She is a severely handicapped girl whose parents are trying to keep her small so they will not have to put her in an institution when she is too heavy to care for. I have seen children in places for the profoundly retarded and I understand this. Why can some people (Nancy Grace included) no understand this.
2007-01-16 04:07:17 · 7 answers · asked by Anne2 7 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Toddler & Preschooler
The reason you cite is not the primary reason they elected to do the surgery on their child and to put her on hormonal therapy - the real reason [as stated on their webpage] was that the surgeries would later result in her being much more comfortable...[no menstrual cycle; no super large breasts nor the risk of breast cancer] and lessened probability of bed sores as she will remain light in weight [increased weight provides higher incidence of bed sores]....
I see nothing wrong with the choices they made and as far as Nancy Grace is concerned I stopped paying ANY attention to her during the Aruba disappearance of the young American.
She's a product of 'shock' tv and I cannot justify myself spending time viewing her program.
2007-01-16 04:13:43 · answer #1 · answered by sage seeker 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
One of my husbands cousins is disabled in much the same way. This child is now 17 years old. Her mother now has to have back surgery. The older sister is about 20, has no social life of her own. Dad works 2 jobs to help pay for medical, since they recieve very little in benefits. Everything revolves around taking care of this child. Just last week, she nearly choked to death on a washcloth. Nobody who hasn't been in this situation can possibly imagine what these families go through. If there is any way they can make it easier, then they should go for it!
2007-01-17 10:42:12 · answer #2 · answered by liberpez 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nancy Grace needs to take a long walk off a short pier, that judgemental harpy. Fat lot of nerve she has. Has she ever had to care for someone who's permanantly impaired? Does she know such heartbreak as those poor parents have been dealt?
2007-01-16 13:21:22 · answer #3 · answered by answer faerie, V.T., A. M. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah. I saw this story on the news. I think it is a good idea. They said her mental capacity is that of a 3 month old. The girl will never be able to care for herself, and the family just wants to be able to continue to care for her and not institutionalize her. I don't know why people are having a problem with this. The family is doing a good thing for this child.
2007-01-16 12:13:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I have been following the case... I work with children with disabilities, so it touched me. I can understand the desire to limit hormones so that the child's size does not get too excessive, since bedridden children can gain too much weight. What I do not agree with is removing her breast tissue and uterus. To me, that has nothing to do with the medical reason for stunting her growth. Working with children with extreme disabilities can be taxing, especially if they have very limited motor skills. But I still can't see the necessity to subject this child to surgery that is unnecessary.
2007-01-16 18:26:53 · answer #5 · answered by dolphin mama 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although I would have a very difficult time coming to the same decision, I have to believe that they did what they thought best, and I can't fault them for that. We aren't talking about a person who will ever know the difference. She can't make decisions for herself, will never be able to communicate, and will never be able to care for herself. This is much more different than a person with a slight handicap.
2007-01-16 12:11:13 · answer #6 · answered by Blunt Honesty 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I too understand it and think it is a brilliant idea.
At first, when I heard that story, I cringed but after carefully thinking about it, I changed my mind.
Everyone involved would benifit from keeping her small. She would actually get better care.
I'm all for it.
2007-01-16 12:12:52 · answer #7 · answered by Molly 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