Posted on 11/01/2006 4:38:55 PM PST by Piefloater
IN a controversial treatment, doctors in the US have given a severely disabled child drugs to keep her small and 'manageable' for her parents.
In a report published in a medical journal this month, the doctors described a six-year-old girl with profound, irreversible developmental disability who was given high doses of estrogen to permanently halt her growth so that her parents could continue to care for her at home.
The controversial growth-attenuation treatment, which included hysterectomy, was requested by the child's parents and initiated after careful consultation and review by an ethics committee.
In their report in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, doctors Daniel F. Gunther and Douglas S. Diekema, both at the University of Washington in Seattle, explained the reasoning behind what they hoped would generate healthy debate.
Dr Gunther is at the Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, and Dr Diekema is at the Centre for Pediatric Bioethics.
Caring for children with profound developmental disabilities could be difficult and demanding, they said.
For children with severe combined neurologic and cognitive impairment who are unable to move without assistance, all the necessities of life – dressing, bathing, transporting – must be provided by caregivers, usually parents, and these tasks become increasing difficult, if not impossible, as the child increases in size.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
... which included hysterectomy ...The so-called right-to-death partisans have finally developed an argument that can sway me. Were I this child I would rather die, and die cruelly, than be medically altered for the convenience of my parents.
I'm on drugs. You know what I'm talking about. I like to get small. It's very dangerous for kids, because they get realllly small.
When I read the leader I thought that this would be the kind of pituitary tinkering that would be done in, say, a post-polio situation with a withered leg. All I can really say is... damn.
The hysterectomy is interesting, actually, because if she's as disabled as the article suggests, she's incapable of giving sexual consent. The idea of reproductive rights becomes tangled.
I'd hate to have been on that ethics panel.
I can understand the arguments about the difficulty of caring for a large sized infant (essentially). However, the treatment was such a drastic step to take... I just don't feel comfortable about that.
I do support the parents in getting the girl a hysterectomy. This child may be disabled enough that she may only have brief contact with outsiders, but there are people who prey on the disabled. In addition, they have quite enough to deal with without having to add menstruation to the list.
Major moral absolutes ping (Disgusting)
Who will take care of her when her parents are not able?
what about if you were a deaf child and your parents got you a cochlear implant? That is medically altering the child for, it's true in a sense, the convenience of the parents and family.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
This is sickening!
i disagree. i have worked with severely disabled 12-15 yr
old students. the majority were girls. these teens were
functioning on a preschool level both cognitively and
behaviorally. it was the most physically and emotionally
draining job i have ever had. as their teacher, i was only
responsible for them for the school day. i can appreciate
their parents struggles for the rest of the day, and night.
basic care like toileting, feeding, dressing, mobility and
bathing are incredible challenges for a severely disabled
person and their families.
from the article, it seems like these parents truly want to
care for their daughter and do all they can to keep her at
home with her family instead of in the care of "strangers".
Sickening "bioethics" ping.
This isn't the "convenience" of parents like say... a circumcision.
IMHO, the girl is beyond "severely disabled" as it's often used. The full article states she's mentally an infant and apparently will never ever grow beyond those limitations.
I'm with Leda. I think the parents did the right thing about the hysterectomy (how awful if someone raped her and she became pregnant, which has happened in the past with severely disabled and comatose patients) and I can't help but feel sympathetic to them as they try to care for their daughter themselves.
It's a hard ethical case, but it's not like they took her out back and shot her because she was a burden.
The world's gone medieval.
And there are full-grown adults with similar disabilities and their caregivers are able to take care of them.
I'm shocked that they're "condescending" to keep her alive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.