Random Miscellaneousness

[Rigil Kent]

Has anyone else seen this? Parents Keep Child a Child ... FOREVER I read this thing and it freaks me out!

[dark_rain]

That's just wrong!

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

It even made it to the tabloids in Sweden.

[Reanok]

That's terrible people would treat their child like that .

[blacknblue]

Natural selection in action. But it is horrible to witness.

[Mitchell]

This is wrong, Its god awwfull Wrong!

They spayed their own Daughter, an then had her mutilated even more!

I cant even bring myself to make a steer out of a bull calf. I dont want to even think about the possiblity of removing Organs from any future child of mine.

Unless these surgeries were needed to save her life, they should never have been performed.

I thought Doctors took an oath, to "first do no harm", an all that.

This is scary.

[blacknblue]

Good point. Dis, how could a doctor get away with that and not lose their license?

[Elessar]

That's just weird... They better not let the pedo community find out about this technique... they'll be like finding out online how to do this to girls and then abducting their own little "eternally pre-pubescent harem"

[Distracted]

Well.... I can tell already that I'm opening a can of worms, but....

According to the article, the little girl has a static encephalopathy which appears to have frozen her mentally at the age of a few months old. She's bedbound. She's non-verbal. In diapers. Bottle or tube-fed probably, and if they're lucky she's progressed to where she can social-smile like a two month old. It's tragic, but her parents had nothing to do with her condition. I'm assuming that it was either a birth complication or an infectious complication.

Look at it from the parents' point of view. Barring infectious complications from lying in bed like aspiration pneumonia or infected bed sores, their daughter may very well have a normal lifespan. If mom's an average size woman, she wouldn't be able to lift her daughter for daily care much past the age of 15 or so. That would require a stronger, probably MALE caregiver, bathing and changing her now sexually mature and buxom daughter who is completely unable to protect herself in the event of a sexual assault. Will dad realistically be able to provide that care? Would it even be appropriate for him to do so once she's grown? They would inevitably need to place her in a nursing home. Do they trust the nursing home to provide the care their daughter needs, or would home care be infinitely preferable?

The larger and heavier the child gets, the more likely she will be to get bedsores from pressure over bony prominences. Infants feel pain, so we must assume that this girl does as well. Do we want to subject her to menstrual cramps and breast tenderness every month? Do we want to force her parents to institutionalize her because she's grown too big to lift?

This is a tragic situation. I can see that this might be upsetting to people if they consider the possibility that this child might have had any hope for quality of life as an adult. She doesn't, though. There's nobody home upstairs. She's like a two month old. How would you like to have to take care of a 125 lb two month old for fifty years?

I actually admire these parents for wanting to keep her at home. Most parents of children like these institutionalize them before they reach puberty. It's a lot of work to take care of an infant. Normal parents have a light at the end of the tunnel. It takes a lot of love and altruism to want to do it for the rest of your life. Institutionalization would have been an easier option. I guess they just love her too much to let her go.

[Rigil Kent]

Yeah ... I get your point, Dis, but I'm still kind of torn about this. Since I'm not in the parents' shoes, I can't judge ... but I'll admit to a lot of conflict over it...

[Distracted]

Yeah. I know what you mean. It's a slippery slope. It's like the use of human growth hormone. It's only supposed to be used in kids with a deficiency, but in some centers they're accepting kids for treatment whose only reason for short stature is short parents. Where do you draw the line? I think the line's pretty clear in this particular instance, though. This little girl has no hope for a normal life whatsoever, so anything that will reduce her discomfort and allow her parents to keep her at home where she belongs is a good thing. The surgeries described are not that bad in a six year old. She'll be left with three little scars. Kids do well after surgery. When my son was two, he was back to daycare two days after bilateral hernia surgery on nothing but tylenol. Every four hours for a couple of days, when the tylenol wore off, he'd squat and stop playing. The daycare director would give him his tylenol, and in fifteen minutes he'd be up and playing again. This little one is incapable of playing, but I'm sure that her doctors and her parents made sure that her post-op pain was minimal.

[Mitchell]

Still comes off as way to close to how a person treats a pet they dont want getting frisky one day.

It just still crosses me as incredibaly wrong to remove internal organs, or other body parts when it isnt a life or death matter.


An whats to stop these parents from ending up hiring a pedophile, instead of just a Rapest in the end to help with the childs care? Like some one else said this sounds like a Pedophile's dream come true. An eternal lil girl, that cant ever tell anyone if she has been sexualy assulted. Sure this might prevent her from getting assulted by one type of Freak, only to open the door for a whole other type of Freak.

An then when the Parents are gone who will take care of her then. They cant protect her either way then eternal lil girl, or none altered women. An I as a person with 3 sibs, Id have a hard time giving up my life just to spend the rest of it to take care of one of them if they were in a veggie state. Id more then likely to pay for them to be taken care of in the best closest home. So more then likely this girl will evenutaly end up out of her parents care one day (Assuming she dos live that healthy normal life).


Now trying to prevent pain I can understand. But really removing organs an other body parts to do it. Especialy when it would be a once a month thing. It seems like quite a bit of overkill to me.

[chrisis1033]

I can't even begin to imagine the struggles the parents have gone through to make the decision and I am in NO position to pass judgement.

[Distracted]

Well, Mitchell, the precedent is there. I've seen "hygienic hysterectomy" performed in women without the motor skills to perform their own menstrual care if their mental capacity is reduced to the point that the bleeding distresses them, and if she's not going to have kids, why does she need a uterus? It'd be like removing her appendix. Who gets bent out of shape over losing that "internal organ"?

Perfectly normal women have hysterectomies for excessive bleeding all the time. I'm not saying that the doctors who do these procedures always do them out of medical necessity. I'm just saying that the surgical technique for the procedure has progressed to the point that it can often be done through a laparoscope and/or from below without an abdominal incision, with a recovery time limited to maybe 2 weeks tops for a healthy, ambulatory woman. I'm talking back to work in less than a week and usual activities (except for sex) by two weeks. The cuff takes about six weeks to heal completely, and then you'd never know the woman had surgery without doing a pelvic exam on her. It's really amazing how low risk the procedure has become.

And then, we also don't know this child's family history. Some women have excruciatingly painful and disabling menstrual periods. If this little girl's mother, grandmother, or aunts have a history of endometriosis, it's a merciful thing to remove the child's uterus. How would you like to go through the equivalent of an attack of appendicitis every month? That's what some women suffer through, and we don't have the whole story here.

[Bether6074]

I wouldn't dare pass judgement. It seems sad for everyone involved.