Surely other stuff like her mum feeding her, helping her go to the toilet etc would also cause indignity and confusion? I think its just because the mother doesnt fancy changing her pads each time. I dont think its right at all.
How pathetic your statement is!
The mother takes care of her 24/7 , that isn't the issue here that the mother is not wanting to take personal hygiene of the child.
The girl has the mentality of a 18 month old child!
She can't relate to anyone if and when she is in pain.
Her hormones will be unbalanced do to her medical condition anyway.
Pill's & injections to stop her periods are of no option here due to possible blood clots.
What good reason could come of this baby in a young ladys body have if this hysterectomy is not done?
She cannot have a normal life as most. She will never concieve a child.
She will be in more confusion and shock when her periods do start.
I hope the powers that be legally allow the hysterectomy and do it asap!
If drip feeding this girl and giving her a colestomy bag meant that she didn't soil herself every day would this be acceptable on a quality of life basis as well?
This is where the "slippery slope" argument starts to matter in my opinion.
Going to the toilet and eating are not painful though. They may have side effects that have to be dealt with (changing a nappy) but they aren't likely to cause distress. A newborn baby is similar in that it doesn't start screaming in pain when it urinates, yet if a newborn baby girl started having periods it would cause huge amounts of stress, pain and discomfort.
I don't think there is a slipperly slope here, as it's not being suggested that we start altering disabled people in order to make them easier for their carers to deal with. This operation is to enhance the quality of the girl's life, not her mothers.
Trust me, I've already had to make some very hard decisions regarding my sons health, some of which had a risk of death associated with them. I'm definitely not selfish is finding it difficult to potentially alter my sons personality just so he can be more socially accepted!
But you'd still value his personality over improving either his physical condition or his mental ability. It's nothing to do with his social acceptability, more to do with his potential independance, and growth. If for instance it was found that a chemical treatment would promote cerebral development so your son could develop at a normal rate you're honestly telling me that you'd rather deny him that chance.
Morally and ethically this girl does have the right to bodily autonomy, but realistically I can see the courts and the medical profession going ahead.
Having said that, I am surprised her mother wants to subject her daughter to medical treatment again after the doctors cocked-up during the poor girl's birth which left in her in this state. :sleep:
I very much doubt it's as simple as being because the mother doesn't want to change pads, she changes her nappy after all.
There's nothing that can be done about necessary bodily functions like urination, but periods are an entirely different matter. Periods can cause pain, a lot of pain, and they aren't necessary for a woman who will never have children.
Can you imagine how scarey a period and the associated pain would be to someone who couldn't understand why it was happening? To her, it would be no different than being punched in the stomach every day for a week, for the rest of her life.
Its not everyday of the week though. Its about 4 or 5 days a month (for me anyway) and that was before I went on the pill now its just about 3 or 4 days and less painful and less heavier. Thats another thing why not just put her on the pill before taking such drastic measures then if it becomes uncomfortable consider the other option. I was warned about getting blood clots and all that but I didnt, its always a risk when You go on the pill. You never know how she is going to react unless you let it happen first.
Its not everyday of the week though. Its about 4 or 5 days a month (for me anyway) and that was before I went on the pill now its just about 3 or 4 days and less painful and less heavier. Thats another thing why not just put her on the pill before taking such drastic measures then if it becomes uncomfortable consider the other option. You never know how she is going to react unless you let it happen first.
Have you read the thread? The reason she's not going on the pill is because of the increased risk of thrombosis. As she's in a wheelchair, there's a much greater risk of blood clots.
I also didn't say every day of the week, I said every day for a week, meaning that a period lasts for approximately a week.
I would not advocate every disabled child being given operations to prevent their bodily changes purely because they are disabled, because as we know there are many levels of disability
However I do not think we should automatically dismiss the idea out of hand, each case should be looked at on an individual basis, in this case will having periods etc be more than the girl can cope with or understand , will it be kinder to her and save her misery if she were to have the opeartion, is this operation for the girls benefit and not just her carers, if all the questions can be answered by medical professionals that this is the best possible action for the childs wellbeing then it should be considered.
