http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6230045.stm

US doctors are helping to keep a severely disabled girl child-sized at her parent's request.

Ashley X was born with severe and permanent brain damage, called static encephalopathy.

The nine-year-old has the mental ability of a three-month-old baby and cannot walk or talk.

Her parents argue that keeping her "frozen" as a girl rather than letting her go through puberty and growing into a woman will give her a better life.

They authorised doctors to remove her uterus to prevent menstruation, to limit her breast growth through the removal of breast buds so that she would not experience discomfort when lying down, and give her doses of hormones to stop her growing taller.

Opponents have accused Ashley's parents of "Frankenstein-esque" behaviour - of maiming the child for the sake of convenience.



what do you think?

__________________
Home of the original Kitten Mittens! MEEEEEE_OWWWW!!

An incredibly sad case. The parents have a point. I think. However, I might need to look at the medical data of how, exactly, keeping her as a child would be an improvement in quality of life. The fact that she only has the mental capacity of a 3-month old, she basically has no conciousness or knowledge of what going thru puberty would mean. Sad, sad, sad.

This is one of those moral dilemmas in which it seems no answer is right. They were talking about this on the radio, apparently the reason the parents want her breasts/uterus removed is because she has huge chance of developing uterine cancer, and they want to prolong her life as long as they can (versus her dying of cancer young). I just feel awful for the parents, to watch a child suffer with any kind of disorder must be hideous, and it seems either way they are forced to deal with ethical dilemmas.

__________________

as a nurse, ive taken care of many many bedridden people. the smaller they are the less chance of bedsores so the smaller a chance of infection the fewer hospital stays the better quality of life. without menses there will be less moisture thus less chance of skin breakdown which is a source of infection. i think what they are doing is in her best interest, honestly. although extreme, i think its humane.

__________________
Home of the original Kitten Mittens! MEEEEEE_OWWWW!!

My first reaction reading the headline was "that's disgusting of the parents" but then I read on and realised, actually I think its probably quite a good decision although it seems so extreme. On the one hand, it seems so unnatural to remove someone's body parts and to purposefully keep them small. But then again, periods are miserable enough when you a) know what they are and b) might at least have children to compensate- what is the point of this poor girl just suffering extra pain and risk of disease for no reason? Plus I think the point about her breasts is a valid one- the mentally disabled are very vulnerable to sexual abuse, and equally, why risk breast cancer? The small size again means her parents can care for her alone for most of her life. If she got to full size and weight, it would be impossible to care for her without constant nursing support and possibly modifications to the home or maybe even insitutional care.

There is an argument that they are modifying her for their convenience, but if their convenience is linked to her quality of life, which I'm sure will be better if she can stay with her parents in a moderately pain free existence, then it seems like the right thing to do, as long as it doesn't set a precendence so it eventually becomes standard to do this sort of thing to anyone disabled...