Surgery to Stunt Girl's Growth Sparks Debate - AOL News

Is it okay for parents to stunt their childs growth through surgery to make her more manageable in life as a mentally challenged individual?

I am severely divided on this issue. On one hand, how can we dictate what these parents decide to do? Ultimately this it is their decision, and if we start to dictate things like this now it could turn into a slippery slope. The best thing to do would learn from this if you are against it and make sure your child never went through anything like this.

On the other hand I am personally sickened. Instead of trying to help their daughter they decided to do what makes it easier for them not her. Maybe a doctor should remove this woman's uterus and cut off the man's penis so that neither one can ever reproduce and be put in the position of having a child that doesn't meet their qualifications? Are these people doing any of this out of love but rather out of selfishness? It's hard for me to tell, really (which is indeed why I'm so divided). They are not allowing this young child to grow into the person that was intended. So caring for a mentally handicapped child might be difficult - but that is what life threw at them. Are these people wanting a cop-out escape from the responsibilities of life? If so, isn't that quite the microcosm of many of America's problems?

If these people do have other children I wonder if when the parents are old and need to be cared for that their children will seek out a doctor willing to put them to sleep so that the kids don't have to deal with their aging parents problems such as Alzheimers or Dementia.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

The story I heard said that it was actually going to benefit the girl very much. It would make her max out at around 75 pounds which would make her more capable of going out and actually doing stuff instead of lying in a bed all day. It was also said that this procedure would prolong her life. It will make it easier for her parents to deal with her, but IMO they are doing it more for her benefit than their own. If it makes the the difference between her being able to go to picnics and other activities or having to lay in bed and crap in a bag all day I would say go ahead and let her get the operation.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

They said in the story you posted that she will never hit puberty and will essentially remain a child. So did they youthenize her? I know thats horrible but I couldn't resist. If I were in that position I would want my parents to euthenize me.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

This is a tough one. However, I think they are doing what they feel is best for her as well as themselves. She will never have a good "quality of life" as it is. She is pretty much a vegetable. She can not move, talk, walk, or ... do anything.
They have stunted her growth, removed her uterus and removed her breast buds. The fact of the matter is, this girl will never be able to take care of herself. Another sad fact is that her parents will not always be around to take care of her and after they are gone, she will need constant care and supervision from another person. Yet another sad fact is that there are plenty... PLENTY.. of sick people out there who would do/do/have done disgusting things to people who are incapable of taking care of themselves. There is no need for this girl to have breasts or a uterus as she will never use them for her own pleasure and, when her parents are gone, they may serve as nothing more than a burden (#1. no menstruation and the cramping, bleeding, discomfort that goes along with it. #2. no breasts which, guys, can be heavy and uncomfortable, #3. no uterus so if she is ever taken advantage of, will prevent her from getting pregnant.).

In the old days she would simply fade away due to lack of medical advances to allow her to survive. But this is 2007 where everyone wants to keep everyone else alive, even if their lives are literally worth nothing. I understand completely wanting to keep a loved one alive. So... we have to let them do what they think is right. They are not doing what they are doing to hurt her and the girl will NEVER know it anyway. She does not need to develop in to a woman and I don't think it's a bad idea, if they INSIST on doing everything they can to keep her alive for however long, for them to ensure that she never has those discomforts and never gets pregnant if anything should ever happen to her along the way.

__________________

Good points. I guess like I said earlier, it is their decision to make and nobody should infringe on it. I am always a bit uncomfortable with these types of playing with the structure of life type situations. Maybe I was painting with too broad of a brush here. Well put FRY, izzibeth.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

I guess mom and pop can also dress her up as a Lawn Gnome in the warm weather of Spring and prop her up in the garden right next to the plastic pink flamingoes and the tire planter with the ferns inside?

Appendix removal because she has a 5% chance of appendicitis? What other organs might they decide to remove "just in case"?

If her legs might get sores and atrophy, will they amputate?

Her arms? It would stop her from flailing her arms and maybe hurting someone.

And this child is being subjected to an untested high dose hormone regimen. She is essentially being used as a guinea pig.

Well, in my opinion, she should not be forced to remain living in the state that she is in. But... with euthanasia laws, we leave people little choice. They want to keep her alive. They really have no choice but to keep her alive because they are not allowed to let her die. They KNOW that she will develop into a woman with breasts (who knows how large) and a uterus. Her uterus would bleed once a month, possibly causing cramps ranging from mild to severe (which she would not understand.. and believe me... i understand severe cramping). As her breasts developed, they would become sore, uncomfortable, and possibly painful... and when they were fully developed, since she lies around all day, they would most likely become a burden. Now... her parents are taking care of her now.. but when they pass on, who knows who will be taking care of her. With a working, intact uterus.. if someone raped her, #1. that person might be able to get away with it countless times as this girl is essentially a vegetable and would not be able to tell anyone, #2. she might become pregnant. There is no reason for her to, #1. have a period and #2. have a working uterus that could cause her to become pregnant if someone took advantage of her.

This is not an easy decision for anyone. As I said, there is no reason to keep this girl alive in the first place. They say "quality of life" when there is none to begin with. If she CAN think.. she is trapped in that body and has no way of expressing herself. I don't know the girl but, I do not believe this to be a Stephen Hawking scenario. That being said... her parents want her to live/they have no choice but to keep her alive... they want to take care of her themselves (and I don't blame them) for as long as they can.. they want to improve her "quality of life" as well as make their own lives easier since they are forced to take care of her until she passes away or they do. The doctors had to be consulted in order to have these procedures done and they believed it to be best as well. What else would we have them do?

__________________

"Because she might get raped and become pregnant" is not a reason to permanently make someone sterile.

"Because it’s easier to carry her around" is not a compelling reason to permanently stunt someone’s growth.

"Because I can't imagine wanting to live like that" is not a reason to take someone's life.

1. Her parents should make sure she doesn’t get sexually assaulted, instead of having her uterus removed so they’ll never know if she does. If the only way they know that their child has been sexually assaulted is if she gets pregnant, the problems lie not with the child but with the parents. It also needs to be pointed out that just because someone isn’t going to use their uterus, it doesn’t mean someone else has the right to cut it out of their body, without consent.

2. Cognitive ability is not the same thing as lived experience. Someone may not be able to read, but it doesn’t mean they can’t feel, communicate, experience pleasure as well as pain, and live.

3. All of her organs were functioning; her tissues were functioning. This child's life was not in danger. To subject a child to invasive surgery and highly expirimental drug regimens to make her a little more manageable for her parents is child abuse. The truth is that these were not life saving procedures and were therefore unnecessary. That means it was done for someone's convenience. It certainly wasn't Ashley's.

It's a tough call either way, but I'm a believer that things are the way they are for a reason only mother nature can explain. I don't agree with people tring to play god.

__________________
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine

Military might doesn't make up for political stupidity.

I wonder if the parents are seeking Brownie points for not simply “putting her away”? Maybe they could get an authentic Princeton professor to argue for that?

Have we heard from the folks who valiantly oppose clitorectomy for African girls? Or perhaps something about societies who bind girls’ feet or extend their necks or is this considered more like orthodontistry?