EDITORIAL – Growth stunting unethical, selfish

Parents of a 9-year-old brain-damaged child are still struggling with the fallout from their… Parents of a 9-year-old brain-damaged child are still struggling with the fallout from their ethically questionable decision to permanently stunt their daughter’s growth over two years ago.

The surgery, performed in a Seattle hospital, removed 9-year-old Ashley’s uterus and breast tissue and added large doses of hormones in order to keep her in a permanent childhood state, according to the Associated Press.

Ashley suffers from static encephalopathy, which has left her in an infant-like state, unable to sit up, roll over, hold a toy, walk or talk.

Ashley’s parents claim that the surgery has benefited their daughter’s well-being by allowing them to care for her at home and include her in family activities.

While the surgery will help reduce some risks for bedsores and prevent the discomforts of puberty, it is more of a benefit for Ashley’s parents, allowing them to keep their daughter at the manageable size of 4-foot-5 and 65 pounds.

Ashley’s surgery begs the question of whether it is ever appropriate to perform a treatment that is not for the patient’s direct benefit.

We acknowledge the difficulty of raising a brain-damaged child, and we have no conceivable notion of what Ashley and her parents go through on a day-to-day basis, but there has got to be a better way to raise a disabled child than by keeping her a permanent 9-year-old.

Ashley’s parents claim that they had trouble finding suitable outside help for their daughter.

While this may be true, there are thousands of other parents out there that have found ways to successfully care for and treat their disabled children without resorting to putting them into a state of permanent childhood.

Would moving to an area that was closer to a specialized health care facility be any more drastic than stunting Ashley’s growth?

We are uncertain whether Ashley’s parents, who have chosen to improve their own condition over the risk of their daughter’s, are even competent to care for her at home in the first place.

Ashley’s surgery ushers in a slippery slope of ethical issues. If it is appropriate and legal to prevent a brain-damaged child from growing, what is to prevent parents from doing the same for their children with other birth defects, such as Down’s syndrome?

Ashley’s surgery also prevents her from enjoying a normal life in the future, when treatments and health care innovations may develop that would be able to improve her condition.

The choice to stunt Ashley’s growth at her own risk and for her parents’ benefits is a sad reflection of what the future of treatment for disabled children in our country might be, and an embarrassment for the millions of parents nationwide that struggle and sacrifice for the health of their children.