Why would the court order such a thing?

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
Report: 'Pillow angel' surgery broke law

By Amy Burkholder
CNN
Adjust font size:
Decrease fontDecrease font
Enlarge fontEnlarge font

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A hospital that performed a controversial procedure that stunted the growth and sexual development of a profoundly disabled child violated Washington state law by sterilizing her, according to an investigative report released Tuesday.

The case has raised medical ethics questions and rankled disability and feminist groups.

The Washington Protection and Advocacy System, a private group vested with federal investigative authority for people with disabilities, found that Seattle Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center violated the constitutional and common law rights of a girl identified only as Ashley by performing a hysterectomy without a court order from the state.

"Washington law specifically prohibits the sterilization of minors with developmental disabilities without zealous advocacy on their behalf and court approval," said Mark Stroh, WPAS executive director, in a statement.

Children's Hospital, in acknowledging its error, said that beyond implementing changes to ensure that sterilization of disabled children doesn't happen again without a court order, it will seek court approval for other procedures involved in the controversial growth attenuation therapy.

More at link...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/05/08/ashley.ruling/index.html
 
I know that they didn't in this case, but it suggests that they could regularly obtain permission from the court to proceed with such a surgery. What is the need for such a surgery?
 
I think that the part of the procedure that is being questioned is the sterilization, not the growth stunting procedure.

I remember reading about this case; apparently the child was completely non-ambulatory and incontinent, among other things. Lady T's answer was correct. The growth-stunting surgery was performed in order to make it possible for her parents to continue caring for her. She had to be lifted and if she continued to grow she'd have had to be institutionalized.

I'm not commenting either with approval or disapproval -- that's just the story as I remember it.

Given that she was so profoundly disabled, however (in addition to the retardation) I don't understand the need for the sterilization.
 
Maybe they were afraid AHZ would knock her up ?
or in other words perhaps she had a mobile retarded brother ?
all is not told here....
 
I think that the part of the procedure that is being questioned is the sterilization, not the growth stunting procedure.

I remember reading about this case; apparently the child was completely non-ambulatory and incontinent, among other things. Lady T's answer was correct. The growth-stunting surgery was performed in order to make it possible for her parents to continue caring for her. She had to be lifted and if she continued to grow she'd have had to be institutionalized.

I'm not commenting either with approval or disapproval -- that's just the story as I remember it.

Given that she was so profoundly disabled, however (in addition to the retardation) I don't understand the need for the sterilization.

yeah, I don't know what to say about the sterilization. Maybe it was needed to ensure she wouldn't menstrate?? I don't know. clearly I'm missing some facts in this case.
 
yeah, I don't know what to say about the sterilization. Maybe it was needed to ensure she wouldn't menstrate?? I don't know. clearly I'm missing some facts in this case.
I believe that it was a medically necessary part of the stunting of her growth. By "medically necessary" I mean that arresting of her growth would not have worked without it. That's what I recall anyway.

I'm with Thorn on this. I can't say whether I approve or disapprove. In my case, it's because both sides are so terribly disturbing that I don't want to go there. Only someone forced there by circumstance would, I think.

:(
 
I believe that it was a medically necessary part of the stunting of her growth. By "medically necessary" I mean that arresting of her growth would not have worked without it. That's what I recall anyway.

I'm with Thorn on this. I can't say whether I approve or disapprove. In my case, it's because both sides are so terribly disturbing that I don't want to go there. Only someone forced there by circumstance would, I think.

:(

Yeah.....same here. For some reason I'm not incline to make a judgement on this one. It seems like her parents want the best for her and want to take care of her. I just hope they are making choices that are in her best interests.
 
Back
Top