If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
So get get better care one must have surgery?
Doesn't that say something?
It's not that someone cannot be looked after "so well", it just means that it's harder to do. That isn't an excuse to operate on someone.
Maybe I'm too sesntive for some reason, but you are seem to be acting like it's okay to perform surgery one someone, not to alleviate symptoms or to sure someone of disease, but to make caring for them easier and that is just sick. It's saying that because someone is disabled then surgery is the option, not care.
The argument I would apply here would invoke Godwin's law but it is so true. You are talking about someone who is just as human as you or I and yet you act like that doesn't matter.
In the case of the patient I have in mind, I don't think she gets cared for as well now as when she was small, although the only angle of her care I'm considering is her dental care. She will not co operate with any dental examination or treatment (or any other medical examination or treatment for that matter.
She had a general anaesthetic 3 months ago, during which she was weighed, measured had her teeth cleaned, fischer sealed or taken out depending on what state they were in. That will be the last proper dental examiation or piece of treatment she gets, it will also be the last GA she gets unless her condition is deemed to be immediately life threatening.
She is now too big and strong for it to be 'safe' to do anything that she won't co operate with (which is nothing). The standard of care she gets and her quality of life will decrease as she gets bigger because it's just not physically safe to do it any more.
But the majority of those millions of people are at an age where they wouldn't want to be picked up by another person. Imagine, say, that you were physically disabled and couldn't walk - would you want one of your parents to lift you places, or worse, a stranger like a doctor, or would you prefer to use a mechanical lift?
But Ashley isn't like the majority of those millions of people. She has the mental capacity of a three month old baby, and three month old babies like to be close to their parents. It makes complete sense to me that using a mechanical lift to carry her anywhere because she's too heavy to be lifted by her parents would not be preferable to her. It would be impersonal.
How many parents would carry their three month old baby in a carry cot all the time rather than picking him (or her) up and holding him close at least some of the time? And if they did (out of choice I mean - and in Ashley's case this is a choice because they have the opportunity to keep her small enough to keep being able to carry her themselves), I'd think it was pretty impersonal and not in the child's best interests.
This is rather a stupid comment, I have to say. NO-ONE can guarantee safety for their child. If they could, no child would be abused or kidnapped or murdered or run over. And yes, it IS scary being a parent.
One word to think about here: circumcision. Thousands of American parents every year opt to circumcise their newborn, vulnerable baby boys to a surgical procedure to remove "useless" skin from his penis. This skin is obviously natural and as circumcision isn't a regularly practised procedure in Europe or Australia, there obviously isn't medical evidence to suggest that its removal is a necessary procedure.
Leaving religion aside, reasons often cited for it include to remove the risk of a future problem with it, to make it easier to care for (both for the parents, and the boy himself when he's old enough), to make him look the same as his father, or to ensure he doesn't stand out among other boys in the locker room. The boys have no choice in this yet it's generally accepted as the parents' right to make the choice for him.
I have no intention of starting a debate here about circumcision, because it doesn't matter what individuals on this board think about it. The fact of the matter is that it is an example of "an unnecessary and enforced surgery" carried out on thousands of "vulnerable people" every year. So no-one can make out that the surgery on Ashley is ground-breaking in potentially sanctioning more surgery on people who can't give consent.
Periods can cause a lot of women bloating and discomfort in their abdomen - which is a sensation not dissimilar to colic, is it not? So are you trying to say that a three month old baby doesn't get upset - in some cases very distressed - by a bout of colic?
As I said above, circumcision is regularly performed on baby boys in America with one of the justifications being to make it easier for the parents, and later for himself, to take care of his penis. Now personally I don't agree with circumcision, but whatever your stance on it you can't deny that it is an accepted procedure in America and therefore a lot of people must believe that it is ok "to perform surgery one someone, not to alleviate symptoms or to cure someone of disease, but to make caring for them easier". So I can't see how you can think that anyone on this board who believes the same is perverse. You personally can see it as perverse, but it's just rude to imply that everyone who doesn't share your opinion has a sick mind.
Can I direct you to my post on the first page, where I wrote: I think it clearly states a benefit to the child rather than to the parents. You can disagree with it if you like, but you can't pretend I didn't write it.
And Kermit wrote something similar as well: That's pointing out a benefit for the parents as well as the child, but nevertheless the benefit for the child is there in black and white. It's silly to say you haven't read anything that suggests benefits to the child when they're there. You just don't agree with them, which is fine.
