Surgery to stunt girl’s growth sparks debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter tkdnick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tkdnick

Guest
Below is the link to an article about some parents who have had their child’s growth stunted so that they can “more easily” take care of her. How sad. How awful!!

msnbc.msn.com/id/16473471/
 
Who are we to decide the size, weight, etc., etc. of our children in order to make it easier on us??? I can’t even believe people would consider this! I don’t even know how they got the idea in the first place!
 
tkdnick said:
Who are we to decide the size, weight, etc., etc. of our children in order to make it easier on us??? I can’t even believe people would consider this! I don’t even know how they got the idea in the first place!
Click to expand...
Probably the same way people got the idea to kill an unborn child. You forget its “a choice”.
 
My brother-in-law had Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy. He was in a wheelchair by the time he was 7. By the time he was 16, he was 5’9" and weighed at least 170 pounds. This made it very difficult to do anything with him. Simple things that we take for granted, like going to the toilet - he had to be lifted from his wheelchair and onto the toilet, or taking a bath - again lifting from the chair to the bath, and out of the bath while wet and slippery. He was unable to assist with the lifting at all and was a completely limp dead-weight. My MIL went against all medical recommendations in keeping him at home because he was so difficult to deal with when he got bigger. This difficult refers only to how physically hard it was to move him around. It meant that not just anyone could help him since they had to know how to lift and be physically capable of it. I was lucky that he never had to ‘go’ when I was left with him on my own cause I don’t think I could have managed it at his size. (BTW - I really really miss him. He died in 1979, just shy of his 22nd birthday and I still grieve.)

While I don’t know if I would do the same as these parents, I can see their point. They want to keep their girl at home with them in the loving environment which they want to give her and don’t feel that they are physically capable of handling her if she were bigger. If they were thinking only of themselves and their ease, they would put her in some institution where they wouldn’t have to do anything for her at all, just leave her to the ‘professionals’. This would be much easier on them than dealing with a completely disabled child/adult for the rest of their lives.
 
Don’t mean to sound like a snot-nose, but there’s already another thread about this issue here. 🙂
 
rascal_one said:
Probably the same way people got the idea to kill an unborn child. You forget its “a choice”.
Click to expand...
I agree, there was another thread about parent’s deliberately selecting embryos with disabilities because they wanted a disabled child who was similar to them.

I believe that this is a disgrace and the doctors who performed this procedure should have their medical licenses revoked.
 
I do walk in the same shoes as these parents as I not only have a daughter in a similar condition, but mine is in a worst state, will be more difficult to care for at home, and I have second child with special needs as well to care for.

However, objective morality cannot simply use circumstances to justify an immoral act. The Church teaches that it is an “error judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances which supply their context.” (CCC, 1756)

These medical interventions are addressed by the Church and “[e]xcept when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.” (CCC, 2297). “Therapeutic” is “of or pertaining to the treating or curing of disease; curative.” (Dictionary.com, 2007).

First, these medical interventions DO NOT treat her disease, but attempt to alleviate a social defect in our inability to adequately support this family in their home care of this child (which is the goal specified in the cited Pediatrics and Adolescence Medicine Journal). Her brain dysfunction is a consequence of original sin and should be treated, but her normal growth is part of the grand design of the human body.

Second, the parents admit in the blog itself that their reasoning is “intuitive” and that “we do not know of a study to reference that provides us with an objective and quantitative understanding of these benefits.” (Ashley Treatment, 2007). Even the abstract of the one medical journal cited only hypothesizes a benefit (“home care”), but establishes no quantitative framework to provide a statistical justification for such a medical intervention. (Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2007).

Third, while I’m not a theologian, I would argue that these acts commit the gnostic heresy that implies we are spiritual creatures merely trapped in our bodies. While 70% of Americans claim to be Christian, they often forget that we believe in a physical resurrection. Humans are both physical and spiritual creatures, incomplete without the other, and to deliberate mutilate the physical is to rob one of the inherit dignity as a complete human person.

Finally, it comes to no surprise that the parents now feel like “heroes” after receiving the number of public comments that they were “courageous” (Ashley Treatment, 2007). This is pure doublespeak to assign courage to indviduals who 1. only made this public after they committed the sin (and only because of a research article) and 2. continue to remain anonymous. They are hiding just as Adam and Eve did in the garden after eating from the forbidden tree.

References​

Unisted States Catholic Conference, Inc. (1994). English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.
Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. (2007). therapeutic. Retrieved January 6, 2007 from dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=therapeutic.
Anonymous. (January 3, 2007). The Ashley Treatment. Retrieved January 6, 2007 from ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com.
Gunther, Daniel F. and Diekema, Douglas S. (2006). Attenuating Growth in Children With Profound Developmental Disability. Retrieved January 6, 2007 from archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/160/10/1013.
 
