Parents defend decision to keep disabled girl small

Hildy,

You're correct on the compassion issue. There are a lot of what people consider "moral grey areas" where they feel free to judge without having a clue as to what they are speaking of. Opinions are like as##$les.....

By the way, I would imagine the feeding tube is a permanent one, in the stomach or intestine instead of the mouth.

An ethics board found their request reasonable. No ethics board is going to find the amputation of limbs to keep a child small reasonable, and you know it.

This is a non-sequitor. In the past, ethics boards have found no ethical implications in partial-birth abortion and sterilization of the disabled.

Keeping a child small by performing an elective hysterectomy, removing "almond sized" breasts and administering hormones is not at all the same thing as amputating limbs so cut the hyperbole.

The removing of the child's uterous and breasts was premised upon the fact that these organs were useless to her and and allowed her to grow normally, which, in turn served as an inconvenience to her parents. According to this article, this child's arms and legs are useless to her as well, and it is obvious that these useless appendages only serve to make her heavier and more cumbersome for her parents. Therefore, given your logic, it would be acceptable for the parents to electively remove her limbs as well. And if your argument is that a complete hysterectomy is not major surgery without its risks, then I suggest you speak with women who have suffered injuries to their intestines or bladder, both of which are known risks for any complete hysterectomy.

Speaking of which, calling people with compassion "nazis" makes you sound like just another lib.

I call it like I see it. Recklessly performing surgery upon another living human being to purposely stunt that person's growth for convenience sake only reeks of the work of Himmler and Mengele.

The major point you are missing is that it is not for the "convenience sake only". The ability of the parents to care for this child will be enhanced by her smaller stature. You also fail to realize the mind of this child and the environment she sees. Her happiness is simple--close physical contact, being held, kissed, all of these things will continue to be possible.

The ethics board, far from perfect I'm sure, found this reasonable because in their judgement would result in a higher quality of life.

As far as you "calling it as you see it", what expertise do you have in this area?

They are hardly selfish reasons. Obviously, you haven't had a long stay in the hospital or ever cared for a handicapped child.

When I was seven I was in a very serious accident which required me to be hospitalized for several months. When my parents couldn't be at the hospital, I had very little stimulation or interaction with other people. I laid in bed and developed blood filled sores all over my legs. I couldn't wait to get out of the hospital. When I did finally get home, I was in a full body-cast and even though I was a little girl, it was quite a chore for people to lift me. If I had been older when the accident happened, my parents definitely would not have been able to care for me the way they did -- surrounded by friends and family and not strangers.

It's easy to say what you would do or would not do in this situation until you are actually in it and have to make tough choices.

The ability of the parents to care for this child will be enhanced by her smaller stature.You also fail to realize the mind of this child and the environment she sees. Her happiness is simple--close physical contact, being held, kissed, all of these things will continue to be possible.

So then I suppose you would support the parents if they chose to amputate her limbs since she would be unaware of her condition as a result of her "simple" mindset. I believe this same argument was used when Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that compulsory sterilization of "imbeciles" was constitutional in the case Buck v. Bell.

My "calling it as I see it" was in reference to Nazis. One of my majors in college was history. Is that expertise enough for you?

No, it's not. Appropriate expertise would be in the field of medicine, or being a parent or close relative of a child with severe disabilities. You continue to prove your ignorance by citing immoral acts in history which are not relevant here.

No, I wouldn't support the amputation of limbs. It is the continued hope of parents in this situation that they will be able to continue therapy and somehow increase mobility somewhat. Even though she cannot use her limbs in a conventional fashion she can be stimulated by touch, and can be comforted by someone holding her hand. This is another part of her disability which results in an increased dependence on the senses she has, even at a limited rate.

You've significantly lowered the level of this thread by continuing to argue a point for the sake of argument.

Once again, God gives special children to special people. I'm glad you're not one of them.

No, it's not. Appropriate expertise would be in the field of medicine, or being a parent or close relative of a child with severe disabilities.

Oh. I guess I am not allowed to have an opinion as to any issues regarding bioethics and that such issues, including abortion, should merely be left to doctors, nurses and others involved in healthcare. What complete drivel.

No, I wouldn't support the amputation of limbs. It is the continued hope of parents in this situation that they will be able to continue therapy and somehow increase mobility somewhat. Even though she cannot use her limbs in a conventional fashion she can be stimulated by touch, and can be comforted by someone holding her hand. This is another part of her disability which results in an increased dependence on the senses she has, even at a limited rate.

The article conveys none of these points and sets forth that the parents chose to stunt their daughter's growth through elective surgery and hormone treatments predominantly for mobility and convenience purposes. If you argue that these elective surgeries were proper when merely serving a purely convenience function, then you cannot rule out the possibility of other elective surgeries, such as amputation, to be thrust upon one at the whim of another for the sake of mere "convenience."