Very nicely put. Each person is an individual and should be treated as such, rather than people saying "You can't do this because that could mean it'll happen to anyone else with a disability."
Why are people so fired up about this issue, anyway? It's not them who has to look after Ashley. Her parents think this is the best thing for her (her parents being people have cared for her for 9 years and are surely more qualified to judge what's in her best interests than people who have never met her). Several doctors think this is the best thing for her (doctors who have more knowledge than anyone here of the girl's disability, her prognosis, her care, and the risks of the surgery and are therefore surely more qualified to judge than people who don't have a medical qualification and don't know the girl). It's not even as if she's British and thus the surgery is being funded from the public purse that many of us are paying into. It's really nothing to do with us.
If we're all so interested because of what future medical procedures it could sanction, then I think we're being unduly worried. As Kermit said, this is not a normal case and therefore it would take a screwed up medical team to apply it as justification for surgery on another individual for whom surgery isn't necessary or beneficial. And if it could be beneficial then really, why should we deny a person those benefits for the sake of ethics?
Isn't that a contradiction?
You could say the same with many people though, those with lung complaints, those with weight problems and people with mental conditions spring to mind. Often it's not a safe option to operate or offer dental treatment.
What price dignity?
I don't hold wit the US approach on circumcision either though, it's barbaric, so your point is mute. Unless you believe that female circumcision is okay too.
Surely the size doesn't stop the closeness of a hug, we all like to be hugged redradless of physical or mental age, or do you deny that?
Because those aren't changed by surgery...
Aren't we human too, aren't we allowed to have opinions? The naxis killed the jews in germany what was that to do with us, the US is killing people in Iraq, qhat has that to do with us... poepl die of starvation around the world, why should we care, it's not affecting us.
Sometimes you have to stand up and say "this is wrong".
Ever cited case law?
One important word there is "if". The second is ethics. Don't you think that ethics are important?
My point isn't mute. It's as loud as it can be on a message board. It's not moot either since my point was that it's rude to call a large number of people (who hold an opinion that is considered valid by lots of other people even if they don't agree with it themselves) sick for having a differing point of view from your own.
Are you denying that what I wrote could suggest a benefit to the child, regardless of whether you agree with that benefit or not?
No I'm not denying that, of course it's true that no matter what size Ashley grew to she would still be able to be hugged by her parents. But physical contact with a three month old baby goes beyond hugs because the child enjoys more. Maybe he or she enjoys being rocked in mum's arms. Maybe he or she enjoys drifting off to sleep on daddy's tummy. Those are just two examples that you're advocating denying Ashley. She has few enough pleasures in life, isn't it unethical to deny her the ones she has?
Don't understand this, sorry.
Fair point, but this is about one little girl. If US doctors were suggesting routinely carrying out hysterectomies on disabled girls, then yes I'm not denying we should stand up and say it was wrong. If US doctors were advocating stunting the growth of all disabled children so that they could be more easily cared for, then again I'm not denying we should stand up and say it was wrong. Say the Nazis had killed one Jew, say the US had killed one person in Iraq, say one person had died of starvation... it's just not on the same scale and although it would still undoubtedly be wrong, we wouldn't have cared nearly so much as we did about it was hundreds, thousands, millions of people.
I think that people's feelings are important and I can only imagine how hurt Ashley's parents are to know the sort of things the world is saying about them. They have cared for their child for 9 years and for whatever reason they have made the decision to go ahead with this surgery. I very much doubt it was a decision taken lightly, as is no surgery to be performed on someone you love, and I'm sure there was much heartache involved in the decision. Now they've got more heartache on top of that, from people who don't know them or their daughter or anything more than the media have told them, calling them all sorts of nasty names. I think it's important that at least some people stand up for them, if they disagree with what appears to be public opinion (at least on these boards).
If she's is smaller and lighter then it will certainly make it much easier to take her on family trips, etc
Also should reduce the chances of bed sores since there will be less surface area to her body and her weight will be less so put less pressure on her - which can be fatal as in Christopher Reeves case is what killed him
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-10-24-spinal-usat_x.htm
I hope my mum would do the same for me.
Who do you suggest make her decisions for her? Doctors? Judges? Wider society? Cause she's sure as hell not capable of making decisons for herself. Tbh i think you're being a bit naieve. Children's parents are responisble for them in every matter that lies within the law.
