Treatment keeps girl child-sized

[CannonFodder]

Interesting.......

I'm inclined to side with the parents on this one.

[PMC]

I saw this and was shocked and horrified.

But then I thought about it a little longer...  It's not as if the girl is able to comprehend the world around her in the same manner as Helen Keller (who was blind, deaf and mute) for example, her motor responses are severely limited and she has the equivalent mental development of a three year old.  

Then there is the issue of long term care, can her parents pick and carry her as they age and she grows heavier?  Is she equipped to deal with the emotional traumas of puberty with such limited mental development?

Sure it's drastic, but it seems to be without precident thus far.  I can't say I'm in favour but I understand the reasoning of her parents.

[nadoom]

i dont want to pass judgement on these people. Having recently had a baby girl and now understood the amount of love and protection a parent feels for their child, im sure in their hearts they feel it is the right choice.

This couple seem to be coping with their childs disability when many would have given up.

As with most 'advances' in medicine, ethics are coming more and more complicated. I think what is the most important thing to bare in mind is that it is the child who must come first not the parents.

[odin]

 :-o

Disgusting and apalling. The removal of organs?!

Ashley has no need for her uterus since she will not be bearing children," they said, adding that the decision means she will not experience the menstrual cycle and the bleeding and discomfort commonly associated with it.

...

Seems to be a very slippery slope where this is concerned.

[bloodline]

It does make you wonder why they don't just let this child die and start a new one... A new one is likely to be much more healthy, have a greater quality of life and require less resources.

Still if they can afford it I won't complain.



I think I've been watching too much Futurama recently...

[PMC]

Agreed on one respect, I am very much against invasive surgery especially in the case of removing organs from a person's body who can't protest.  It's pretty deplorable to me.

However, it does guarantee a certain degree of her personal dignity, although my own take is that she could be prescribed a regular contraceptive injection which prevents her menstral cycle anyway, whilst avoiding invasive surgery.  

[CannonFodder]

It does make you wonder why they don't just let this child die and start a new one...

I am not aware the child is on lifesupport machines, so I would imagine she won't "die" unless "helped".

[motorollin]

I can see both sides of this argument. On one hand they want the child to have the best possible quality of life, but on the other the child has rights just like any other.

I think that as long as what they are doing is legal, then the moral decision is their business and nobobody else's.

--
moto

[Cymric]

Perfectly sensible and laudable actions which are very-well thought-out, and the next-best thing to euthanasia. The child will never properly understand like an adult what is happening to her or why she is receiving this particular treatment: her parents obviously want to continue to take care of her without undue stress for their child as well as themselves. It is in fact the comment of Agnes Fletcher which pissed me off:

... But Agnes Fletcher of the UK's Disability Rights Commission said is was "unnecessary medical treatment to deal with what is essentially a social problem", referring to "the poverty and lack of support" faced by families with disabled children. ...

which is complete and utter bull. I really don't feel the need to go out and 'care' for this girl; that's just window dressing to rank up the ole' karma piggy bank, while still leaving the parents with years of hard care which will never cease, nor be noticably appreciated in any way by the patient herself. Her parents thought about the consequences of children becoming adults, and acted on the logical conclusions---that shows a level of commitment that deserves far greater respect than idle talk about the child having rights too, lack of general support, and what not.

[CannonFodder]

Cymric wrote:
Perfectly sensible and laudable actions which are very-well thought-out, and the next-best thing to euthanasia. The child will never properly understand like an adult what is happening to her or why she is receiving this particular treatment: her parents obviously want to continue to take care of her without undue stress for their child as well as themselves. It is in fact the comment of Agnes Fletcher which pissed me off:

... But Agnes Fletcher of the UK's Disability Rights Commission said is was "unnecessary medical treatment to deal with what is essentially a social problem", referring to "the poverty and lack of support" faced by families with disabled children. ...

which is complete and utter bull. I really don't feel the need to go out and 'care' for this girl; that's just window dressing to rank up the ole' karma piggy bank, while still leaving the parents with years of hard care which will never cease, nor be noticably appreciated in any way by the patient herself. Her parents thought about the consequences of children becoming adults, and acted on the logical conclusions---that shows a level of commitment that deserves far greater respect than idle talk about the child having rights too, lack of general support, and what not.

I couldn't agree more.

[the_leander]

Seconded.

[leema1290]

static encephalopathy (the little girl's condition) is basically permanent or un-changing brain damage.

What happens if, in the next ?? years, there is a medical breakthrough and brains can be repared. Now this wouldn't suddenly give everyone an IQ of 180, but it would definately enable Ashley to grow and learn.
She'd be slightly annoyed, a few years down the line, to learn what her parents have done to her body.

I'm not saying that what the parents have done is wrong, just lacks hope.

[the_leander]

leema1290 wrote:
static encephalopathy (the little girl's condition) is basically permanent or un-changing brain damage.

What happens if, in the next ?? years, there is a medical breakthrough and brains can be repared. Now this wouldn't suddenly give everyone an IQ of 180, but it would definately enable Ashley to grow and learn.
She'd be slightly annoyed, a few years down the line, to learn what her parents have done to her body.

I'm not saying that what the parents have done is wrong, just lacks hope.

By that same token, what if in the next few years there is a breakthrough at the same time to rebuild organs?

Utimately one can live in hope, but that is a poor substitute for reality. They have made the best desision they could with the information they have now. Praying for some miricle (scientific or otherwise) is a fools course in cases such as this and would most likely end in heartache for all involved.