thoughtful sadness

[jrtom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6229799.stm

I really don't know what to think about this.

I'm generally against surgery that doesn't provide some necessary medical function...but "necessary" can be slippery.

The parents have acknowledged that their child is never going to be mentally more than three months old, and I find myself wondering what I would do if I knew that I was going to have a child with that condition--or if I found out that I already had one (i.e., it wasn't apparent before birth). Especially considering that we all went through that period (of being three months old) at one point.

I don't think that there's anything that could be done with this situation that I'd be satisfied by.

Update: Here is the website that the parents have put up: http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/

Something that occurred to me after the initial flurry of comments (that's come to mind in analogous circumstances before): since Ashley (the child) is expected to have a normal lifespan, her parents are implicitly committing someone else--her siblings, other relatives, the state--to taking care of her once they're gone. This complicates the moral issue still further.

Comments

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Wow, three month old mind perpetually. that alone is hard enough for me to grasp before I even consider the ethical concerns of stunting her growth. I didn't see anything about her life expectancy, that's another thought for me. And should it be normal, what's going to happen to her after her parents die? wouldn't it be easier to find her competent caregivers if she had an adult body at that time? so bizarre.

[gwyd.livejournal.com]

I don't think so. The larger they are the harder they are to care for. It's easier to find caregivers for the cute ones. Yes, this is cynical of me, but when her parents are gone, it will be super hard to find placements if her siblings don't take her. I'm willing to bet in family placement is her best bet generally. Institutional care is a lot worse.