Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/01/04/ashley.treatment.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH /conditions/01/04/ashley.treatment.ap/index.html</a> Excerpt: CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- 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 uterus and breast tissue of the bedridden 9-year-old girl were removed at a Seattle hospital, and she 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. _____ I don't really what my opinions are about this. I was curious what other LPers might think about it.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Way to go, mele. You just had to make WE controversial, didn'tcha? ;-)
Originally Posted By onlyme According to the article, she only showed signs of developmental delays after birth, so, abortion wasn't an issue. Is the treatment for the benefit of the parents or the child? The parents say it's for both. It just doesn't seem right. Is it wrong? Selfish? I don't know? Odd? Yes!
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Oh, man. What a horrible situation for this child and family. My immediate reactions after reading the article: The media is an industry. It needs to have discord and controvery and scandal to survive. When it doesn't exist, it attempts to create it. "Medical ethicist" is a job, an industry. It needs to have discord and controvery and scandal to survive. And "medical ethicists" like to get themselves in media articles. My cynical point of view is that many "medical ethicists'" judgements on a particular case will be affected by his/her need to be high-profile and/or justify his/her position in the institution. From the article: "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." Yikes. So the parents have decided to make changes that they claim will increase the quality of her life and their's as well. Is that worse than putting braces on your kid and permanently altering his bone structure for totally cosmetic purposes?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo The ex Social Worker in me is horrified by this. There were real risks associated with this unneccisary surgery. I am abhored.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I don't have the time to get into this one right now as I should be working. But she is a human, with a heart and a soul. There would be negligible impact of letting her grow up (I worked with a number of people with profound multiple disabilities, with similar needs when I was a social worker. In these situtations, unless there is a medical reason (life threatening) to perform such procedures, I am against it. She is not a vegetable. She simply has very special needs. But she will still have feelings, and a personality. And it is obvious that you don't understand that.
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley As a rule, misanthropes never understand things like that, and if they do, could not care less.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss My older sister's first kids were twins. Her son is now 19 (or is it 20?) and in the Air Force. The daughter had a heart attack shortly after birth, and ended up much like the girl in the story; extremely disabled. She could not talk, sit up, feed herself, absolutely nothing. Surgery to control her growth woulnd't have mattered as she passed away at the age of eight. I suppose that since this surgery would help the parents raise the child and it wouldn't make her problems worse, I wouldn't be against it. What I question is the story jonvn posted last week about little people i.e. dwarves/midgets purposely wanting their children to be little too. Why anyone would purposely want their child to experience more difficulty is beyond my comprehension.
Originally Posted By DlandJB This girl is expected to live a normal lifespan, so it is a tough call. I don't think it is fair to sit in judgement of these parents. They live with the reality of it every day. They sound like very loving and caring people and to swoop down and condemn them for this -- probably something that was proposed to them by a doctor - I doubt parents would come up with this on their own - is difficult. I agree with the Inspector that the media is leaping on this to stir something up. I'm sorry they can't have their privacy.
Originally Posted By Shooba When I first saw this story on the major news sites, the headlines said something along the lines of "Parents use surgery to keep daughter a six-year old permanently". The effect was that my initial reaction was utter shock, and by the time I had the full story it was almost inevitable that it seemed reasonable. This is definately one of those gray areas, and I think I'm satisfied to let the parents make the decision and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they made the best possible choice under very unusual circumstances.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But she is a human, with a heart and a soul." She's a vegetable. She can hardly recognize her surroundings. Her "special needs" are that of an individual who has no ability to function at all. If I'm a misanthrope, so are the doctors and her parents. They need to do what's best to handle the situation, which is not good. Once the parents are gone, this kid is going to become a burden to the state. People here are not in the situation. They are probably doing what is best in order to handle it, but the truth is that the person is never going to be anything other than near vegetative. It really doesn't matter for the quality of her life. She barely has any.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo So do you subscribe to Hitler's views of killing these "burdens of the State". That would be a natural extension in your arguement by the sounds of things.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, I think it is immediately the correct thing to do to compare other posters to Hitler. That always a winning argument, especially when it has nothing to do with what is being talked about. Bring Hitler in first and foremost. The fact is she's in a persistent vegatative state. What is keeping her alive? Is she even able to eat? It's a tragedy so what are you supposed to do about it? At least with this surgery, she might not end up pregnant when raped by an orderly.
Originally Posted By MomofPrincess >>The fact is she's in a persistent vegatative state. What is keeping her alive? Is she even able to eat? It's a tragedy so what are you supposed to do about it?<< Persistent vegetative state doesn't mean *permanent*. And not being able to eat doesn't make her any less of a human being than you or me. I have a brother who, after a horrendous accident, spent MONTHS in a persistent vegetative state. He is still fed through a tube in his stomach ten years later, but he is no longer vegetative. He is the same person who scores higher on spelling tests than the RNs who care for him. He laughs and cries and feels things just like the rest of us. Should I have made the decision to starve him to death, jonvn, because he was in a persistent vegatitive state, unable to eat? (Because that was an option that I, as his personal conservator, was given.) That being said, I have no opinion on the parents' actions. Until I've walked very specifically in their shoes, I don't know how I'd react. I pray to God I never will.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Hey, we haven't had a 'Hitler' thread in a long time, this is most certainly the first for 2007. The whole 'pillow angel' thing I found sort of peculiar.
Originally Posted By debtee I watched this story on our news last night and instantly knew this would become a heated topic on LP!
Originally Posted By MomofPrincess BTW, there are varying degrees of vegetative states. I watched my brother in a deep coma for a month, to opening his eyes and yet still not being AT ALL responsive. This went on for a good year. Once he finally was able to respond appropriately (laugh/roll eyes/smile/cry), we realized he was coming around at least somewhat. Most of his neuro care home's patients are in deep, persistent vegetative states. None of them smile or respond whatsoever. Nothing. IMO, this little girl is at least minimally responsive if she's smiling. There is *something* there. God only knows how much she is aware on the inside. Might be more than we--or any doctors--realize.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka I guess if there's no way that she will live as an adult woman, or even as an older child, it seems unnecessary for her to have a uterus and breasts. She's over 4ft tall, so it's not like she is freakishly small. It's much better that her parents can take care of her for as long as possible, not to mention it will be easier to take care of her by whomever does so once her parents are too old. It would make me so sick to have to make this decision for my kids. I didn't want the thread to get ugly. I was just curious what people were thinking.
