Parents Stunt Disabled Daughter's Growth

The parents of a severely disabled girl have taken the radical step to stop their daughter growing in an attempt to improve her life.

As well as giving their child hormones to limit her size, Jenn and Mark Hooper also had doctors remove Charley's womb to spare her the pain of having periods.

The New Zealand couple are among a small, but increasing number of families around the world resorting to a highly controversial treatment known as growth attenuation, in bid to make the lives of their disabled children better.

Opponents argue stunting and sterilising the disabled amounts to a violation of human rights.

But parents like the Hoopers insist it helps their children retain their quality of life.

Charley cannot speak or walk, has no control of her limbs and is virtually blind, unable to detect anything beyond light or dark.

She was left irreversibly brain damaged after being deprived of enough oxygen at birth, and was later diagnosed with a severe form of epilepsy.

Her parents have to try and interpret what she feels by the pitch and volume of her moans, and whether her face is relaxed or contorted in muscle spasms.

As she grew bigger her parents were concerned she would eventually become too big to take her anywhere, with the prospect of her having to be moved using hoists for the rest of her life or being trapped in bed.

Opponents argue stunting and sterilising the disabled amounts to a violation of human rights.

But parents like the Hoopers insist it helps their children retain their quality of life.

Charley cannot speak or walk, has no control of her limbs and is virtually blind, unable to detect anything beyond light or dark.

She was left irreversibly brain damaged after being deprived of enough oxygen at birth, and was later diagnosed with a severe form of epilepsy.

Her parents have to try and interpret what she feels by the pitch and volume of her moans, and whether her face is relaxed or contorted in muscle spasms.

As she grew bigger her parents were concerned she would eventually become too big to take her anywhere, with the prospect of her having to be moved using hoists for the rest of her life or being trapped in bed.

Margaret Nygren, CEO of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, said: "The idea behind growth attenuation is that you're keeping someone small for the convenience of those around them, not so that the individual is able to have the most fulfilling life, and I think that's the crux of the ethical issue.  Would you ever want this kind of treatment done to you without your consent or knowledge? And if the answer is no, then why would one want to do that to someone else?"

However, Charley has never been able to give her consent leaving the Hoopers only to guess at what their daughter would want.

Mrs Hooper said: "We don't expect her to live forever. We don't want her to live forever. Who wants this life forever? So we give her the best life we can while we've got her."

http://news.sky.com/story/1577336/parents-stunt-disabled-daughters-growth

If it were me I'd do the same thing and anyone that moaned about it would be challenged to come and love my life for a year then see how they feel!

Quite frankly, it's always a shame that people this disabled, actually survive. It's not fair on the individual, the parent and the siblings, if any, to have this amount of disability thrust upon you.
What are they doing wrong? Really?

Better to have a shorter, more comfortable life, than a life of longevity and hardship.

Can't comment on the stunting the growth as I have not ever been in that position with a child.

"Quite frankly, it's always a shame that people this disabled, actually survive. It's not fair on the individual, the parent and the siblings, if any, to have this amount of disability thrust upon you.
What are they doing wrong? Really?"

@eddie. I am always shocked when I hear such comments. Thought like that never even cross my mind. Hail Hitler.

Eddie, i'v always thought the same.

It's a very emotive subject.  In this case I completely understand why the parents have taken this course of action.  

I truly believe that Charley will have a better quality of life as a result, the family also but that isn't their primary concern.  They want the best for their daughter, even if the best is letting her go:

Mrs Hooper said: "We don't expect her to live forever. We don't want her to live forever. Who wants this life forever? So we give her the best life we can while we've got her."

They clearly love her very much

nicko wrote:Eddie,   i'v always thought the same.

I don't know why people find that shocking. Do they think it's kind to keep a person alive who has zero quality of life?
I bet ther parents, and others in the same position, think it often.

Nobody would leave a dog like that.

eddie wrote:

nicko wrote:Eddie,   i'v always thought the same.

I don't know why people find that shocking. Do they think it's kind to keep a person alive who has zero quality of life?  
I bet ther parents, and others in the same position, think it often.

Nobody would leave a dog like that.

Absolutely Eddie it's very sad but true all the same x

Yes FTL, very sad


Know who I feel sad for? The siblings of these children: they are losing, not matter how you look at it, a massive part of their own childhood. All of it taken up by a severely (and I only mean this about the severely) disabled child.