Parents stunt daughters growth...

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:34 am

On purpose!!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditio ... index.html

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:36 am

I heard about that this morning on the way to work....

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:06 am

That is just not right. The parents should be charged with child abuse and have her taken away immediatly. They would not have done that if she were not disabled. What gives them the right to do it because she is profoundly disabled? Just to make life easier on themselves??:-5 :-1

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:08 pm

I really dont want to start a riot here but we have to bear in mind this child has the mental age of (3 months old) if her parents choose to look after her they do have to take into consideration how old & able they will be in 30 years time to do this. The alternatve is put her into care, thats about Â£600 per week present day, ive no idea how much that would be in 30 years, i think its a tough love decision looking at the bigger picture & not one that the parents would have come to easily. Faced with the same situation ourselves is it really so bad?

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:22 pm

OK, Buttercup...I see and respect your point of view. But I am coming as a person who has worked with people with various levels of disabilaties for the past 25 years.

From that view...I see it as morally wrong, no matter what the cognitive level of the child is. I ahve seen several physically and mentally disabled adults with low cognitive functioning who are loved and cared for by thier parents despite everything.

In this country, we have SSI...Suplimental Security Income, specifically for people with disablilities, to help them with thier long term care, so the expense does not fall entirely on the parents and family. There is Future Care planning..to plan for the long term care after the parents are gone, or unable to care for thier child.

I still see it as selfish on the parents to have done this..and I am amazed there was a doctor who would have even agreed to do this procedure.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:01 pm

That is beyond abominable. We cut out her breasts and uterus so we can take her on trips! BS! I see disabled people everywhere and I see people caring for them and *they're* not griping! What the hell? Have these imbeciles lost their minds?? Their intentions are fallible, their reasoning is despicable and they need to be put in a special home. And bedsores come from constant pressure whichs he would have anyway even if they hadn't mutilated her, unless they *took proper care of her!*

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:07 pm

I dont know enough about this case but I do know in the United States it is ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL to perform such surgeries, procedures, etc ona person just for reasons only good for the "caregiver". And no doctor would do it either. Obviousley, all parties involved looked over all of the pros and cons that attributed to the patient and better patient care, at least that was what I got from Nancy Grace last night.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:23 pm

Ashley's parents have a blog site where their POV can be read, along with all the reasoning behind their decision.

http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/

My opinion is that I'm glad it wasn't me having to make such a decision.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:05 pm

I'm with you Koan.

[QUOTE]My opinion is that I'm glad it wasn't me having to make such a decision[/QUOTE].

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:45 pm

It sounds like we've begun "fixing" people for own own convenience and I don't abide that.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:19 pm

We all have the right to judge these "parents." The same way we have a right to judge ones who perform other acts of child abuse. There are no reasons or dilemmas here. They must be crazy and selfish as well. When they're dead people aren't going to take on this girl because she is *smaller* than the average disabled person; it's not as if it were a selling point.

I am appalled that anyone would think *we* are in the wrong for calling it as it is: child abuse.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:23 pm

Temporary threadjack, but important-

Hi PomPom! Welcome back!!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:56 pm

I couldn't disagree with you more, Diuretic. This was child abuse, plain and simple. Society MUST judge their actions so that it never happens again. I see absolutely no common sense or intelligent reasoning for having done such a monstrous thing. Did you know girls/women who do not have monthly cycles have a tendency for cancer? Was that in her best interest? It was done for the parents' convenience. I reserve my right to call them as I see them and I hope more people do so this does not become a sickening trend.

PS; my words are harsh but they're not directed at you, Diuretic or anyone else here.

They're only directed at this situation that greatly disturbs me.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:22 pm

Thanks Di.

That's where I see it as selfish on the parents' part- it is their burden and only theirs as she is mentally a baby and wouldn't know any different. My problem (mainly) with this is that it could open up whole news doors that should ever remain sealed. For example, should we cut off the arms and legs of paralyzed people to make it easier to carry them and so they'll weigh less, making it easier on us? They obviously have no use for them so...? That's what I'm thinking of.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:38 pm

9 years old - developing quicker than average, so the parents chose to have the 9 year old go thru surgery.

Makes me worry about Power of Attorney Authority.

Brain Damage disability - Why, what caused this brain damage, how old are the Parents. Is the brain damage drug related, accident ? I'd like to know.