I'm sick of arguing this point. Now go back to reading Sanger's biography or whatever it is that gives you the idea that people have the right to arbitrarily decide to remove the body parts of others less fortunate under the guise of "convenience."

"You lose on the compassion issue on this one. The problem with you is that you only see black and white. Life is not like that. Playing God? The minute a tube was stuck down this girl's throat God was out of it. Thank God she has people who love her and people like you aren't in charge."

I do see right and wrong very clearly. What I have learned in life is that those nasty "grey" areas really don't exist. "Grey" areas are seen by those that don't want to pay the price of doing what is right so they muddy the facts to suit their self centered agenda.

Yes, I agree when the feeding tube for CONVENIENCE was stuck down her throat, that was the first step on the slippery slope of selfish CONVENIENCE.

These people don't "love" her. They just don't know what to do with her. So they've decided to keep her around but in a more CONVENIENT form - small. I don't see compounding this misguided "compassion" as the way to go through making her permanently "small". Wrong is wrong. More wrong, only makes it more wrong and despicable.

To highlight my disgust with these uncaring and uncompassionate "parents" I go back to my original suggestion ... since these cold parents have come this far ... feeding tube, wanting to keep her small for sonvenienve ... WHY stop THERE?

Amputate her limbs too!

Then the little angel couldn't possibly get "bed sores" there and she'd be even lighter and even smaller. If they didn't like the end result they could always keep the covers UP, so they wouldn't have to view what they did on a daily basis.

Who I really feel sorry for is this little girl subjected to such heinous parents who are so selfish they can't see straight. They are shocked that others see through this sham. They really don't get it. They're looking for support to ease their conscience?

As technology moves forward with ADULT stem cells, who is to say this couldn't help this little girl? Instead they dwarf her, ensuirng that she cannot live a normal life, on this earth. How nice. How "compassionate".

Eugenic folks would be glowing with pride at how these "parents" handle a sad situation.

"You lose on the compassion issue on this one. The problem with you is that you only see black and white. Life is not like that. Playing God? The minute a tube was stuck down this girl's throat God was out of it. Thank God she has people who love her and people like you aren't in charge."

I do see right and wrong very clearly. What I have learned in life is that those nasty "grey" areas really don't exist. "Grey" areas are seen by those that don't want to pay the price of doing what is right so they muddy the facts to suit their self centered agenda.

Yes, I agree when the feeding tube for CONVENIENCE was stuck down her throat, that was the first step on the slippery slope of selfish CONVENIENCE.

These people don't "love" her. They just don't know what to do with her. So they've decided to keep her around but in a more CONVENIENT form - small. I don't see compounding this misguided "compassion" as the way to go through making her permanently "small". Wrong is wrong. More wrong, only makes it more wrong and despicable.

To highlight my disgust with these uncaring and uncompassionate "parents" I go back to my original suggestion ... since these cold parents have come this far ... feeding tube, wanting to keep her small for sonvenienve ... WHY stop THERE?

Amputate her limbs too!

Then the little angel couldn't possibly get "bed sores" there and she'd be even lighter and even smaller. If they didn't like the end result they could always keep the covers UP, so they wouldn't have to view what they did on a daily basis.

Who I really feel sorry for is this little girl subjected to such heinous parents who are so selfish they can't see straight. They are shocked that others see through this sham. They really don't get it. They're looking for support to ease their conscience?

As technology moves forward with ADULT stem cells, who is to say this couldn't help this little girl? Instead they dwarf her, ensuirng that she cannot live a normal life, on this earth. How nice. How "compassionate".

Eugenic folks would be glowing with pride at how these "parents" handle a sad situation. They play god all the time. Now I see support for it from the public at large - this is "compassion" gone awry. Wait and see, there will be more of this ... mutilating their own for convenience and then wanted to be embraced for it. SICK people!

I feel so sad for you. Someone suggested I pray for you. Ordinarily, I would scoff at that. But in your case, I'll make an exception because you just seem like a very unhappy and deeply disturbed individual.

"I feel so sad for you. Someone suggested I pray for you. Ordinarily, I would scoff at that. But in your case, I'll make an exception because you just seem like a very unhappy and deeply disturbed individual."

Skip the feigned concern over me. It just has YOU looking small.

What a lame excuse for a reply back to me. Ah yes,

"I'll make an exception because you just seem like a very unhappy and deeply disturbed individual."

Classic name calling to have YOU feel better about YOURSELF. It didn't make you superior. It only pointed our your inferior judgment.

I'm glad I don't have to resort to self serving responses. The reason YOU do this is because YOU cannot justify your position so you need to feel better about YOURSELF.

