thoughtful sadness
4 January 2007 16:02![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jrtomhttp://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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 5 January 2007 13:19 (UTC)Having seen severely disabled girls with menstral cycles and with the medicine that blocks them, i honestly believe that a hysterectomy is the kind thing to do. I will not go into the details, but trust me when i say that the side effects are rough for long term use on the drugs and tthe other option is no good for anyone involved, especially the child and the poor bugger who has to clean up.
I read a longer article with a better explanation of the breast removal. They were talking about the child's discomfort because she lies down so much and can't communicate pain. I'm not sure how I'd feel about this in their place, so I can not judge. same with the estrogen.
There are no good options when you child is like that he is lucky to have a stable family who loves her. They end up in foster care a lot or with single parents. There is so much stress on the parents that many simple can't cope with disability that severe. so i don't judge, mostly because I know exactly enough to have an idea of just how hard to deal with it is.