Severely disabled girl undergoes treatment to stay small
Categories: Just For Moms, Just For Dads, Media
I'm curious to know what you think about this story. The parents of a disabled six-year-old girl sought and obtained permission to medically stop her from growing into adulthood. The treatment, called growth-attenuation, included a hysterectomy and high doses of estrogen. The girl is one of three children of a well-educated, caring couple. (Her siblings are healthy.) She smiles and vocalizes when interacting with her family, and they love her very much. They stopped her growth because they feared that as she became bigger they wouldn't be able to care for her in their home.
It's a heartbreaking story, and I think I understand, as much as a total outsider is able to, why they decided to keep her small. It is, admittedly, a shocking story, though. I thought about it all day before I was able to tell just what I thought about it. Straight away I understood the parents' intent and desire to keep their daughter in their care. That made sense to me. But part of me wonders about the precedent being set, and how the patient's rights and health fit into the puzzle of it all.
The news article I referred to says that the doctors who wrote this report are hoping it will spark a good debate about the subject. So, what do you think? Do you think this is ethical medical treatment, or does it give you enough pause to make you think it is going too far?
Recent Posts
- Graco Recalls More Than 1 Million High Chairs After Hundreds Topple (3/18/2010)
- Win, Lose, or Draw (3/18/2010)
- Amy Poehler and Will Arnett Expecting Baby #2 (3/18/2010)
- Will a Namesake Bring Back Bad Memories? (3/18/2010)
- Diaper Basics 101 - Cloth or Disposable? (3/18/2010)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ginny 11-02-2006 @ 3:17PM
I admit, I have no idea what they go thru, but that sounds a bit selfish.
Reply
Jacqueline 11-02-2006 @ 4:04PM
How could this possibly be considered ethical?? Probably all kids would be easier to take care of if they were kept small and not allowed to go through puberty, but being allowed to grow up seems to me to be a basic human right.
Reply
Christine 11-02-2006 @ 4:43PM
I dont understand how this is ethical either.
Reply
LS 11-02-2006 @ 5:23PM
We have a member of our family who is considered "severely" retarded. This means that he functions at roughly a 5-year-old level, even though he is in his 60's. He is an integral part of our family, and we all pitch in to help, although his primary care falls to the school where he lives, and to my parents-in-law.
Our uncle has some very serious issues, from countless meds that he must take daily to personal tasks, such as bathing and shaving. We adapt. We help. He does what he can, and we help when he can't. I can't imagine him any other way.
I think that having this "procedure" done to this little girl is akin to the dark ages, when they used the "crazies" as medical experiments. It was done for completely selfish reasons, and I can't believe that any self-respecting doctor would actually condone, let alone, perform, such surgery. They don't want to deal with menstruation? Give me a break! What do they do when she has diarrhea, or gets an illness that causes her to vomit? Sorry to be so graphic, but life is messy.
Reply
thordora 11-02-2006 @ 8:32PM
Take that one step further LS, and what happens when they decide they'd be better off with her dead.
ick. Unethical. They won't tie a woman's tubes when she asks unless she's had X amount of kids and/or is over a certain age, but they're stunt a person's growth.
Oh wait, she's developmentally disabled, so she can't sue. perfect!
Ick.
Reply
Violet 11-04-2006 @ 4:03AM
Sure, it sounds icky and unnatural - but that itself isn't enough reason to condemn it. I think I can understand the parents' reasoning. They want to be able to keep looking after their child, something which could become a huge problem when the parents are much older and less physically able to lift her etc. They may be demonstrating a lack of faith in the country's health system, but that wouldn't be completely unfounded, would it?
Reply
VL 11-02-2006 @ 10:20PM
That is just so wrong. I can't imagine this isn't a human rights violation of some sort.
Reply
Cheryl 11-02-2006 @ 10:49PM
I think it's easy to pass judgment on this situation if you aren't in it. Personally I can't imagine having a child who would never surpass the mental capacity of an infant. I just can't sit here with a perfectly healthy child and insult these people and their decision without knowing what it is like to live their life. I would like to hope that her parents and a panel of ethicists are in fact considering the interests of the child in the decision they are making. Does that make it right? I don't know. I'm glad I am not in their shoes.
Reply
thordora 11-03-2006 @ 8:20AM
It's not so much the people Cheryl-like Ginny had said, we aren't them.
It's the precendent that it would set. They once sterilized the "mentally unfit" for their own good in the US and Canada.
Just because it makes someone's life easier, doesn't make it ethical or right to do. I would much rather see someone put their child in an institution if they cannot handle them than screw with their body like this.
Reply