StephanieC said:
Don’t mean to sound like a snot-nose, but there’s already another thread about this issue here. 🙂
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn’t see it. I just read the article yesterday and was flabberghasted that they would do something like that and I posted right after I read it.
 
Um, I don’t get it. Let me be clear that I submit entirely to the church’s judgement (which I don’t think has been finalized in this case yet).

This isn’t euthanasia. Not eugenics. It doesn’t shorten her life. It doesn’t reduce her ability to live life as fully as she otherwise could have.

On the other hand, with a smaller size the girl will likely be more comfortable, will be less likely to suffer injury during transfers, maybe can be cared for at home, perhaps can be brought to the park or other places that would be prohibitive were she to grow full size.

In other words, what I hear so far is that it might enable her parents to care for her personally instead of institutionalizing her and that it has not impact on her lifespan or prospects for improvement.

Frankly, most of the arguments against it so far would apply equally against using any sort of barbituate as pain relief (God is against mind altering drug use, right?).

The argument against mutilation based on the totality of our body and soul and eventual resurrection is interesting, but not entirely convincing. If God can resurrect a man eaten by a shark, surely he can put this girl back together easily? And surely in paradise she won’t suffer from the malady she has today either.

I’m entirely convinced that reasoned principles lie behind church teaching on abortion, IVF, embryonic stem cell research, eugenics, contraception, euthanasia (including food tube removal) and contraceptive sterilization. But none of those principles come into play in this case. It seems like just a surgical procedure to minimize the suffering of the patient (which absolutely WILL result if she is institutionalized).

All the above said, my respect and admiration goes out to the poster above with a similar child and who has followed the dictate of conscience in decision making! God bless you.
 
manualman said:
This isn’t euthanasia. Not eugenics. It doesn’t shorten her life. It doesn’t reduce her ability to live life as fully as she otherwise could have.
Click to expand...
Actually, it could potentially shorten her life and affect her ability to live as she will now be deprived of certain hormones while having others given artificially instead of allowing her body to produce and progress naturally. The potential effects of this are not known and could be potentially dangerous and/or life-threatening to this little girl.
 
I refuse to judge these parents. What is on their mind is maybe the fact as they get old she at a normal height and weight would be impossible to care for - maybe they have committed to always caring for her and never putting her in a home and are looking ahead and dealing with reality. Only God knows their intentions. God bless them
 
CathCentrist said:
I refuse to judge these parents. What is on their mind is maybe the fact as they get old she at a normal height and weight would be impossible to care for - maybe they have committed to always caring for her and never putting her in a home and are looking ahead and dealing with reality. Only God knows their intentions. God bless them
Click to expand...
I agree, they carry a heavy burden in life. The child has the mind of a 3 month old and this will not improve. Calling the parents sick and comparing them to abortionists is uncharitable and unkind. In my opinion, these parents have a moral right to make this decision. Medical ethics are never considered in a vacuum.

I used to be quite involved in the pro-life movement, but unfortunately many pro-life activists don’t have a good grasp of medical ethics and it’s complexities, nor do they actually understand Catholic teaching on it very well. I’m speaking of complicated end of life dilemnas where my pro-life friends would express similar attitudes of condemnation as on this thread. It was extremely distressing to me, as a medical professional, to hear what they had to say, so I ending up dropping out of active participation with the movement.

This has no more moral gravity than having a breast removed because of cancer, in my opinion. And, what about some of the cosmetic surgeries available that only feed the vanity of the wealthy? In this case, medicine is serving the individual needs of the patient. The parents are the caregivers and decision makers, and they have a right to decide this, just as they can choose to pay for cosmetic surgery for other purposes. There’s nothing immoral about it.

I would hope that my fellow Catholics would refrain from harsh words regarding these brave parents. Their burden is great.
 
manualman said:
This isn’t euthanasia. Not eugenics. It doesn’t shorten her life. It doesn’t reduce her ability to live life as fully as she otherwise could have.
Click to expand...
First, it is euthenizing parts of the body. In addition to the high-dose estrogen her breast buds and the uterus were removed. Why, in order to prevent cancer from the overdose of estrogen. But science is now revealing many other risks from merely moderate estrogen therapy.

