Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ETHICS: Seattle hospital admits breaking law in giving girl hysterectomy
KING TV (Seattle) ^ | 5/8/07

Posted on 05/08/2007 2:13:24 PM PDT by llevrok

SEATTLE - A Seattle hospital acknowledged breaking state law when doctors performed a hysterectomy on a severely developmentally disabled girl whose parents have pursued medical treatments to stunt her growth, making her easier to care for.

Sterilization surgeries must not be performed on children without a court order, Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center said Tuesday after an investigation by Washington Protection and Advocacy System. The hospital also agreed to appoint "someone with a disability rights perspective" to its ethics committee.

Doctors performed the experimental surgeries in 2004, removing the girl's uterus and breast buds. The girl, identified only as "Ashley," was 6 years old at the time. The hospital's ethics committee supported the treatment, which included hormone therapy, but noted before the surgeries that court review would be required.

A lawyer for the girl's parents disagreed, saying the state law did not apply in Ashley's case, and the hospital performed the procedures without court permission. Ashley was diagnosed with severe brain damage shortly after birth, and her condition has left her in an infant state, unable to sit up, roll over, hold a toy or walk or talk.

"We deeply regret that a court order was not obtained and that an independent third party was not sought to represent Ashley. We take full responsibility for the miscommunication between the ethics committee and the treating physicians," said Dr. David Fisher, the hospital's medical director. "We have introduced new safeguards so that procedures requiring a court order will have one obtained before they begin."

Ashley's doctors touched off a highly charged ethical debate when they wrote about her treatment in October's Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. Some critics decried the parents' actions as perverse and akin to eugenics. Her parents maintained that keeping her small would make her more comfortable and allow them to move her more easily and take better care of her.

On their blog Tuesday, Ashley's parents praised the vigilance of the advocacy group that investigated the case. But they also said they hoped requiring court orders in such cases would not create obstacles for parents seeking the best care for their disabled children.

"As responsible and loving parents, deeply concerned for the well-being of our child, we provided a better quality of life to our Ashley, who is doing very well under our love and care," they wrote. "We hope that other families of the many children like Ashley will likewise be able to care for and benefit their children without undue obstacles."

"People concerned with the rights of individuals with disabilities still have a lot of questions about why this type of invasive and irreversible procedure would be performed on a 6-year-old," said Curt Decker, National Disability Rights Network executive director. "We hope that the agreement between WPAS and Children's Hospital will be the first step in resolving this issue and that the long-term result will be an end to the use of the 'Ashley Treatment.' I know the entire disability community will be carefully watching the implementation of this agreement."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: ethics; moralabsolutes

1 posted on 05/08/2007 2:13:32 PM PDT by llevrok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: llevrok

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1761948/posts

from January


2 posted on 05/08/2007 2:22:07 PM PDT by Thywillnotmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

Just when you think you can’t get any more repulsed by the Left....


3 posted on 05/08/2007 2:22:21 PM PDT by jonascord (She walked thru the door, twirling a pair of 44s. And, in her hand was a gun...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wingsofthemorn
Yup. This is the update. More and more weird, eh?
4 posted on 05/08/2007 2:27:07 PM PDT by llevrok (Truth is the enemy of the lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

Ashley was diagnosed with severe brain damage shortly after birth, and her condition has left her in an infant state, unable to sit up, roll over, hold a toy or walk or talk.

“People concerned with the rights of individuals with disabilities still have a lot of questions...”said Curt Decker, National Disability Rights Network executive director. “... I know the entire disability community will be carefully watching the implementation of this agreement.”


The rights of the individual? Has this little forever infant girl been deprived of the right to exercise her sexuality, or to outweigh her mother? She’s not a member of the “disability community”; she’s a member of her family and they’re taking the best care of her they can.

Mrs VS


5 posted on 05/08/2007 2:32:39 PM PDT by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

Disgusting. A prosecution is in order here.


6 posted on 05/08/2007 2:33:43 PM PDT by Thywillnotmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: everyone
If you would like to drop them a email here is the addy:
jennifer.seymour@seattlechildrens.org
7 posted on 05/08/2007 2:36:38 PM PDT by troy McClure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor

Yes, you are right. The parents, faced with a tragedy, are dealing with it the best way they know how. It is a disgrace that they are being second-guessed, when a less committed parent would have let her die.