As I say it should not set a precedent, every case should be evaluated seperately and procedures only carried out when the persons mental and physical well being would be damaged otherwise.
i see what you are saying. i am however torn on this matter. thought my own experience of endometriosis i was crippled with pain through out the month not just during my periods which would cause vomiting and total bed ridden for about 3/4 days.
i first thought 'why not the pill or injection' but the mention of thrombosis brought me back to earth
i am a 37 year old single woman and had to have a hysterectomy in january of this year but this operation can cause its own problems. my wound was open for 16 weeks. that meant infections and daily trips to the nurse to have my dressing changed. these complications were also very stressful (to me anyway)
so i guess my answer is ... i dont know
Yes, I know how awful endo can be - my previous partner of 10 years suffered from this and also had to have a hysterectomy. And you are right, hysterectomies can cause nasty side effects... so might not be the answer anyway. It is hard this one.
Have you read the thread? The reason she's not going on the pill is because of the increased risk of thrombosis. As she's in a wheelchair, there's a much greater risk of blood clots.
I also didn't say every day of the week, I said every day for a week, meaning that a period lasts for approximately a week.
That means the same thing. And anyone thats on the pill has an increased chance of getting blood clots.
That means the same thing. And anyone thats on the pill has an increased chance of getting blood clots.
No, it doesn't.
Every day of the week - meaning every single day, 365 days a year.
Every day for a week - 7 days.
As I said, being constantly in a wheelchair increases the chances of blood clots, add the extra risk associated with the pill, and the risk becomes prohibitive.
Yes, I know how awful endo can be - my previous partner of 10 years suffered from this and also had to have a hysterectomy. And you are right, hysterectomies can cause nasty side effects... so might not be the answer anyway. It is hard this one.
thank you ... i was worried about how my post would come across
I think that the important thing here is that this is being dealt with on an individual basis, rather than as a routine procedure.
If I was dealing with the case I'd wonder why, at 15, she's not having periods yet, unless she's already on the pill, and be worried about possible health implications.
Not knowing much about the subject, would having a hysterectomy not induce early menopause, causing emotional turmoil?
Batgirl replied:
Not if only the uterus is removed but the ovaries are left in place.
Thanks for clarifying batgirl.
I have now heard both sides of the argument last night on Stephen Nolan's show on R5 , and again this morning on Victoria Derbyshire's prog.
When I first heard it on the news, I was dead against it. However, after hearing Stephen interview the mother, and various other contributors, particulaly disabled ones, and parents of disabled children, has caused me to change my mind.
Perhaps the likes of Scope should have considered all of the available facts before jumping in with their criticisms first?
Every day of the week - meaning every single day, 365 days a year.
Every day for a week - 7 days.
As I said, being constantly in a wheelchair increases the chances of blood clots, add the extra risk associated with the pill, and the risk becomes prohibitive.
no everyday of the week means: mon, tues, wed, thurs, fri, sat, sun
everyday for a week: mon, tues, wed, thurs, fri, sat, sun
no everyday of the week means: mon, tues, wed, thurs, fri, sat, sun
everyday for a week: mon, tues, wed, thurs, fri, sat, sun
It needs to be taken in context. Every for a week indicates something happens for a week. Everyday of the week implies something that happens constantly.
Its not everyday of the week though. Its about 4 or 5 days a month (for me anyway) and that was before I went on the pill now its just about 3 or 4 days and less painful and less heavier..
Even if it was only for 4 days a week though that's 4 days a week every month where the child is in incomprehensible pain and confusion, which could be avoided. Why would you put the child through that?
I think that the important thing here is that this is being dealt with on an individual basis, rather than as a routine procedure.
If I was dealing with the case I'd wonder why, at 15, she's not having periods yet, unless she's already on the pill, and be worried about possible health implications.
The mother has been trying for 2 years to resolve this issue. 2 years ago the Dotocr suggested the pill and or injection, but was found to be too dangerous for her if she got blood clots.
Do to her medical history from what I have heard, it is not unusual for her not to have started her periods at this age.
Her hormons are probably under developed and very unbalanced do to having her medical condition.
The mother stated she refused to allow the pill and or injection. Therefore we mucst trust the young girl hasen't been given any.
Even if it was only for 4 days a week though that's 4 days a week every month where the child is in incomprehensible pain and confusion, which could be avoided. Why would you put the child through that?
That is the part everyone needs to understand. Even though she has the body and growth of a 15 year old girl, her brain is that of a child of 18 months old.
She is not a normal 15 year old teenager, sadly.
Plus there is no cure for her medical condition.
It needs to be taken in context. Every for a week indicates something happens for a week. Everyday of the week implies something that happens constantly.
But you'd still value his personality over improving either his physical condition or his mental ability. It's nothing to do with his social acceptability, more to do with his potential independance, and growth. If for instance it was found that a chemical treatment would promote cerebral development so your son could develop at a normal rate you're honestly telling me that you'd rather deny him that chance.
No, I said it would be very difficult to make a decision. I'm sure my wife wouldn't be too keen if I took a drug that cured my speech impediment but also changed my personality. Surely any parent would be suspicious of a drug that changed their child from a happy, giggly baby into something less.
And you're still demonstrating an ignorance towards Down syndrome. Many people with Down's can and do lead independent and fulfilling lives without the need for mind-altering drugs...
No, I said it would be very difficult to make a decision. I'm sure my wife wouldn't be too keen if I took a drug that cured my speech impediment but also changed my personality. Surely any parent would be suspicious of a drug that changed their child from a happy, giggly baby into something less.
I was under the impression that any such drug would be intended to turn the child into something more, not less. If you can post a reference to the research you're talking about it might just help. But it's your preference for a giggling happy childlike state, if the alterative is an improvement in the childs condition that is significant.
I wish people would stop referring to her in this way. For all you know, she could be extremely happy!
Really? You don't think it's ok for people to have sympathy for a girl who will never walk, talk, or enjoy any factor of life that we all take for granted?
Comments
How pathetic your statement is!
The mother takes care of her 24/7 , that isn't the issue here that the mother is not wanting to take personal hygiene of the child.
The girl has the mentality of a 18 month old child!
She can't relate to anyone if and when she is in pain.
Her hormones will be unbalanced do to her medical condition anyway.
Pill's & injections to stop her periods are of no option here due to possible blood clots.
What good reason could come of this baby in a young ladys body have if this hysterectomy is not done?
She cannot have a normal life as most. She will never concieve a child.
She will be in more confusion and shock when her periods do start.
I hope the powers that be legally allow the hysterectomy and do it asap!
Going to the toilet and eating are not painful though. They may have side effects that have to be dealt with (changing a nappy) but they aren't likely to cause distress. A newborn baby is similar in that it doesn't start screaming in pain when it urinates, yet if a newborn baby girl started having periods it would cause huge amounts of stress, pain and discomfort.
I don't think there is a slipperly slope here, as it's not being suggested that we start altering disabled people in order to make them easier for their carers to deal with. This operation is to enhance the quality of the girl's life, not her mothers.
But you'd still value his personality over improving either his physical condition or his mental ability. It's nothing to do with his social acceptability, more to do with his potential independance, and growth. If for instance it was found that a chemical treatment would promote cerebral development so your son could develop at a normal rate you're honestly telling me that you'd rather deny him that chance.