What provisions ( if any) had been made before all this surgery? Long Term Plan?

I'd like to know more info.

Patsy

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:52 pm

Oh, of course the Hosp. would sign - every agency would have to review everything and approve this method of necessity, for a lack of a better term.

Patsy

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:56 pm

Scrat

Yes, I'm appauled - Was the brain damage a pregancy that went wrong or were the parents on drugs, mother didn't take care of herself etc. Do you know?

That adds to the parents state of mind making this decision.

Patsy

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:28 pm

People will be making choices for this child for her entire lifetime, because she will always be a child.

Her parents are the people who lovingly tend to her--all day, every day. They take her places, care for her bodily functions and realize, every day, how heartbreaking her situation is.

Why should this baby go through puberty, female reproductive processes and adult growth, when there is no possible advantage to it? Why go through it when the very fact of that growth will make it more difficult to move her and care for her? Anyone who's been through puberty knows it's sometimes uncomfortable, messy and HORMONAL. Why put her--and her caregivers--through that?

How can I possibly "judge" these parents when it's not my life to care for the baby, nor my finances spent on her behalf? What happens when these parents are too old to care for her? Will it ever matter that she's not physically reproductive?

How can I possibly "judge" the doctors and other responsible people who quietly made this decision?

And why on earth do we care if her parents were on drugs? Are we blaming them? Is it "GOD'S PUNISHMENT?" Should they be required to pay penance?

Let's all walk in their shoes before we get too critical of something that's really not our business.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:29 pm

Scrat

Your saying the parents are "good people" because alot of people know them & they're good people because you heard them speak.

I consider myself a good person - a good person would not approve that surgery.

There has to be other choices/options. They have a cure for a period.

Scrat Do you consider yourself a good person?

Patsy

Somethings wrong with this story..

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:34 pm

I'm still not agreeing with this at all. And I have been a caregiver.

All this talk about who are we to judge- somebody had ought better be judging because this one slipped under the door! I am just disgusted. If they wanted to stunt her growth why not just remove her pituitary gland?!

This was intrustive and I'm still holding out that it was wrong.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:45 pm

Diuretic;506889 wrote: Any of us should have the right to say it's wrong. But none of us should have the right to stop the parents making their decision.

i agree with di here...

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:49 pm

LULU

I'm trying not to judge to quickly.

I want to know - Scrat mentions the brain damage happens after the child was home ??As if ? Children die of Sids with no answer? Brain damage - something contributed that brain damage.?What agencies are providing for this child - do they check in on the family functions? Any violations filed for abuse - or any disturbance? Theres nothing that will answer those questions.

These parents are not squeaky clean - their decision for this surgery is barbaric.

Somethings wrong with this story?

so with what I have to work with - I can't believe anyone would approve these procedures.

Patsy

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:55 pm

Diuretic "But no-one has the right to deny them the ability to make the decision either. To suggest otherwise is to embrace a form of tyranny."

++++++++ Yes...and can we not have loving compassion to understand their situation and give them some assistance? This surgery, accepted by the doctors and their procedures, has been done!

And let's be very honest--these people ARE "good people," because they certainly had other options than to keep this child alive.

Before you disagree, consider that many babies with this kind of horrible condition have been "allowed to die." Her parents want her and continue to keep her in the best condition.

Would any of us want to do the same? If so, would you prefer to manipulate a 75-pound "child," or an adult woman? Before there's a rush to judge them...really think about their lives.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:03 pm

OK, you know I work with Kim..whi has Cerebral palsy, and uses a wheelchair. She needs 100 % assistance with personal care..she is a "full grown adult". Yes it is hard..she is strong, and can pull her self to a standing position, but that is all she is able to do to help out her caregiver. I know that for myself, I am doing the job because I want to....as does her mom, and others who help her get through her day. Would life for her caregivers be "easier" if she was not a "normal" adult size? I do not want to even go there. I took the job because I wanted to work with her..with no thoughts as to what would be easiest. Her family would never had made that choice for her. Most paid caregivers do so because they genuinely want to be there.

If Kim suddenly gains 100 pounds, and beomes "harder" to help? Would I quit, no. I would find another way to help her.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:07 pm

Marie...nobody's saying every situation is the same. I admire you for what you do...and your Kim IS a "full grown adult" which is different, IMHO, from this "pillow angel"...who is and always will be, a mental infant....not a 9-year old...a mental infant.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:07 pm

So, these good parents are all assigned with all agencies available.

That means WE PAID FOR THE BARBARIC DISFIGURMENT.

WE MIGHT AS WELL DECIDE WHAT GOES NEXT - WE'RE BUYING.

PATSY

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:39 pm

Lulu2;506903 wrote:

++++++++ Yes...and can we not have loving compassion to understand their situation and give them some assistance? This surgery, accepted by the doctors and their procedures, has been done!

Um...NO! I cannot and will not give them "loving compassion"- where was theirs?! As for assistance, assistance is open to them was before. Having it already done does not make it right!

And let's be very honest--these people ARE "good people," because they certainly had other options than to keep this child alive.

I'll be honest- these people are crackpots and don't deserve to have this kid or any others. Other options such as what? Suffiocating her in her sleep? What? Their option was to bear their cross. (Pardon the religious overtone.)

Before you disagree, consider that many babies with this kind of horrible condition have been "allowed to die." Her parents want her and continue to keep her in the best condition.

Her parents didn't want her in the condition God made her. So I'm not buying that. It is my opinion that many kids born this way would be better off dead. However as long as she is here, because you can't bloody well kill her (oh hell, that could be next!) they have violated her body with no purpose that would benefit HER. It is about HER. Not them. HER.

Would any of us want to do the same? If so, would you prefer to manipulate a 75-pound "child," or an adult woman? Before there's a rush to judge them...really think about their lives.

Having taken care of my aunt, I am familiar with this.

You know what...if you're faced with it, you do it. In the end when you're wiping someone's butt, how much they weigh means nothing.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:09 pm

Red

touche

Patsy

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:06 am

I'm with you, Diuretic...and done with this thread, too. People seem unwilling to admit that cases differ and this is NOT an adult, sentient person. She's an infant and always will be. She's never going to jump up and go out on a date, get married and want children. THAT is a huge difference. Have a good week!

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:28 pm

If you were interested in this subject, "TIME" magazine (week of Jan. 22) has a good article on it. The doctors who made the decision are interviewed. It seems the child's breasts were removed because her family medical history makes her prone to breast cancer and fibrocystic disease.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:25 pm

As do I...their private decisions are being debated all over the world by people who've never lived in their home or considered their daughter's future.

There were 40 doctors on the ethics committee which made the decision.

I think we can trust that they made the wisest choice.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:51 pm

I don't think we can. Or should. Last time I checked, thinking for oneself was still legal. And if we aren't "permitted" to "judge" these parents, then surely you're not permitted to condemn us for doing so.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:04 pm

I just cannot believe DRs decided by removing the breasts of this child is the wisest option - due to family history.

Then why is the family allowing the Drs to resesatate her?

Patsy

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:18 pm

That question confused me, Patsy. As far as I know, Ashley hasn't needed to be resuscitated. Her parents have kept her alive because they love her and are concerned that she have the best life possible. She will never have children and will never breast feed. She MIGHT have breast cancer/fibrocystic disease. I've known adult women who willingly had double mastectomies because of such a family history.

Here're two paragraphs which might shed some light though...

"Those deploring the treatment as a medical fix for more than one family are watching the direction that Britain is taking. The Royal college of Obstetricians and Gynecology has proposed that doctors openly consider allowing euthansia of the sickest infants, which is legal in the Netherlands. "A very disabled child can mean a disabled family," the college wrote to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and urged that it "think more readically about nonresuscitation, withdrawl of treatment decisions...and active euthansia, as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns."

At least in Ashley's case, however much the doctors debated the proper "management options," they all agreed that hers was a life worth fighting to preserve."

They trusted 40 experts who heard all the facts to make the best decision. So do I.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:22 pm

Lulu2;518116 wrote: As do I...their private decisions are being debated all over the world by people who've never lived in their home or considered their daughter's future.

There were 40 doctors on the ethics committee which made the decision.

I think we can trust that they made the wisest choice.

That type, Di. Lulu's not the only one either, but she's the most recent poster so I quoted her. What I mean to say is I wish we could all have our opinions, unpopular as they may be, on an issue like this without having others imply that we are wrong for being judgemental. It's that attitude I'm having a problem with. That's all.