As far as i'm concerned the parents are the ones looking after her day-in day-out; they're the ones who understand her needs best; they're the ones who should make the decisions. The doctors and/or a medical board at the hospital will have assessed (and approved) the medical and any ethical issues of the requested operation.
I think the principle is that "we" decide by vote.
ah, another one in favour of the nanny state.....let everyone else tell you what to do and how to look after your child? you're making some highly dubious analogy between child abuse and surgery on a child who has no hope of a normal life. not meaning to sound impersonal but there are more parallels with her condition and a cabbage patch doll....i don't see how it is anyone else's decision but the parents.
Interesting that you took my comment about female circumcision off when you quoted me. Don't you think it's sick to lop off a young girl's clitoris?
It's not rude to call someone sick because they abuse children.
No, I'm denying that the benefit has anything to do with surgery.
maybe, maybe, maybe. Not mentioned by the parents as a reson, or even part their reasoning for operating, which is the actual point here.
It's always about "one". How many would you need before you say "enough"?
I think that you need to read Stalin's comment on the difference between one and one million.
I agree, I'm sure that they thought about it a great deal.
In my opinion they got it wrong, but if you look back my anger is more at the state for not ensuring that the right care is in place and at the doctors for performing the surgery than it is for the parents in making a tough decision.
I think that you missed her point. There is a limit where the state should say "no". Just because it's "my child doesn't mean that I can do anything I want to that child, does it?
Define "normal life"
Isn't it abuse to cut something out, for what sophia believes is, unnecessary?
.. and there my friend is the whole crux of this discussion, you don't see her as equal to you. You see her as different, as not having the same basic rights as anyone else. Sprry, but that is why I believe that we should stand up and say "this is wrong".
No I don't think it is, just because I don't think it's something I would condone doing, doesn't mean it isn't the best thing to do under the circumstances. I'm not sure I'd like any of the options but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't go along with any of them as being the best of a bad lot.
Those with lung complaints get other medical treatment, and they get on going dental care, those with weight problems are another issue, but they get on going medical care, just not general anaesthetics. In the case I am thinking of the only way to get her medical care is when she in under.
Indeed, the smaller a patient is with problems along these lines the more dignity they have because it's easier to afford it to them.
afford not meant in a financial sense
Remember, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong.
But she isn't equal, if he decided not to feed himself and starve himself to death by not feeding himself, you'd probably let him. If he decides not to wash, he'd be left to smell. She's got rights, and she needs appropriate care, but that care isn't the same as the next persons. I have rights and I need appropriate care, and that's different to what you need and that's different to what she needs.
Which means that you would condone the action, on the basis it's the best option of a bad bunch. See what I mean?
So treating them like a second class citizen, because they cannot speak up for themselves, doesn't strip them of their dignity?
Isn't that one of the main complaints about how we treat the elderly in our nursing homes/wards and mental health patients?
Relax, I understood "afford" in the healthcare sense
I don't like it because I think it's wrong.
Dignity is very subjective, doing one thing that could be seen as taking away their dignity in order to achieve another that enhances their dignity is always a tough call to which there is often no 'right' answer.
It's a complaint about the treatment of the elderly and mental health patients, often because to give them the 'dignity' that you or I would like is physically/mentally impossible. (and also because there is some crap practise around).
You might not like it because you think it's wrong, but that doesn't mean it is actually wrong for her, which isn't determined by you, but by people with a full indepth understanding of her condition, her care arrangements, and her likely future.
I don't mean in terms of capaility, hell none of us are "equal" in that sense.
I mean equal in that she is just as much a human being as you or I and deserves to be treated and see in such a light. To say her case is more comparable with a cabbage patch doll means that you see her a lesser or not a "real person". She is.
Just a much as the senile OAP is.
Indeed.
She needs the right care. She cannot get it and so surgery became an option. That is my whole issue with this, she has been let down before she even got to the surgery stage. That surgery was then done for the reason that it's easier for care to be provided just makes it worse.
Why doyou think that the state don't fund her care?
Again, what the right care is, is another unanswerable question, anyones best hope is suitable care.
And that is what I think has happened in this case.
NB Wrong is subjective too.
Som epeople think it was wrong to hand Saddam, some people think it was wrong for the Nazis to kill the mental ill and disabled, some people think it's wrong to abort a foetus but not everyone does. I don't know the full details of the reasoning in each of those cases but I can agree or diagree according to my own beliefs on the basis of the information I have available to me. That's is what I am doing here and I still haven't read anything, which I believe, justifies operating on her.