Should Severely Disabled Kids Be Kept Small?

[Azriel]

What HSM said.

[homeschoolmom]

Okay, so then Flintstone Chewables would be out as well.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Azriel' post='1110140' date='Nov 3 2006, 05:51 PM']
What HSM said.
[/quote]

Altering a human child from its normal path of growth is reprehensible.

HGH is an alteration from the path of growth the child would otherwise take. And if you allow HGH for children with dwarfism, why not for children who just want to be taller so they can play pro basketball? Dwarfism isn't a terminal illness after all.

Edited November 3, 2006 by KizlarAgha

[Azriel]

Having no real knowledge of dwarfism, I cannot even pretend to understand it.

But my take is this: With HGH, you are providing something to a body that cannot produce it on its own - such as insulin to a diabetic. You are not inhibiting it. Maybe I chose my own words wrong ... As I've already attested, I'm not exactly unbiased.

But in the case of inhibiting growth - you are not giving a body something it is lacking - but rather taking something away from it. It is not out of necessity for the person to live. It is only to make the care for the person "easier" - which is truly subjective. You are right, dwarfism isn't a terminal illness ( I don't believe), and maybe in some instances (to which I cannot attest) there are people who refuse the HGH. If it is providing the body something it is lacking - then you are giving it the opportunity to grow "normally" as defined by the majority of humans.

If given to people to play basketball - then you are not giving a body something it is lacking.

I'm really not trying to dodge your question, Kiz. There are just some things that I can't but into words very well.

Way too often, we look for ways in which things can be made "easier", but again, I say, at who's expense?

My cousin has a child who should never have walked. If she had made the choice to stunt his growth - would he now be walking? Experts had said he wouldn't. But he does.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Azriel' post='1110161' date='Nov 3 2006, 06:03 PM']
Having no real knowledge of dwarfism, I cannot even pretend to understand it.

But my take is this: With HGH, you are providing something to a body that cannot produce it on its own - such as insulin to a diabetic. You are not inhibiting it. Maybe I chose my own words wrong ... As I've already attested, I'm not exactly unbiased.

But in the case of inhibiting growth - you are not giving a body something it is lacking - but rather taking something away from it. It is not out of necessity for the person to live. It is only to make the care for the person "easier" - which is truly subjective. You are right, dwarfism isn't a terminal illness ( I don't believe), and maybe in some instances (to which I cannot attest) there are people who refuse the HGH. If it is providing the body something it is lacking - then you are giving it the opportunity to grow "normally" as defined by the majority of humans.

If given to people to play basketball - then you are not giving a body something it is lacking.

I'm really not trying to dodge your question, Kiz. There are just some things that I can't but into words very well.

Way too often, we look for ways in which things can be made "easier", but again, I say, at who's expense?

My cousin has a child who should never have walked. If she had made the choice to stunt his growth - would he now be walking? Experts had said he wouldn't. But he does.
[/quote]

You're wrong. If you give HGH to a kid so that he can grow taller to play basketball, you are making up for a lack in his body. "Normal" for a basketball player is like 7ft tall. So, you're just making up for his natural deficiency so that he can be a normal basketball player.

[cmotherofpirl]

The child that I previously mentioned - she is going to be at least 6 foot tall.

The doctors said they could remove her legs since she will never use them and her care would be easier to manage as she became an adult.

Would that be better or worse than what these parents have done?

[KizlarAgha]

This is what my doctor said on the matter:

Ms. B

Where in hell do you find these things? Too much. Very interesting medical and ethical questions raised, however. The estrogen applied early would hasten the appearance of secondary sex characteristics—for a female, pubic hair, axillary hair (though that is largely testosterone determined), female shape, female voice, female skin, female fat distribution, female development of central nervous system (and we have little idea what this entails), etc. Very complicated issue and I am so glad not to be in the midst of it.


[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1110182' date='Nov 3 2006, 06:39 PM']
The child that I previouslymentioned - she is going to be at least 6 foot tall.

The doctors said they could remove her legs since she will never use them and her care would be easier to manage as she became an adult.

Would that be better or worse than what these parents have done?
[/quote]


I guess even I have to stop at cutting off legs.

Come to think of it, I may have a mental block of sorts that isn't particularly logical. I'm fine with altering the body via pills, but I really don't like the idea of surgical body modification at all.

Edited November 3, 2006 by KizlarAgha

[Azriel]

I guess it all hinges on semantics then. What is one's defintion of normal? To me, being a basketball player is a "want" for someone - a conscious choice. Just because you make someone taller doesn't make them a basketball player. Just because they aren't tall, doesn't mean that they are physiologically "lacking".

I'd bet money Cmom - that most people who said that altering via pills would be acceptable would, like Kiz, have a serious hangup about cutting off a child's legs. Because that would be deforming, wouldn't it? So what's the difference between deforming a child that way - and doing it with a pill? Is it not a form of deformation to stunt a child's growth?

Its too emotional for me. I don't think I'll ever see the other side clearly.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Azriel' post='1110211' date='Nov 3 2006, 07:27 PM']
I guess it all hinges on semantics then. What is one's defintion of normal? To me, being a basketball player is a "want" for someone - a conscious choice. Just because you make someone taller doesn't make them a basketball player. Just because they aren't tall, doesn't mean that they are physiologically "lacking".

I'd bet money Cmom - that most people who said that altering via pills would be acceptable would, like Kiz, have a serious hangup about cutting off a child's legs. Because that would be deforming, wouldn't it? So what's the difference between deforming a child that way - and doing it with a pill? Is it not a form of deformation to stunt a child's growth?

Its too emotional for me. I don't think I'll ever see the other side clearly.
[/quote]

Well, I've altered myself with hormones, so that's par for the course for me. Estrogen in fact. Hacking off limbs on the other hand...

[Azriel]

I think all of us cringe when we think of limbs being removed ... and I suppose we've all altered ourselves some way or another with pills.

I've been hormonely altered several times. It wasn't a pleasant experience. For me or hubby. :

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Azriel' post='1110218' date='Nov 3 2006, 07:32 PM']
I think all of us cringe when we think of limbs being removed ... and I suppose we've all altered ourselves some way or another with pills.

I've been hormonely altered several times. It wasn't a pleasant experience. For me or hubby. :
[/quote]

Is stunting growth a mutilation? I dunno. But I do know that hacking off limbs is a mutilation. If that helps any.