8 posted on 05/08/2007 2:38:39 PM PDT by 3AngelaD (They've screwed up their own countries so bad they had to leave, now they're here screwing up ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

“...doctors performed a hysterectomy on a severely developmentally disabled girl whose parents have pursued medical treatments to stunt her growth, making her easier to care for.”

It’s all about convenience. Same with abortion and Terry Schivo’s husband who had already abandoned the marriage and was living with another woman...


9 posted on 05/08/2007 2:45:49 PM PDT by weegee (Libs want us to learn to live with terrorism, but if a gun is used they want to rewrite the Const.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor

The “quality of life” crowd would question if she should even be alive.


10 posted on 05/08/2007 2:47:08 PM PDT by weegee (Libs want us to learn to live with terrorism, but if a gun is used they want to rewrite the Const.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor

I agree with you. The parents are trying to act in the best interests of the family, not only themselves, but their daughter. It appears that they did put some thought behind this.

I will preface this that IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I believe the parents made a legitimate decision and should have been allowed to do so. I would not say EVERY case parents ALWAYS should be able to do whatever without anyone revieweing it.

The factors for me are is that these parents have a severely brain damaged young child, and they are thinking about how they are going to be able to care for her as they age and lose functionality themselves. They want to be able to take care of her, she is not going to have a normal life in her condition, she has no prospects of a normal marriage and family life of her own in her condition, they will be the primary caregivers of her as long as they are all alive, and while it is an unorthodox move, I think it fits in with them and their desire to be able to care for her as long as she is alive. They don’t want to dump her on anyone.


11 posted on 05/08/2007 2:49:15 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: llevrok
The hospital's ethics committee supported the treatment, which included hormone therapy, but noted before the surgeries that court review would be required.

A lawyer for the girl's parents disagreed, saying the state law did not apply in Ashley's case, and the hospital performed the procedures without court permission.

IMHO if anyone should be punished for this, it should be the parents lawyer. Not that that will happen, in almost every case lawyers stick together.

12 posted on 05/08/2007 2:50:19 PM PDT by magslinger (Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors. And miss. R.A.Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

6 years old!!! OMG I was expecting the article to say she was 14 or 15 and they were afraid of molestation and pregnancies; soliciting maybe a tad bit of sympathy, but 6 years old! Who gives a 6 year old a hysterectomy! That is insane and criminal.


13 posted on 05/08/2007 2:53:36 PM PDT by Integrityrocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor

Good post...........


14 posted on 05/08/2007 2:54:07 PM PDT by Osage Orange (The old/liberal/socialist media is the most ruthless and destructive enemy of this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

IMHO The law and the hospital ethics committee called for a court mandate. I totally agree that the parents are doing their best when others would have let this child die, and most likely the court would have agreed IN THIS CASE. Even if it had not agreed, the rule of thumb is that if you don’t like the law, you work to change it... you don’t put yourself above it. The hospital is at fault here, as far as I can see. Shall we discuss the number of times hospitals practice euthanasia by not treating pneumonia in the elderly, or by double-dosing morphine? Medical workers often see themselves as in the vanguard, and as such often practice beyond the law, and this is not right.


15 posted on 05/08/2007 3:15:36 PM PDT by Thywillnotmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Integrityrocks
"6 years old!!! OMG I was expecting the article to say she was 14 or 15 and they were afraid of molestation and pregnancies; soliciting maybe a tad bit of sympathy, but 6 years old! Who gives a 6 year old a hysterectomy! "

You've GOT to read better. She was 6 years old in 2004, not now. She's about 9 or 10 now.

16 posted on 05/08/2007 4:18:07 PM PDT by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor
It's not the parents that I am repulsed by. As you say, they are trying to cope with the impossible. It's this sociopath, Curt Decker.

These are the same m***********s that push the concept of deaf couples denying operations that would save their children's hearing, in an effort to "preserve a hearing impaired lifestyle."

17 posted on 05/08/2007 7:24:50 PM PDT by jonascord (She walked thru the door, twirling a pair of 44s. And, in her hand was a gun...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: llevrok
We take full responsibility for the miscommunication between the ethics committee and the treating physicians,

"miscommunication"? Jeeez, what a steaming pantload. Everyone knew what everyone was doing here.

Easier to seek forgiveness after than to ask permission before.

18 posted on 05/09/2007 7:06:34 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson