Little Ashley was born with severe brain damage and is unable to sit up, roll over, hold a toy, walk or talk. She can not maintain eye contact, is easily startled, but she’s alert and can smile.
Ashley’s parents feel they can better care for little Ashley if she remains at a manageable size. They often refer to Ashley has their “pillow child.” The parents feel if Ashley remains at her current weight of 65lbs instead of reaching her adult weight of 115lbs, it would be much easier for them to include her in typical family activities, car trips, feeding, bathing and simply caring for her. It will also reduce the chances of her developing bedsores, and other diseases that is usually associated with bed-ridden patients. Also she will not have to experience the discomfort of pending womanhood such as her menstrual or worry about developing breast cancer.
2007-01-08 05:53:18 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-j.GVcRI5fr.N3YUTUdbbUg--;_ylt=Agsj.EZH_UOasi4PuKJUDoCkAOJ3?cq=1
2007-01-08 05:53:54 · update #1
I am a person with a disability. Actually, I have dwarfism and I am about 4 feet tall. My line of work is to help people with disabilities live an independent life.
Personally, I'm unsure what my opinions are on this case. I can see both sides of the situation. If the medical professionals feel that this process will not hurt this person, that would be a plus. There are many people with disabilities as adults who are able to obtain services. There are many services available to help provide personal care.
I agree with what Pearl28 said below, "But if this was being done more to convenience the parents it's wrong." It sounds like there are other medical benefits to this idea. Hopefully if they go through with this, there will not be any complications later on in her life.
2007-01-08 06:02:17 · answer #1 · answered by Erica, AKA Stretch 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a decision for medical professionals to make, but the first thing that crossed my mind when I read the title question is that it is possible that it is in the best interest of the child's health to stunt her growth. If she is indeed so disabled that there is no hope of her ever being able to walk or feed herself, it may be better for her to have a smaller size than for her to have a difficult-to-manage large size, especially if a smaller size can spare her some of the discomforts bedridden patients suffer, as her parents said. As long as it does not further impede her physical and mental abilities, stunting her growth can be seen as a useful medical procedure meant to improve her quality of life in the long run.
I certainly think from what you have told me that Ashley would experience a much happier life if she stayed at a manageable size, while I cannot think of any benefits she would gain from reaching her adult size. This should not be a rule of thumb for general practice, but with Ashley's situation, I think it is best.
2007-01-08 06:04:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is the first time I've heard of this. Stunting her growth for her to be a manageable size seems crazy to me. But wanting her to not have a menstrual or experience what those hormonal changes might due to her in the long run seem to be a valid concern. If the medical advantages for the child outweighed any risk involved I don't think I would be opposed. But if this was being done more to convenience the parents it's wrong.
2007-01-08 06:06:21 · answer #3 · answered by pearl28 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Obviously decisions like this should be taken on a case by case basis. Every hospital has an ethics committee that reviews cases such as this one and decides whether new or unorthodox treatments are ethical. In this case, her parents, her doctors, and the ethics board at the hospital who studied her case all agreed that stunting her growth was the best decision. Those who have committed themselves to caring for her for the rest of her life feel that this is the best thing for her. I, knowing nothing about her case, and being unwilling to dedicate myself to Ashley's care for the next 30 or 40 years, will not be passing judgment.
2007-01-08 06:01:52 · answer #4 · answered by magpie_queen 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure about the legality of the situation, but I'm sure it would be viewed as a necessity for maintaining the childs currrent lifestyle and level of care, which seems to work for the family. I don't see any reason no to do as suggested as long as it is for the benefit of the child.
2007-01-08 06:02:53 · answer #5 · answered by eonquest 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hate to answer a question with another question, but I am curious about how they would go about stunting someones growth. I work with MR individuals and I feel that noone can judge their caregivers because we can not know what they live with everyday and the decisions they have to make.
2007-01-15 06:31:37 · answer #6 · answered by ROBIN M 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it is not. It oppresses her from reaching the fullness of her ability to achieve. If they need assistance, the community owes them assistance to help care for the person. It is not moral for one human to cause another to forgo the natural experience of adulthood or the risks it carries. This is a pass the buck lack of care for her.
2007-01-14 03:05:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Man that's a tough question, i just wonder if its ever been done before and if the doctors have done enough research on this matter, and if that procedure alone could have a negative effect on the child.
2007-01-15 20:31:33 · answer #8 · answered by LifeFromAir 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read about that a couple days ago and I am really not sure how I feel about it. I think what they did may be a little extreme but I can understand why they did it. Lots of people are saying its unethical though.
2007-01-08 05:57:40 · answer #9 · answered by Pro-America, Anti-Illegal 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think letting nature take its course is the best thing to do. however, for her parents it's a tough job no matter what.
2007-01-08 05:59:24 · answer #10 · answered by curious_One 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