Mother Seeks Hysterectomy For Her Disabled Daugter

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

That was my argument. Should they wait to see how she deals with it? Would that make it more reasonable?

Yes frankly. Choosing, in my opinion, unnessecary non-consentual invasive surgery on the premise that menstruation could possibly cause distress and confusion is not a particularly 'strong' arguement.

Besides that there are several other situations that the girl will encounter that will cause her arguably more distress and confusion throughout her life. Is the fact she is likely to outlife her Mother and this berevement will cause her distress and confusion an arguement for having her taken into care from birth so she doesn't have to face up to that? Or at a ridiculous extreme killing either her or the mother to avoid such distress? Or rather the potential for distress and confusion? Ok thats a fairly extreme and glib example but there are going to be a hell of a lot more situations that are likely to cause the child/adult/person more distress and confusion. The question I suppose is then is it worth it to lessen the effects of one when you can't do anything about the others?

I wouldn't be entirely suprised if, probably with the the very best of intentions, the Mother is grasping at straws and desperate to just do something she thinks will improve her Daughters quality of life so in some small way she can feel she has done something.

[pANDAS Radio]

Originally Posted by hotblonde

Les, I've already said I disagree with your take on that. In my opinion you're wrong, in your's I'm wrong...move on.

No, Les is right and you're wrong. Fact. Look up the words in any dictionary or encyclopedia (thats nothing to do with paedophile cyclists btw ) and you'll see that.

Anyway i agree with Rachael's idea of the mother waiting until the girls periods start to see how she copes with the first few. It is cruel and pointless to put the girl through a procedure like this on the off chance that she might freak out when she starts getting her period. Do any girls not freak out just a little bit at their first period?

[endless psych]

I'm interested in to what seeking "legal approval" entails any medical types care to clarify?

Bascially to clarify:- Assuming legal approval means lawyers I am wondering why they are being consulted as oppossed to some medical ethics board or the like. Which would surely be more appropriate? Are lawyers not just going to spend their time pouring over old court judgements to find some barely related precedence for the procedure taking place?

[hotblonde]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

NO. I WILL NOT LET IT REST.

Only joking.

I am right, though.

I concede. Indeed you are right

Originally Posted by endless psych

I'm interested in to what seeking "legal approval" entails any medical types care to clarify?

Normally it means seeking legal approval for a surgical procedure as the person who would undergo the is not able to consent, but is an adult. It's more than a 'lets cover our asses' to avoid any future litigation. Once this is approved, then there will be a decision made by the girl's doctors. Sometimes they've already decided and are involved in the seeking legal approval. All cases are different, but generally can take a few weeks - months to decide (depending on the situation under discussion).

[Tigger]

Ok - I know for a fact that it can be a struggle for someone of sound mind to get a hysterectomy if they are below a certain age. I know this because a close relative of mine had severe diabetes and had been told by several medical professionals that her body could not cope with a pregnancy and it would either kill her or leave her severely disabled. She was told this in her late teens/early 20's and it was extremely upsetting for her as she did want to have children at some point. Despite the distress this was causing her it still took her a couple of years to convince the doctors to let her have a hysterectomy. Their viewpoint was simply that you never know what medical advances may occur in her lifetime that would allow her to have her own children or that she may agree to surrogacy in the future. She knew her life was going to be short and didn't want to die leaving a young child behind.

In this case - I do agree that if someone is unable to make important desicions for themselves that they should have someone there with their best interests at heart to make them for them. But this is a very extreme case and I don't agree with it at all. A hysterectomy is very invasive and the recovery can be very painful. There are other options for stopping periods - the contraception I'm on has stopped them. But as folk have already said - why not give the girl a chance to see how she copes with it. Human beings are very adaptable and even if she does find it confusing and even upsetting, I'm sure it can be dealt with then and she will have forgotten about it in no time. Allowing her to menstruate is not going to be life threatening so I don't think such an ivasive procedure should be imposed on her. (And before anyone says anything - it's completely different if someone chooses to go through it themselves as they go into it with all the information and know what's happening to them.)

In short - I would have thought the hysterectomy would have been more upsetting for her than a period.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by hotblonde

Normally it means seeking legal approval for a surgical procedure as the person who would undergo the is not able to consent. It's a 'lets cover our asses' to avoid any future litigation.

So is it pretty much as suggested above seeking to find a precedent with which they can argue that the treatment could legally (but not nessecarily ethically or morally) be carried out without consent?

In an ideal world you'd think more people would be involved in such things then the girls Doctors and NHS lawyers... It stikes me as strange that to even just talk to adults who can comprehend and give informed consent as part of a research study you have to jump through God knows how many hoops to prove your research will be ethical and not cause harm but an invasive non-consentual surgical procedure can be ok'd by (from the impression in the article) one Doctor with a legal precedent.

