Surgery to stunt disabled girl's growth raises ethical questions

[Buster T]

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- In a case fraught with ethical questions, the parents of a severely mentally and physically disabled child have stunted her growth to keep their little "pillow angel" a manageable and more portable size.

The uterus and breast tissue of the bedridden 9-year-old girl were removed at a Seattle hospital, and she received large doses of hormones to halt her growth. She is now 4-foot-5; her parents say she would otherwise probably reach a normal 5-foot-6.

The case has captured attention nationwide and abroad via the Internet, with some decrying the parents' actions as perverse and akin to eugenics. Some ethicists question the parents' claim that the drastic treatment will benefit their daughter and allow them to continue caring for her at home.

University of Pennsylvania ethicist Art Caplan said the case is troubling and reflects "slippery slope" thinking among parents who believe "the way to deal with my kid with permanent behavioral problems is to put them into permanent childhood."

Right or wrong, the couple's decision highlights a dilemma thousands of parents face in struggling to care for severely disabled children as they grow up.

"This particular treatment, even if it's OK in this situation, and I think it probably is, is not a widespread solution and ignores the large social issues about caring for people with disabilities," Dr. Joel Frader, a medical ethicist at Chicago's Children's Memorial Hospital, said Thursday. "As a society, we do a pretty rotten job of helping caregivers provide what's necessary for these patients."

The case involves a girl identified only as Ashley on a blog her parents created after her doctors wrote about her treatment in October's Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The journal did not disclose the parents' names or where they live; the couple do not identify themselves on their blog, either.

Shortly after birth, Ashley had feeding problems and showed severe developmental delays. Her doctors diagnosed static encephalopathy, which means severe brain damage. They do not know what caused it.
Her condition has left her in an infant state, unable to sit up, roll over, hold a toy or walk or talk. Her parents say she will never get better. She is alert, startles easily, and smiles, but does not maintain eye contact, according to her parents, who call the brown-haired little girl their "pillow angel."

She goes to school for disabled children, but her parents care for her at home and say they have been unable to find suitable outside help.
An editorial in the medical journal called "the Ashley treatment" ill-advised and questioned whether it will even work. But her parents say it has succeeded so far.

She had surgery in July 2004 and recently completed the hormone treatment. She weighs about 65 pounds, and is about 13 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than she would be as an adult, according to her parents' blog.

"Ashley's smaller and lighter size makes it more possible to include her in the typical family life and activities that provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love: meal time, car trips, touch, snuggles, etc.," her parents wrote.

Also, Ashley's parents say keeping her small will reduce the risk of bedsores and other conditions that can afflict bedridden patients. In addition, they say preventing her from going through puberty means she won't experience the discomfort of periods or grow breasts that might develop breast cancer, which runs in the family.

"Even though caring for Ashley involves hard and continual work, she is a blessing and not a burden," her parents say. Still, they write, "Unless you are living the experience ... you have no clue what it is like to be the bedridden child or their caregivers."

Caplan questioned how preventing normal growth could benefit the patient. Treatment that is not for a patient's direct benefit "only seems wrong to me," the ethicist said.

Dr. Douglas Diekema, an ethicist at Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, where Ashley was treated, said he met with the parents and became convinced they were motivated by love and the girl's best interests.

Diekema said he was mainly concerned with making sure the little girl would actually benefit and not suffer any harm from the treatment. She did not, and is doing well, he said.

"The more her parents can be touching her and caring for her ... and involving her in family activities, the better for her," he said. "The parents' argument was, `If she's smaller and lighter, we will be able to do that for a longer period of time."'

THOUGHTS ?

[kevin1]

That's a crock of **** and both the parents and the surgeons should be prosecuted for maiming that poor child for life . [:@]

[ipscshooter]

I pray that none of us ever have to make such heartbreaking decisions.

Her condition has left her in an infant state, unable to sit up, roll over, hold a toy or walk or talk. Her parents say she will never get better.

In that situation, I'm not sure this qualifies as an appropriate case for prosecution for "maiming her for life". It's not like this child is going to ever have children, or a relationship with anyone other than her parents. This procedure makes it easier for them to include her in family activities, which may, arguably, be better for the child's psychological well-being. And, having helped my wife care for her son during the last 6 months of his life, bed-ridden, andvery overweight due to the effects of his brain tumors, I can understand how keeping her smaller can help the parents both physically and emotionally in dealing with her daily care. This is not as easy a call as you might think. Particularly if you have not spent any time in their position.

[kevin1]

Or perhaps her parents and the doctors should have just done what they used to do , send the kid to an institution where she would be placed in a corner and allowed to starve to death like in the old days . The parents wouldn't be inconvenienced , the doctors would still get paid , problem solved .

[ipscshooter]

I haven't finished my second cup of coffee yet, so maybe I'm reading something into your post that isn't there. Seems like sarcasm. How about just saying what you mean?

[t roy]

it certainly sounds horrible that such things would be done to make it easier for the parents BUT before I condemn them, I cant imagine being in their situation.

[ipscshooter]

ORIGINAL: t roy

it certainly sounds horrible that such things would be done to make it easier for the parents BUT before I condemn them, I cant imagine being in their situation.

As I read the article, I don't see it as simply "to make it easier for the parents". Easier for the parents would be to simply leave her in her bed when they engage in outside activities. They want to include her, which may be of some benefit to her psyche.

[t roy]

ORIGINAL: ipscshooter

As I read the article, I don't see it as simply "to make it easier for the parents". Easier for the parents would be to simply leave her in her bed when they engage in outside activities. They want to include her, which may be of some benefit to her psyche.

I dont know, either way it makes it easier for them to care for her. whats ok whats not. Shouldnt they include her regardless of her size. I am not in a position to makethat judgement, nor is anyone else who doesnt have aseverely disabled child.I am just thankfull my daughter is healthy mentally & physically.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted by Admins]

[ipscshooter]

ORIGINAL: t roy

I dont know, either way it makes it easier for them to care for her. whats ok whats not. Shouldnt they include her regardless of her size. I am not in a position to makethat judgement, nor is anyone else who doesnt have aseverely disabled child.I am just thankfull my daughter is healthy mentally & physically.

That is truly something to be thankful for. As stated in the article, this was certainly not an easy decision to make, and even harder to understand if you have not been faced with the situation of caring for a child who is so severely disabled. Such a disability affects everyone. Not just the child. Is it wrong to make a decision if one of the many benefits is that it makes it somewhat easier for the caregiver?

My stepson was afflicted with brain tumors at alater stage of his life. He had his first surgery at the age of 14. He spent nine years battling the tumors, and for the last year of his life, he was completely bedridden and for the last almost six months, he could not move, he couldn't speak, he didn't respond to stimuli, and even if he had been responsive to stimuli, there wasno way that we could have gotten him out of bed to participate in any type of activity. Those last six months were extraoridinarily difficult, and more so because of the helplessness of not being able to do ANYTHING for him. Like the article states, it is impossible to understand, if you haven't been in a similar position. I can understand the decision in that it allows the parents to do things that they otherwise couldn't that might have some benefit for the child.