Surgery on girl raises ethical questions

hey she'll make a great PET... kind of... time to sell her to a local chinese restaurant... and i know just the place in seattle...
 
It is my belief that God gives us the gift of children. But they are just that. They are a gift. Not property. I understand that these folks have to be the ones to care for her, but there is a reason for everything IMHO. I would be worried I had messed with the "time space continum" by stopping her growth.
 
highwayman said:
Would you have had the hysterectimy done?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I am kinda a believer of not messing with what God does. A woman getting a hysterectimy because her organs are sick and this will save her life...then yes. To me that's different. I sit better with the hysterectimy than I do the growth treatments, but if it were my decision, I wouldn't have done it.
 
simplyred said:
I don't know. I am kinda a believer of not messing with what God does. A woman getting a hysterectimy because her organs are sick and this will save her life...then yes. To me that's different. I sit better with the hysterectimy than I do the growth treatments, but if it were my decision, I wouldn't have done it.
Click to expand...

I draw the line at the growth treatment, that is way over the top. The hysterectimy can be debatable and up to what the situation is. Going by the news the girl will not devolope mentaly. In something like that keep the person confortable and not let him/her suffer...
 
Gotholic said:
There really was no need to mutilate this poor girl. There is no telling what kind of complications and health risks Ashley may face due to this "treatment".
Click to expand...

the rest of her entire life is a health risk and complication. bed sores. pneumonias. UTI's. if it helps her parents care for her even a small amount better, then its a good thing.
her being alive is further proof that medical science has out-paced its ability to determine when and how it should be used.
 
Dave said:
her being alive is further proof that medical science has out-paced its ability to determine when and how it should be used.
Click to expand...

Don't know about the rest of you but I don't care to see preemptive or proactive birth control...
 
not birth control. if she had been born 15-20 years ago, she never would have survived. medical science has gotten very good at keeping people alive that shouldnt be.
 
Dave said:
not birth control. if she had been born 15-20 years ago, she never would have survived. medical science has gotten very good at keeping people alive that shouldnt be.
Click to expand...


One of the reasons that the concept of life and death should be re-examined from time to time, IMO. Just because you can keep someone alive doesn't always mean you should. Of course, I'm an atheist. I don't think anything is holy, even life.

I wasn't going to comment on this thread because it brings back memories I'd rather not remember. OTOH, there's not one of us who has any idea at all what these parents have gone through or are going through. Even so, some of us are certainly more than happy to judge them, aren't we? :hmm:
 
i agree with everyone that said removing the uterus is justifyable, but not the anti-growth hormones.
the uterus is a really finicky creature. the whole system is a very delicate ecosystem, and there are so many problems that can plague it that can be very serious, especially without her ability to give input that she's hurting or that something feels wrong, so because she doesn't need it otherwise, it seems logical to remove it.

for some reason, though, the hormone thing reminds me of the old chinese custom of binding girls' feet.
 
ash r said:
for some reason, though, the hormone thing reminds me of the old chinese custom of binding girls' feet.
Click to expand...

Well put anology...
The parents reasoning over stopping her from growing is for ease of handling her. Give me a break here. Do they expect her to be seven feet tall and houndreds of pounds? The average height for a woman in America is about 5'6"...
 
highwayman said:
Well put anology...
The parents reasoning over stopping her from growing is for ease of handling her. Give me a break here. Do they expect her to be seven feet tall and houndreds of pounds? The average height for a woman in America is about 5'6"...
Click to expand...

is it a safe guess you've never had to care for a bed bound person?
one that requires total care, not just assistance.

the analogy is wrong. the chinese custom was for asthetics. much like breast implants in todays society.
 
I don't have personal experience with it myself, but if I want some perspective on this, all I have to do is ask my future in-laws. Caity has a sister with Cerebral Palsy and something else... I can't remember what. Anyway, she's about to turn 20 and hasn't spoken a word, has to wear diapers, has to be fed, etc. She's certainly not 5'6" tall (Caity's only 5'4") but she's more than 4'5" and that hasn't been a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top