Issitheus
10-06-2008, 02:58 AM
Sorry, but I was just so outraged at this that I have to ask you guys what you think of it. I recieved this article to write an essay on for a class and it ended up being nearly twice what it was suppossed to be. anyways, here's that article:


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 hormoes to halt her growth. She is now 4-foot-5; her parents say she would otherwise probably reach a normal 5-foot-6.

The case has captured attention nationwide and abroad via the Internet, with some decrying the parents' actins as perverse and akin to eugenics. Some ethicists question the parents' claim that the drastic treatment will benefit their daughter and allow them to continue caring for her at home.

University of Pennsylvania ethicist Art Caplan said the case is troubling and reflects "slippery slope" thinking among parents who believe "the way to deal with my kid with permanent behavioral problems is to put them into permanent childhood."

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.

Shortly after birth, Ashley had feeding problems and showed severe developmental delays. Her doctors diagnosed static encephalopathy, which means severe brain damage. (Issy's note: Firefox doesn't know "ethicists", but it knows "encephalopathy". Doesn't recognize "Children's", either.) 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 say 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.

Also, Ashley's parents say keeping her small will reduce the risk of bedsores and other conditions that can afflict bedridden patients. In addition, they say preventing her from going through puberty means she won't experience the discomfort of periods or grow 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 say. Still, they write, "Unless you are living the experience... you have no clue what it is like to be the bedridden child or their caregivers."

Caplan questioned how preventing normal growth could benefit the patient. Treatment that is not for a patient's direct benefit "only seems wrong to me," the ethicist said.

Dr. Douglas Diekema, an ethicist at Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, where Ashley was treated, said he met with the parents and became convinced they were motivated by love and the girl's best interests.

Diekema said he was mainly concerned with making sure the little girl would actually benefit and did not suffer any harm from the treatment. She did not, and is doing well, he said.

"The more her parents can be touching her and caring for her ...and involving her in family activities, the better for her," he said. "The parents' argument was, 'If she's smaller and lighter, we will be able to do that for a longer period of time.'"


So that's the article. Again, I am disgusted with the parents. I don't mean to troll here, but, what do you guys think? (I typed this by hand from a piece of paper, please respond. My fingers hurt.)

abyssion1337
10-06-2008, 03:36 AM
Well this is tough, I need to think on this and talk to some people cause I'm in the middle

Jazean
10-06-2008, 05:39 AM
...

okay, this is gonna be a long one, maybe.

First things first, the parents decision was correct, but only because of the special case that they are presented with.

If Ashley's mental state is as the article states and effectively less then 1, there is no way she could possible lead a normal life, or that this procedure could harm her. If she was slightly more advanced mentally i'd object, but that's not the case.

The fact that the parents choose to do this to make handling her easier does seem selfish at first, but you have to think of how it is to care for a newborn. They can do nothing for themselves, and somethings even a 10-pound baby can be an incredible hand-full. Try to imagine a 100-pound one.

i should probably explain why i think this way... long story time now...

I used to live next door to an older woman (carol) who cared for both her husband and their daughter (dave and michelle). Dave was a large man (i mean large large) and had trouble moving around, and Michelle was much like "ashley" only a little more there, Michelle could recognize people, but other then that she could barely control her motion functions and was unable to speak (occasionally sounds, but not words). I lived next door to them for 13 years now and i've seen how hard it is to care for someone like that.

A few years back (about 6 now i think) Dave passed away leaving Carol to care for their daughter alone, and we had to help her many times with many things. Just getting Michelle around was a chore in and of itself, and Michelle was small due to other medical conditions she developed. Michelle was 26 when she passed away which was about 2 years ago, she lived a full 14 years longer then the doctors thought she would.

It's been a while since i've seen Carol, we helped get her into a mobile home and away from her old house and all the bad memories about a year ago. If i see her again soon i've probably pose this question to her to see her side.


i know some of you may disagree, i have the lighter ready if you have the torches.

Ionzorg
10-06-2008, 06:28 PM
Um...that's weird. And unusual. :-\ A startling case, positive or negative connotations aside. I'm not going to ask my friends because the majority of them are sadistic bastards, or religious, or have a similar bias. So I'll have to mull this over myself, peruse the internets for further readings about the case...For the nonce, I'm going with..."Intriguing".

abyssion1337
10-06-2008, 06:50 PM
Well I pondered it and I agree with Jazean, as I've probably said before almost no law, moral or otherwise is without exception due to circumstance

Jazean
10-06-2008, 06:52 PM
Well I pondered it and I agree with Jazean, as I've probably said before almost no law, moral or otherwise is without exception due to circumstance


*GASP, falls over*

i never thought i'd find something abys would agree with me on...

*twitches*

abyssion1337
10-06-2008, 07:32 PM
Well I pondered it and I agree with Jazean, as I've probably said before almost no law, moral or otherwise is without exception due to circumstance


*GASP, falls over*

i never thought i'd find something abys would agree with me on...

*twitches*

I always question moral issues, Children with disabilities usually gives me several days worth of consideration

Mawelli
10-06-2008, 08:50 PM
Yeah this is a tough one. The first feeling definately is negative. I've always thought of altering people in most ways as total waste, since most of the times its done for stupid selfish reasons. Though personally I don't have experience in taking care of disable children, well very little, definately the circumstances seem to suggest that it is better for Ashley in this way, since no harm was done to her in the treatments. It is more easier to take care of a child when they are smaller, and easier to e.g. hug.

