, she is a blessing and not a burden,” her parents’ blog says. Still, they wrote, “Unless you are living the experience ... you have no clue what it is like to be the bedridden child or their caregivers.”
    Linked Here

    This is insane! These parents should not be allowed to stunt their childs growth to make their job of caring for her easier!
    "To dream of the person you would like to be is to waste the person you are."-Sholem Asch

    "I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures."-Earl Warren

    "I didn't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs."-Nancy Reagan, when asked a political question at a "Just Say No" rally

    "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."-Earl Butz, on the Pope's attitude toward birth control

  • #2
    Originally posted by THL View Post
    This is insane! These parents should not be allowed to stunt their childs growth to make their job of caring for her easier!
    Easier, or just possible? While I'm not too familiar with the case, it's entirely possible that without this surgery it simply wouldn't be physically possible for her parents to continue caring for her.
    In cases like this, it's usually best to trust that the parents have the child's best interests at heart - they are after all more likely to than anyone else, and will know the child best. It's not great, but this is a case where all the alternatives are pretty bad.
    Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
    Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by pdf27 View Post
      Easier, or just possible? While I'm not too familiar with the case, it's entirely possible that without this surgery it simply wouldn't be physically possible for her parents to continue caring for her.
      In cases like this, it's usually best to trust that the parents have the child's best interests at heart - they are after all more likely to than anyone else, and will know the child best. It's not great, but this is a case where all the alternatives are pretty bad.
      This is a child. They are not breeding chihuahuas to try and get the smallest one because it is cute...This is a living breathing human child and they are intentionally stunting her natural growth. This is wrong. If they cannot care for her because she has gotten "too big" then perhaps they need to find help. Their excuse that they have not been able to find acceptable help is absurd.

      If these parents were stunting the growth of a healthy child people would be all over them, but because this child was not born healthy it is okay to do this to her? Absolutely not.

      If they were stunting the growth of a great dane to make the dog "easier to care for" the ASPCA would step in and take that animal away.

      Who is stepping in for this child?
      "To dream of the person you would like to be is to waste the person you are."-Sholem Asch

      "I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures."-Earl Warren

      "I didn't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs."-Nancy Reagan, when asked a political question at a "Just Say No" rally

      "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."-Earl Butz, on the Pope's attitude toward birth control

      Comment


      • #4
        I understand that the child has a mental age of three months. The parents, by all accounts that I've seen, have done an amazing job in caring for her and one that not many of us could or would undertake. The child barely has a life at all, but we should not deprive the parents of having any. This is not to be thought of in the same way that one regards cosmetic surgery.
        Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by THL View Post
          This is a child. They are not breeding chihuahuas to try and get the smallest one because it is cute...This is a living breathing human child and they are intentionally stunting her natural growth. This is wrong. If they cannot care for her because she has gotten "too big" then perhaps they need to find help. Their excuse that they have not been able to find acceptable help is absurd.

          If these parents were stunting the growth of a healthy child people would be all over them, but because this child was not born healthy it is okay to do this to her? Absolutely not.

          If they were stunting the growth of a great dane to make the dog "easier to care for" the ASPCA would step in and take that animal away.

          Who is stepping in for this child?
          Ashley is 9 years old with the mental age of 3 months. She is not expected to develop any further mentally. She does not move. The nickname pillow angel is because when placed anywhere she simply does not move.

          To continue your above analogy animal groups would put an animal in such a condition to sleep.

          It's horrible. but i am not going to judge the parents for this. They are taking steps to try and be able to care for their daughter as she grows up and as they grow older. At some point they may have to hand that care over to someone else. She won't mature into a woman, so she is unlikely to contract adult female ailments (i.e. breast cancer) or end up being pregnant etc.

          Since Ashley's quality of life is as low as it is, i think they are taking couragous steps to try and make it so it doesn't get worse.
          at

          Comment


          • #6
            Her condition has left her in an infant state, unable to sit up, roll over, hold a toy or walk or talk.
            I can understand why the parents want to keep her small. Imagine caring for a 120 lb infant who can't sit, walk, or even hold a toy.
            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gunnut View Post
              I can understand why the parents want to keep her small. Imagine caring for a 120 lb infant who can't sit, walk, or even hold a toy.
              I get that. But there are care workers out there that are available to help. It takes my little one longer to climb up into my suv than it takes for me to pick her up...she is a tall kid (wears a size 7/8 - she's about the size of a 6 year old) but I am not going to stunt her growth to make it easier for me to get her up into her seat faster. I either pick her up myself (not easy to do), get whoever is with me to pick her up (people will usually only fall for this once), or wait the extra 2 minutes for her to fiddle around and do it herself.
              "To dream of the person you would like to be is to waste the person you are."-Sholem Asch

              "I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures."-Earl Warren

              "I didn't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs."-Nancy Reagan, when asked a political question at a "Just Say No" rally

              "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."-Earl Butz, on the Pope's attitude toward birth control

              Comment


              • #8
                Yeah but imagine her being 5'6", 120 lb, and completely dependent on you for everything, for life... Imagine that she will never be able to sit up, crawl, walk, or hold anything. She won't flip over, but her arms and legs will still swing and kick. She's more than a vegetable, but not much more than an infant.

                It's terrible that someone was born or suffered some kind of contition after birth to make her like that. Is it right to make stunt her physical development match that of her mental development? Or is it right for her physical development to vastly outpace her mental capacity?

                These are the ethical questions we don't have answers for. Doesn't matter what you say, you will anger some people.
                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by THL View Post
                  I get that. But there are care workers out there that are available to help. It takes my little one longer to climb up into my suv than it takes for me to pick her up...she is a tall kid (wears a size 7/8 - she's about the size of a 6 year old) but I am not going to stunt her growth to make it easier for me to get her up into her seat faster. I either pick her up myself (not easy to do), get whoever is with me to pick her up (people will usually only fall for this once), or wait the extra 2 minutes for her to fiddle around and do it herself.
                  THL, You know the loading the SUV problem (at a min here and a min there) will eventually go away as your girl gets older. These people have a bad situation that is only going to get worse and they have to deal with it on a much bigger scale. Finding someone to care for invalid children is no easy task. Just try finding a "normal" babysitter that you can trust can be daunting. I don't think the parents in this case made their decision lightly so in this case it may be the right thing to to.
                  Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X