Well, you go ahead. Pray, Dance in the street. Carry signs that keeping helpless little girls "small" with feeding tubes is "compassionate". Hang out with pro abortion people. They'll prop you up on days when reality gets in the way - that keeping a little girl "small" for CONVENIENCE is very wrong. It always will be. See, I don't have to call YOU names. I just state it is WRONG.

Hildy, you and I see things very differently. You were all for Terry, in Florida to be starved to death. You saw that as "compassionate" too. I don't. I see that as perverted, legalized murder. It's WRONG. Any situation like Terry who is starved to death is WRONG - to starve them to death because they are "inconvenient".

You stand out in my mind during the Terry situation in Florida because you became so emotional and no one could reason with you. The same is true now.

Hildy, I've got better things to do with my time today. There is no getting through to you. You've made up your mind using the SAME justifications that you did for Terry's murder.

Have a nice day!

I know I will. There is something satisfying about standing UP for what is RIGHT instead of stepping DOWN and defending what is WRONG as you are doing.

precisely right. Fox news blog, today, has a bioethics DEBATE on this very case. a debate, by definition, means there are two sides to it. it is VITAL that situations such as these be debated and fully examined by those in similar situations, and by those who merely are HUMAN with no similar experience. how are we to keep our society from sliding directly down into the toilet if we innoculate all manner of immorality/unethical behavior from criticism by saying WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE? i am not saying the parents are unethical or immoral, i am saying that the subject is one that requires debate, as there are valid considerations on both sides.

I rest my case.

Thanks for the links!

I'm in the process of having to educate our staff about decubs and wounds, even though we have a healthier, more ambulatory population, we are seeing them occur!

It's not my area of expertise, other than 15 years in LTC and seeing what they are and what they can do....

Hildy, I got back to work but still had YOU on my mind... I don't think you are a "bad" person. Most liberals aren't but when it comes to issues like this, their emotions get the better of them and they lose track of right and wrong.

I recall you're Jewish. I'm not. I'm a Bible based Christian. When I think of different people in the Bible ... who were ill and how tenderly they were cared for with God's blessings ... I see NO reason why God would us to further damage a little girl for the sake of convenience.

Christs' death was hardly a convenience for Him. The human part of Him didn't want any parts of it, yet He complied with it. It was LOVE that got Him through it and kept Him on that cross. When He gives us a child that is less than perfect, the same love and care is required from us in caring for someone that He loves. When you DO properly care for someone who is less than perfect in a SELFLESS manner, the blessings come - perhaps because it is rare that people today are SELFLESS.

God created this little girl for a reason ... I believe He may be testing these folks ... they're taking the CONVENIENT way out. It's no wonder they are desperately seeking consolation. Perhaps they have a conscience after all. One can only hope they do before they go further with this little one.

I find it very interesting that EMBRYNIC stem cell research after 25 years has yielded NOTHING. I don't think that is a coincidence - using fertilized eggs, little humans to satisfy someone who doesn't care how they are helped. I don't find it at all surprising that ADULT stem cells are working small miracles out there. Perhaps this could have helped this little girl? No, it was more convenient to now have her permanently "small" for their convenience. They prefer to play god. THAT is what is saddest about THIS situation ... so much promise and they guaranteed her a life of abnormality.

Nasal tubes are temporary and are risky for aspiration.

The girl more than likely has a PEG in place, which required
surgery to place directly into her stomach....

Which was an invasive procedure too....

Hmmmm...

Excuse me...show me please where you see "so much promise" with this little girl? I'll be waiting.

There are a lot of what people consider "moral grey areas" where they feel free to judge without having a clue as to what they are speaking of. Opinions are like as##$les.....

By the way, I would imagine the feeding tube is a permanent one, in the stomach or intestine instead of the mouth.

Do you have some specific knowledge of this case in particular regarding the feeding tube are are you interjecting one of your opinions?

I my experience,
angel harps don't play and rays of sunlight don't stream through windows when the 'right' decision is made. Most of the time, it's making the best choice out of a lot of bad ones....

The world isn't marshmallow cream and happy dreams. Its about ugly and pain and sadness and hurt....and somehow, in the middle of all this, these parents made a choice.

Hell, they chose to put a feeding tube in her (no one is grousing about THAT surgical procedure). They could have let her develop aspiration pneumonia via NG feedings and she would have died sooner.

Even sooner if they had opted not to feed her at all, since oral intake isn't possible.

HECK, even better.... just let her get big enough and get one good septic decub....she'd be dead by her teens.

Seems to me like these folks from the beginning not only have wanted her to live, but live as comfortably and healthily as possible. With them and in their care.

Unlike many of the sanctimonious morons I'm reading here.