Second, as I pointed out, the parents can cite no scientific studies to back up their intuition on how this will benefit her life.
manualman said:
Frankly, most of the arguments against it so far would apply equally against using any sort of barbituate as pain relief (God is against mind altering drug use, right?).
Click to expand...
Painkillers treat a symptom of a disease. None of the medical interventions performed on Ashley X treat her brain dysfunction. Her normal growth is not a symptom of her disease. Bed sores are not a symptom of her disease, nor is pneumonia. They are symptoms of inadequate supportive care.
manualman said:
It seems like just a surgical procedure to minimize the suffering of the patient (which absolutely WILL result if she is institutionalized).
Click to expand...
Medical intervention cannot be justified merely because we as a Christian community fail to adequately support families in the care of these Holy Innocents. Furthermore, it is unfair to extrapolate that institutional care for these angels does, as a whole, lead to increase suffering.

Perhaps you should visit (or better yet volunteer) at Holy Angels in Belmont, NC (www.holyangelsnc.org) and then tell me that these patients suffer.
 
This is a tough situation. It sounds to me the parents intentions are good. When it comes to if something is moral or not, as far as Catholism is concerned, both have to be right, intentions and the act. I don’t know exactly how this act applies to the principles, and I doubt anyone would convince me here in this forum. I think the only one who could convince me is a good respectable expert on Catholic morality and ethics.

I myself would want to err on the side of keeping her with her family as long as they are capable of and want to caring for her. I think I’d rather be with my family than go to an institution. I worry that at full size, she could be hard to control, and the parents would physically harm themselves, before they would give her up. Depending on how mentally she could develope would also effect my decision. I wouldn’t go against Catholic principles though.

But it’s not my decision. This case seems far off the beaten path of typical bio-moral/ethical cases. I claim my ignorance and claim uncertainty on the moral questions the case poses. If I was anymore involved, I would make sure that I pursue it further with Catholic experts on bioethic, before any intervention.
 
JohnCWalker said:
No, your example is therapeutic to the disease. Ashley X’s medical interventions do not treat her disease at all.
Click to expand...
Well then maybe its the Church that has to step up with thinking inside a vacuum. How long exactly did the Church look down on evolution until JPII stated the whats obvious to many? That the two (creation and evolution can stand side by side on many aspects)
 
Don’t be rushed into a false judgment. I’m sure her parents considered many options and remember that there is always the other side of the coin. We don’t know the full story. Remember also that the medical profession did these procedures and most likely it was they who recommend these procedures. “First do no harm” is their saying. These were probably accepted procedures otherwise I assume they would not have been done. Also the insurance company approved of them otherwise they would not have paid.

I respect the parents for their decision as they were probably following the doctors advice in this case. We should respect and pray for all concerned as they have a long and difficult road ahead of them. God Bless them.
 
It’s true that the parents may in fact not have sinned gravely, because they might not be aware of the true awful horror of what they have done to their daughter.

But that doesn’t make it right.

First of all, it is wrong to do anything bad to someone else because something inconvenient might come of it all later on. You don’t hack off your child’s legs yourself to keep him from breaking one, for example.

Second, there is simply no reason, short of saving somebody’s life from a very big tumor, to sterilize any man or woman. It’s repugnant behavior. Even a child who is totally helpless is not a cat or dog to be spayed.

Third, you never try to destroy a girl’s breasts. That is dehumanizing, womanhating, insane. How would breasts be “inconvenient” or make the child impossible to lift? Please. A bra is the least of your problems.

Fourth, unless someone is definitely going to die of it, as in some strange hormonal disease, you never stunt someone’s growth on purpose.

Finally, it’s got to be a lot cheaper and easier to hire help for the rest of your daughter’s days, than to find some hack and pay him to do weird unauthorized surgeries and drug therapies that could and should lose him his license.

So yes, it’s quite possible that these parents are so distraught, and have so bought into the culture of death, that they have no idea it’s wrong to hack about their little girl, and to do their level best to destroy the bits of her that were healthy and normal. But there’s absolutely no question about their actions being wrong. And quite frankly, I think they need serious psychiatric help, as their actions reveal a hostility towards their own child’s gender and future which would be disturbing in your average psycho killer.
 
ricko said:
Don’t be rushed into a false judgment. I’m sure her parents considered many options and remember that there is always the other side of the coin. We don’t know the full story…
Click to expand...
We DO know the full story. You can read the parents’ blog at The Ashley Treatment

Do not get lulled into the moral relativists’ trick of “do not judge” which is intended to confuse Christians into not identifying evil acts. We are not making a judgment as to the parents’ culpability in sin or the eternal conseqeuences but of the morality of the object matter: non-therapeutic (see post above) medical intervention on the innocent.

As identified in the Catechism a “morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together.” (1755)

This object matter in this human act is intrinsically evil. Hence, regardless of their circumstances or intent, the act is immoral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top