I have a kid in my neighbourhood who is also disabled, and his mental age is that of a 3 year old. He is actually 13 years old and around the same height as me. 170-178cm (sorry, I don't use feet). On many occasions the parents really have quite a job to take care of him and help him, since he is a child of adult height, and he will grow even bigger as he gets older. Even I have sometimes a hard time telling him to not climb on the roof, or pick trash from the trash cans, since he is so big that handling him is sometimes hard. Circumstances really do matter.

Though on a personal note, I believe that I woudn't be able to do something that the parrents did. It takes guts to do something that they did, and I just have personally hate anything that relates to altering a human as they are born. (Now dont start trolling at me for this statement)

Ionzorg
10-07-2008, 01:20 AM
Well, I can't really call you insensitive, because you didn't even bother to read the issue. Just very incurious. :D

I also agree entirely with Mawelli. Trying to seriously alter a person from their state of birth has always seemed "wrong" to me. I wouldn't say I have a moral objection to it, nor a religious one, but there has always been something very...unruly...about that. I think a person should grow up just as they were meant to when they were brought into the world, unless of course the change meant a benefit to physical health, of course. To stunt someone's growth merely for the sake of "convenience", "portability", and the fact that a large person with a disability is harder to take care of, seems a little unnecessary. Seems like they're trying to make it easier for themselves more than anything...

But, in the long haul, I guess I support their decision. Especially about the whole onslaught of puberty and all that. When that's out of the way, a girl like that would likely be better off. The stunted growth is just unsettling, but it would make things easier for the parents, and in return give Ashley a better state of living. But, as has been stated before, there's no way I could bring myself to do that to my child. Not gonna happen.

abyssion1337
10-07-2008, 04:40 AM
Well, I can't really call you insensitive, because you didn't even bother to read the issue. Just very incurious. :D

I also agree entirely with Mawelli. Trying to seriously alter a person from their state of birth has always seemed "wrong" to me. I wouldn't say I have a moral objection to it, nor a religious one, but there has always been something very...unruly...about that. I think a person should grow up just as they were meant to when they were brought into the world, unless of course the change meant a benefit to physical health, of course. To stunt someone's growth merely for the sake of "convenience", "portability", and the fact that a large person with a disability is harder to take care of, seems a little unnecessary. Seems like they're trying to make it easier for themselves more than anything...

But, in the long haul, I guess I support their decision. Especially about the whole onslaught of puberty and all that. When that's out of the way, a girl like that would likely be better off. The stunted growth is just unsettling, but it would make things easier for the parents, and in return give Ashley a better state of living. But, as has been stated before, there's no way I could bring myself to do that to my child. Not gonna happen.

careful with what you say, if the situation arises with your child you may very well end up doing that

Mawelli
10-07-2008, 08:49 PM
Yeah these kind of things are always tough. But in my current situation I woudn't be able to do it. The feeling of altering people has always been something that I dislike so much that it seems impossible for me.

But then again...you never know when the circumstances arise and you have to make the choice.

Odessa
10-10-2008, 12:24 AM
I am appaled at this. There is no way this is "ethical" or even humane. Te poor girl's disabled, so let's rip out parts oher body? Gawd, why not just harvest her for organs already? This is sick and wrong. If they can afford surgery options like this, then they could have affored to hire help to take care of her "larger size."

And FYI, I think people should have theright to chose to do alter thier bodies as THEY want. If a man wants to have surgery to become a woman, fine. If this girl wanted this procedure, then so be it. But to have her parents do this to her as it's more convenient is just flat out wrong. I would never put a child of mine through that kind of hell, and i am disgustd that these people were allowed to do this to her.

That's my two cents.

Luppi-tan
10-10-2008, 02:18 AM
No matter their reasons, I personally believe that such drastic physical modifications to the body are wrong. I've heard of people wanting to be taller, but never of people forcing shortness on their child. Whether the child is handicapped or not, the parents don't really need to carry the child. For instance, they could get a wheelchair. That alleviates their problem that they don't want the child to be too heavy to port around and the child doesn't have to be physically stunted. This moral argument is about on the same level as the abortion argument. We could argue back and forth a million times, and you'd have half that say it's alright, and half that argue that it is wrong. It's interesting, though. I've never really heard of that kind of hormone treatment before, and my mother works in a hospital.

Jazean
10-11-2008, 04:31 AM
people seem to reading through this too fast and missing the point about the girl being stuck mentally as a less-then-1-year-old.

yes, normally i'd be against this, but the circumstances of this particular situation are different.

SS_nyuu911_SS
10-11-2008, 05:26 PM
I agree with Issi. Against it.

1337uvis
10-12-2008, 06:50 PM
Well, since nobody would approve of my "for ****'s sake put them out of their misery" idea, i guess i'd vote for the "lighter/smaller is easier to care for"

Issitheus
10-13-2008, 02:04 AM
yeah on a lighter, humorous note:
Mentally challenged: Now in convenient "Fun Size"!