Having said that, I am surprised her mother wants to subject her daughter to medical treatment again after the doctors cocked-up during the poor girl's birth which left in her in this state. :sleep:
Its not everyday of the week though. Its about 4 or 5 days a month (for me anyway) and that was before I went on the pill now its just about 3 or 4 days and less painful and less heavier. Thats another thing why not just put her on the pill before taking such drastic measures then if it becomes uncomfortable consider the other option. I was warned about getting blood clots and all that but I didnt, its always a risk when You go on the pill. You never know how she is going to react unless you let it happen first.
Have you read the thread? The reason she's not going on the pill is because of the increased risk of thrombosis. As she's in a wheelchair, there's a much greater risk of blood clots.
I also didn't say every day of the week, I said every day for a week, meaning that a period lasts for approximately a week.
However I do not think we should automatically dismiss the idea out of hand, each case should be looked at on an individual basis, in this case will having periods etc be more than the girl can cope with or understand , will it be kinder to her and save her misery if she were to have the opeartion, is this operation for the girls benefit and not just her carers, if all the questions can be answered by medical professionals that this is the best possible action for the childs wellbeing then it should be considered.
As I say it should not set a precedent, every case should be evaluated seperately and procedures only carried out when the persons mental and physical well being would be damaged otherwise.
Yes, I know how awful endo can be - my previous partner of 10 years suffered from this and also had to have a hysterectomy. And you are right, hysterectomies can cause nasty side effects... so might not be the answer anyway. It is hard this one.
That means the same thing. And anyone thats on the pill has an increased chance of getting blood clots.
No, it doesn't.
Every day of the week - meaning every single day, 365 days a year.
Every day for a week - 7 days.
As I said, being constantly in a wheelchair increases the chances of blood clots, add the extra risk associated with the pill, and the risk becomes prohibitive.
thank you ... i was worried about how my post would come across
If I was dealing with the case I'd wonder why, at 15, she's not having periods yet, unless she's already on the pill, and be worried about possible health implications.
Batgirl replied:
Thanks for clarifying batgirl.
I have now heard both sides of the argument last night on Stephen Nolan's show on R5 , and again this morning on Victoria Derbyshire's prog.
When I first heard it on the news, I was dead against it. However, after hearing Stephen interview the mother, and various other contributors, particulaly disabled ones, and parents of disabled children, has caused me to change my mind.
Perhaps the likes of Scope should have considered all of the available facts before jumping in with their criticisms first?
no everyday of the week means: mon, tues, wed, thurs, fri, sat, sun
everyday for a week: mon, tues, wed, thurs, fri, sat, sun
It needs to be taken in context. Every for a week indicates something happens for a week. Everyday of the week implies something that happens constantly.
Even if it was only for 4 days a week though that's 4 days a week every month where the child is in incomprehensible pain and confusion, which could be avoided. Why would you put the child through that?
The mother has been trying for 2 years to resolve this issue. 2 years ago the Dotocr suggested the pill and or injection, but was found to be too dangerous for her if she got blood clots.
Do to her medical history from what I have heard, it is not unusual for her not to have started her periods at this age.
Her hormons are probably under developed and very unbalanced do to having her medical condition.
The mother stated she refused to allow the pill and or injection. Therefore we mucst trust the young girl hasen't been given any.
That is the part everyone needs to understand. Even though she has the body and growth of a 15 year old girl, her brain is that of a child of 18 months old.
She is not a normal 15 year old teenager, sadly.
Plus there is no cure for her medical condition.
If you say so
Only me and most other people who realise context and semantics sometimes make all the difference
No, I said it would be very difficult to make a decision. I'm sure my wife wouldn't be too keen if I took a drug that cured my speech impediment but also changed my personality. Surely any parent would be suspicious of a drug that changed their child from a happy, giggly baby into something less.
And you're still demonstrating an ignorance towards Down syndrome. Many people with Down's can and do lead independent and fulfilling lives without the need for mind-altering drugs...
I was under the impression that any such drug would be intended to turn the child into something more, not less. If you can post a reference to the research you're talking about it might just help. But it's your preference for a giggling happy childlike state, if the alterative is an improvement in the childs condition that is significant.