[hotblonde]

Originally Posted by endless psych

So is it pretty much as suggested above seeking to find a precedent with which they can argue that the treatment could legally (but not nessecarily ethically or morally) be carried out without consent?

In an ideal world you'd think more people would be involved in such things then the girls Doctors and NHS lawyers...

Yes, you're more or less right in what you've said..sort of. Her doctors may have already agreed, but need further clarification and the go ahead from the courts. It's not just the NHS tho', private practises also have to seek legal approval. If I remember right (and it's not changed) there are even some procedures that can't even be done privately on disabled people (heart transplants on trisomy 21 sufferers was one) and that operation would have to be done outside the UK. It may have changed recently, honestly can't remember if it's now subject to approval depending on the prognosis. The reasoning being that it is a genetic condition.

Ethical approval is becoming more and more difficult. We live in a very legally aware society.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by hotblonde

Ethical approval is becoming more and more difficult. We live in a very legally aware society.

Ethical approval should be difficult to obtain I'm fairly appalled that it appears the ethical consideration given to this case involves only those involved in the childs immediate medical care and seeking a legal get out clause in case of a 'backlash'. Particularly given the case has the potential to have wide ranging potentially international consequences for the disabled.

BMA ethics stuff:- http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/mencapact05

As such surely the following makes the procedure a no go?

-The least restrictive alternative
Whenever a person is making a decision on behalf of an adult who lacks capacity, he or she must ensure that the decision is the least restrictive of that individual’s fundamental rights or freedoms. There are often several ways to achieve a desired outcome, and the choice must be the one that interferes least with the individual’s freedoms while still achieving the necessary goal.

Then the case is not whether or not as Mrs Thorpe puts it

"She's not going to get married and she's not going to have children...Katie is not going to become a normal adult.

Its whether or not having a disability alters your fundamental right to develop as nature intended?

[hotblonde]

Yeah, totally agree ethical approval should be difficult, but sometimes it's down to wording and not actually what is being proposed. Red tape is the annoying factor more than anything, generally.


I would agree the procedure shouldn't even be up for discussion. Not being privvy to medical records and how the mother is legal approaching this, makes it more difficult to guess whether the courts will agree or not. It may be the case that if legal approval is given, she then finds herself up against an unwilling medical community. I'm sure that's happened before.

[endless psych]

I find it interesting, and possibly a bit disturbing, that the two cases that have arisen around this idea of restricting or preventing puberty have involved females and that no parents of males with developmental or other severe mental problems have suggested the boys become eunuchs.

[Kirsten]

Indeed, I was thinking the same when I first looked at similar cases like this with such questionable moral and ethical 'issues'


...But that's a whole other argument!

[TinTin]

Originally Posted by endless psych

I find it interesting, and possibly a bit disturbing, that the two cases that have arisen around this idea of restricting or preventing puberty have involved females and that no parents of males with developmental or other severe mental problems have suggested the boys become eunuchs.

The argument for wanting her to undergo this surgery is to prevent her from all the associated pain and discomfort from her periods. As males to not suffer from this it would be pretty pointless for any parent to have thier disabled son castrated.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by TinTin

The argument for wanting her to undergo this surgery is to prevent her from all the associated pain and discomfort from her periods. As males to not suffer from this it would be pretty pointless for any parent to have thier disabled son castrated.

Apart from the associated distress and confusion that pubescent males with learning/developmental difficulties can go through? Puberty can be particularly distressing for males with Autism for example. Pain and discomfort may not be as much of an issue granted but distress and confusion is arguably still an issue its part of Mrs Thorpes arguement afterall.

the discomfort, the embarrassment

I'll admit its the last, and therefore possibly the least important, part of her arguement but if distress and embarassment (which given the child is already incontinent is surely a moot point unless they are installing a catheter or colostomy bag of some sort at the same time) are integrel to her arguement then you have to wonder if the childs gender plays a role in the Mother and the Doctors willingness to carry out the procedure.

[Kirsten]

Originally Posted by TinTin

...wanting her to undergo this surgery is to prevent her from all the associated pain and discomfort from her periods.

Believe me, any emotional/psychological and physical pain caused by the trauma of surgery far outweighs the "pain and discomfort associated" with having periods, on all counts, and despite mental or physical handicap.


If you really think being put through that is going to be less confusing, traumatic or discomforting then you're on another planet, and clearly very lucky not to have suffered going through such an event yourself.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by Kirsten

If you really think being put through that is going to be less confusing, traumatic or discomforting then you're on another planet, and clearly very lucky not to have suffered going through such an event yourself.

I think that's been considered and the argument is that surgery is a one-off whereas the girl's period will be an upsetting and confusing event every month for the majority of her adult life.