PDA

View Full Version : Surgery on girl raises ethical questions


googs
01-05-2007, 01:24 AM
Surgery on girl raises ethical questions By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer


CHICAGO - 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 bedridden 9-year-old girl had her uterus and breast tissue removed at a Seattle hospital and 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.'"

___

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070105/ap_on_he_me/stunted_daughter

silverbulletkc
01-05-2007, 01:42 AM
Geez, the child barely gets to live a normal life as it is. I see her becoming deathly afraid of the outside world because of this.

es347fan
01-05-2007, 03:03 AM
... 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." ...

While a very tough call, one can certainly understand the motivation for the surgery from the caretaker's (in this case, the parents) view. The child will never develop breasts, never experience menstruation, never mature physically. She will remain roughly the size & weight she is now. This will allow her to be cared for, by the parents, probably through the remainder of her life and the parents will not have to outsource her care as they achieve advanced age. This procedure is not the answer for all born with birth defects that leave the child in a vegetative state, yet is an option in some cases. The surgery can be seen as improving, or at least maintaining the child's quality of life.

Imagineer
01-05-2007, 03:39 AM
The surgery also insures that she will never become pregnant. Since she is clearly unable to care for a child, this is a good thing. Given some of the cases of health care workers impregnating disabled patients, this is not an impossible situation.

Sparky2
01-05-2007, 04:45 AM
This whole thing stinks like a web-hoax.

* Web searches for this story reveal the same news article, with several different bylines. (And some of those articles indicate that the child lives in Seattle, while others claim that she and her family reside in Chicago.)

* "Sam Verhovek, Seattle" was the byline on one of the web 'articles'.
Same Verhovek moved from Seattle to work for the LA Times two years ago.

I believe that the 'Ashley/Pillow Angel' family web site was created as a cruel joke, or as a vehicle for protest against the medical ethics proposed in the October 2006 medical journal article sited.

I don't believe this for a second.

Imagineer
01-05-2007, 06:24 AM
It may be a web hoax, but if it is it has taken in some major news sites.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/01/04/ashley.treatment.ap/index.html

Vilepagan
01-05-2007, 06:54 AM
This whole thing stinks like a web-hoax.


I think you may be right Sparky. I find it hard to believe that any doctor or hospital would agree to this sort of "treatment".

es347fan
01-05-2007, 08:35 AM
Surgery done in Seattle (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/298543_stuntedside05.html)

Dr. Daniel Gunther, a pediatric endocrinologist and Ashley's physician went before the ethics board, along with Ashley and her parents, to explain why her treatment was necessary, Gunther said.
He said members of Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center's ethics board, which consists of 15-20 people including physicians, nurses, social workers, chaplains and local community members, initially were skeptical about the proposed treatment.

Ethical discussion in JAMA (http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/10/1013?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Surgery+to+stunt+disabled+girl%27s+growth +raises+ethical+questions&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT) This is an abstract of an article from Oct, 2006

waldo
01-05-2007, 09:13 AM
I find stories like this chilling. There are no good solutions. There are no good alternatives. It's hard to know what's 'right'. On the surface i don't like what the parents have done, on a deeper level i understand why they've done it and i'm still betwixt and between.

LionelHutz
01-05-2007, 11:33 AM
There's no way of knowing this, but I wonder to what extent the parents view their "pillow angel" as cute and cuddley and they want her to stay that way. That's probably not the case, but the "pillow angel" thing makes me wonder.

es347fan
01-05-2007, 11:51 AM
There's no way of knowing this, but I wonder to what extent the parents view their "pillow angel" as cute and cuddley and they want her to stay that way. That's probably not the case, but the "pillow angel" thing makes me wonder.

Given the conditions described, the infant like state the child's mind will remain in, I would guess the "pillow angel" nickname came to be as a result of accepting the condition, rather than being on an extended self-imposed guilt trip and remaining there.

Travh20
01-05-2007, 12:24 PM
why not just stop feeding her and get it over with?

Sparky2
01-05-2007, 07:47 PM
I sense fraud on a massive scale.

I still call bullshit on the whole deal.
:mad:

DarkFantasy96
01-05-2007, 08:01 PM
I remember seeing this on the news...

Evakian
01-05-2007, 08:19 PM
I think you may be right Sparky. I find it hard to believe that any doctor or hospital would agree to this sort of "treatment".
You're right. A sane doctor would recommend euthanization!

Travh20
01-05-2007, 08:22 PM
I guess you agree with one thing the nazis did huh evakian?


"paging Dr. Mengele"

Evakian
01-05-2007, 08:26 PM
I guess you agree with one thing the nazis did huh evakian?


"paging Dr. Mengele"
Oh yes trav.

Heil Hitler!

:rolleyes:

Travh20
01-05-2007, 08:28 PM
if you believe in euthanizing the handicapped you agree with the nazis.

Evakian
01-05-2007, 08:29 PM
Good boy. Sit.

Sit! Or rather, get me the paper.

The paper!

Travh20
01-05-2007, 08:44 PM
dont you mean the Zyklon B?

Evakian
01-05-2007, 08:50 PM
dont you mean the Zyklon B?
If you take it first I'll take it with you. I swear.

Travh20
01-05-2007, 09:20 PM
Are you sure yuou dont want to flip the switch yourself Megele? perhaps you would lik eot take out my lungs and see how long I can survive?

EasternBarbie
01-05-2007, 09:25 PM
Sheesh, I'm just thankful my parents aren't like this poor girl's. while I can't speak for mentally idsabled people, I sure do have a soft spot for PWDs since I can totally relate to the challenges. It ain't easy, I speak from experience. But I say it's cruel to delimit and define for any individual, able-bodied or otherwise, what they can and can not do.

googs
01-08-2007, 11:30 PM
Trav you don't make any sense. In post number 12, you said "why not just stop feeding her and get it over with?" But when Evak made the suggestion of Euthanasia, you compared him to Dr. Mengele. IMO, not feeding the child is much worse and more inhumane than euthanizing it. If anyone was to be compared to members of the Nazi Party, it would be you.