Q. By Lindsey Tanner, Associated Press
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.
ON DEADLINE: Debate the case, read family's blog
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," Joel Frader, a doctor and 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.
Douglas Diekema, a doctor and 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.'"
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
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.
ON DEADLINE: Debate the case, read family's blog
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," Joel Frader, a doctor and 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.
Douglas Diekema, a doctor and 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.'"
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
A. I wouldn't think her cognitive development would be impaired in any way. Her hormonal balance, if stabilized with treatments, should be OK. I would think they would have had to have a doctor sign off on this, in order to get it done. I think that there would have been more than one doctor having to agree to this. The hospital that the surgery was performed in would have had their say in whether it should have been done or not. Whose to say that it was the parent's idea? It could have been the doctor's idea and the parents went along with their diagnosis. Some things can seem to be painful and tragic, but this could possibly be a blessing for the child. Who are we to judge these parents as they struggle to make decisions for a child that will never be able to live on her own and lead a normal life.
Is it okay for my son to watch TV?
Q. Hi girls.
Lots of mixed opinions on this one. My 7 month old son loves ceebies and all the bright colours and sounds. I think a little TV is good for them but obviously not all day.
When and how much TV do you allow your infant?
Lots of mixed opinions on this one. My 7 month old son loves ceebies and all the bright colours and sounds. I think a little TV is good for them but obviously not all day.
When and how much TV do you allow your infant?
A. we have ceebies on during the day in the background. Finnley loves afew programs which he will watch while i feed Oscar and he as all his toys out and we do other stuff aswell. i dont think it hurts hes really smart and i see no problems with him. Oscar even loves timmy time and will get excited when the music comes on. we are only in the house afew days a week so i dont how it hurts and the tv is turned to adult programs at 5-30pm. we mainly have it on for background noise or we have loads of children dvds mainly disney which he loves aswell. its been proven that bright lights and colourful shapes help with brain development :)
Where to get a pet marmoset monkey in Newburgh NY?
Q. I've been trying to search marmoset monkeys on the internet for a long time, and I couldn't fiind a website that tells me where to find a marmoset monkey as a pet.
A. It is illegal to keep a monkey as a pet in New York state. Furthermore, it's a very cruel thing to do.
It's a horrible idea to keep any monkey as a pet. There are quite a few reasons for this. They're sound reasons but they are hard to accept for people who really, really want a monkey (which in a way is understandable because they ARE fascinating and beautiful!). But facts are facts and people who genuinely care about animals (and their own safety!) have to accept that it is not in the best interest of a monkey to be kept as a pet.
It's NOT safe for people. Even small monkeys can be dangerous - marmosets are well known for becoming aggressive and unmanageable. They are wild, not domesticated animals (this is not a matter of whether they were captive bred or not - domestication is a biological process that takes place over hundreds of generations, and this simply has not happened with any monkey). Being wild, they have a tendency to be unpredictable - to ACT like wild animals - whether they have been trained or not. This happens more and more often as they grow older and when they start to approach adulthood - look out!
Life as a pet is not at all appropriate for any monkey. Monkeys are extremely social animals and being part of a social group is nearly as essential for their psychological well-being as having food or water or space to move around in. When people keep monkeys as pets, the monkeys are taken as infants from their mothers - years before they would naturally become independent. This is not just a little bit sad. It is scientifically proven that maternal deprivation can actually hinder proper brain development - and also that monkeys hand-reared by humans frequently (possibly always) develop severe psychological abnormalities that are sometimes impossible to correct in later life. No matter how much a person WANTS to be a good substitute for a monkey mother, it just does not work, and it has negative consequences for the monkey. Why would a person inflict that on another creature that they supposedly care about? It's really very selfish and yes - cruel.
To keep a monkey is very expensive. Marmosets live for many years (although many pet marmosets die early because they are not taken care of properly). Who can guarantee consistent, quality care for that kind of time span?
And on that note... consistent, quality care is in itself almost impossible for a pet owner to provide. Marmosets in the wild spend all day, every day travelling, climbing, leaping, foraging, grooming one another in a vast and complex tropical habitat. They need the right temperature, the right food, the right humidity, and without these things they can (and often do) develop serious health issues, like diabetes or metabolic bone disease. How is a person expected to provide all these things to a monkey living in their home?
Please don't believe the half-truths and full-on lies that people with an interest in keeping pet monkeys tend to spread around. They are all based on wilful ignorance, selfishness, and have nothing to do with genuine love of monkeys as amazing, intelligent wild animals. Monkeys deserve to have natural lives in the habitats that they have adapted to over thousands of years, and to make choices about their own lives. They are not little servants or dolls or toys, or even cats or dogs. Nobody wants to take any "rights" away from people concerning what they can or can not own - but monkeys are not THINGS that you should have a right to own! They are living, conscious, emotional wild animals. People need to learn how to respect this!
It's a horrible idea to keep any monkey as a pet. There are quite a few reasons for this. They're sound reasons but they are hard to accept for people who really, really want a monkey (which in a way is understandable because they ARE fascinating and beautiful!). But facts are facts and people who genuinely care about animals (and their own safety!) have to accept that it is not in the best interest of a monkey to be kept as a pet.
It's NOT safe for people. Even small monkeys can be dangerous - marmosets are well known for becoming aggressive and unmanageable. They are wild, not domesticated animals (this is not a matter of whether they were captive bred or not - domestication is a biological process that takes place over hundreds of generations, and this simply has not happened with any monkey). Being wild, they have a tendency to be unpredictable - to ACT like wild animals - whether they have been trained or not. This happens more and more often as they grow older and when they start to approach adulthood - look out!
Life as a pet is not at all appropriate for any monkey. Monkeys are extremely social animals and being part of a social group is nearly as essential for their psychological well-being as having food or water or space to move around in. When people keep monkeys as pets, the monkeys are taken as infants from their mothers - years before they would naturally become independent. This is not just a little bit sad. It is scientifically proven that maternal deprivation can actually hinder proper brain development - and also that monkeys hand-reared by humans frequently (possibly always) develop severe psychological abnormalities that are sometimes impossible to correct in later life. No matter how much a person WANTS to be a good substitute for a monkey mother, it just does not work, and it has negative consequences for the monkey. Why would a person inflict that on another creature that they supposedly care about? It's really very selfish and yes - cruel.
To keep a monkey is very expensive. Marmosets live for many years (although many pet marmosets die early because they are not taken care of properly). Who can guarantee consistent, quality care for that kind of time span?
And on that note... consistent, quality care is in itself almost impossible for a pet owner to provide. Marmosets in the wild spend all day, every day travelling, climbing, leaping, foraging, grooming one another in a vast and complex tropical habitat. They need the right temperature, the right food, the right humidity, and without these things they can (and often do) develop serious health issues, like diabetes or metabolic bone disease. How is a person expected to provide all these things to a monkey living in their home?
Please don't believe the half-truths and full-on lies that people with an interest in keeping pet monkeys tend to spread around. They are all based on wilful ignorance, selfishness, and have nothing to do with genuine love of monkeys as amazing, intelligent wild animals. Monkeys deserve to have natural lives in the habitats that they have adapted to over thousands of years, and to make choices about their own lives. They are not little servants or dolls or toys, or even cats or dogs. Nobody wants to take any "rights" away from people concerning what they can or can not own - but monkeys are not THINGS that you should have a right to own! They are living, conscious, emotional wild animals. People need to learn how to respect this!
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment