Mother Seeks Hysterectomy For Her Disabled Daugter

*LesMTS* · 7th October 2007, 5:45pm

Evenin' forum pals!

What do y'all make of this story?

Summary: A mother wants surgeons to remove the womb of her severely disabled daughter, arguing that the onset of menstruation would be confusing and upsetting for her.

Dario · 7th October 2007, 5:50pm

A somewhat strange line of argument to be requesting this purely on the basis of potential confusion and upset, surely...?

hotblonde · 7th October 2007, 5:51pm

Let nature be the judge. Science and medicine is too oppressive and all knowing, I think.

Witch · 7th October 2007, 5:52pm

I can see both sides here, she is wanting to save the upset that this might cause her daughter. On the other hand people have had ceberal palsy before and not had this so on that i disagree, its a sticky one.

*LesMTS* · 7th October 2007, 5:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotblonde

Let nature be the judge.

Let nature be the judge how?

hotblonde · 7th October 2007, 5:56pm

It fucking upset me....how many others were traumatised? A hysterectomy tho', come on, it's such a butcherism. Why not implement a contraceptive in some way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Let nature be the judge how?

Well, Les nature created her...let nature decide the outcome. Duh, not rocket science.

*LesMTS* · 7th October 2007, 5:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotblonde

Well, Les nature created her...let nature decide the outcome. Duh, not rocket science.

Well, we know what the outcome is going to be if left alone. Nature has already decided, if you want to put it like that. Nature won't sympathise with the mother.
So what you're basically saying is that we shouldn't interfere?

hotblonde · 7th October 2007, 6:00pm

What I'm really saying is "I don't actually care". However, if society is so up on nature and what's meant to be, then leave it to what's meant to be. It's not life threatening and really, nobody knows what the outcome will be. Leave it, yes.

Dario · 7th October 2007, 6:03pm

I don't really believe anyone has an inherent right to not be upset/confused, so I find someone going to the extent of requesting their kid surgery simply due to this a little odd, frankly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotblonde

Well, Les nature created her...let nature decide the outcome. Duh, not rocket science.

Wouldn't that line of logic be applicable to just about anyone seeking medical care, whether urgent or not?

Bunnylingus · 7th October 2007, 6:06pm

Hasnt this happened before?

hotblonde · 7th October 2007, 6:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dario

Wouldn't that line of logic be applicable to just about anyone seeking medical care, whether urgent or not?

No, it wouldn't. It's not 'medical care' as such as it's elective. The girl is not medically defined as requiring any medical attention. It would be from personal preference; as plastic surgery is, for example. Altho' in this case, it wouldn't even be personal choice, it would her mother's. Prophylactic medicine is all well and good if it will most definitely benefit the person and the community. Can this girl's mother actually do either?

*LesMTS* · 7th October 2007, 6:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotblonde

No, it wouldn't. It's not 'medical care' as such as it's elective. The girl is not in medically defined as requiring any medical attention. It would be from personal preference; as plastic surgery is, for example. Altho' in this case, it wouldn't even be personal choice, it would her mother's.

But unlike a lot of cosmetic surgery, the intention is to prevent suffering (albeit psychological).

hotblonde · 7th October 2007, 6:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesMTS

But unlike a lot of cosmetic surgery, the intention is to prevent suffering (albeit psychological).

Many of those undergoing cosmetic surgery would argue that point with you. Why do you think so many women are permitted NHS funding for all sorts of cosmetic enhancements/dehancements?

*LesMTS* · 7th October 2007, 6:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotblonde

Many of those undergoing cosmetic surgery would argue that point with you. Why do you think so many women are permitted NHS funding for all sorts of cosmetic enhancements/dehancements?

I said "a lot of cosmetic surgery". I know it's often done for reasons of preventing psychological suffering, and quite legitimately too, but a lot of the time it isn't.

If the goal of medical care is to prevent suffering then surely this should, at least in theory, be allowed? The problem is that we can't show that it will cause suffering and, even if we could, is the potential suffering severe enough to justify such an invasive procedure?

hotblonde · 7th October 2007, 6:21pm

I disagree that the goal of medicine is to prevent suffering. The goal is generally to prolong life and combat disease and suffering (note that they are together and so in context aligned).

I think any invasive procedure, diagnostic or otherwise must be justified and unless extreme should be requested by the actual individual. Menstruation, whilst it is a nightmare and a female curse, is not the worst or most horrific human condition. A hysterectomy was done in Victorian times to women who 'gave their husband's chat or talked back'. It is from the Greek 'hysteria' and so you can decide for yourself why the term was conceived. Many women then had no control over their uterus and ovaries, I think it's shocking that this may still be the case.