Parents of a mentally dissabled child had her surgically growth-prevented to "keep her a managable size".
Surgery on girl raises ethical questions | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Does this go beyond parental rights when caring for a child?

Yes.
If they were to deprive her of proper nutrition, that would be considered abuse.
To get a group of doctors to commit the abuse is no better.

She is mentally disabled, so the parents should do their best to help this child, not to hurt her.

==========================
For another twist to the story?
Would it be within "parental rights" if the little girl involve was not mentally disabled, and she actually REQUESTED the surgery (and her parents agreed)?

What then?

I can't believe they're not charged with assault - AND the doctors.

IF that is acceptable and legal, WHY can't we castrate or force hysterectomies on child molesters? It would certainly make them easier "to handle?"

Never mind the ethical questions, what kind of PARENTS do these people think they are? Harming the child for THEIR benefit?! They should be thrown in jail for life.

Ethical questions??? Let us see, if these parents decide that for issues of quality of life to instead allow this child to be starved to death, no one would have a problem with it.

However, in this case, the parents valued life and instead hope to see their child live. Yes, what they did makes their life easier. However, it also helps Ashley. It will prevent her from getting soars, and truthfully we do not know what kind of life she has but she is alive.

So once again let us review, kill the patient - no ethical dilemma. Allow the patient to live - ethical dilemma.

Hmmmmmmmm.

dmk

I hope you're being sarcastic. No ethical dilemma if intentionally let the kid starve??? I don't think so.

You don't think so, sorry but those great medical ethicist have no problem with euthanasia. No sarcasm was intended, I was being quite serious and truthful.

dmk

I am surprised that the parents are being so judged. Reading the article in the link, it appears certain that this procedure was done because they wanted their daughter to be loved and within the family setting as opposed to becoming to difficult to care for by weight and size issues. In which case her care would have been likely too hard at home, and she would have been placed in an institution.

I am surprised that this kind of option was acted upon, but I do not fault the parents for it, they evidently looked into it and were advised that medically, it was not a danger to the girl and hopefully even beneficial.

I don't know how I feel about it, right now. But I do not feel led to conclude this was done selfishly or capriciously.

OD

Must just be me having a problem with it then.

I'm not surprised at all about the judgments. However, I *was* very surprised to hear about the surgery the parents had elected for their daughter. I couldn't understand it. I still can't, but reading the parents' webpage (given in the article near the photo) helped me understand their point of view a wee bit better. And apparently their child is not the only one born with static encephalopathy (sp?), as other parents have been in contact with Ashley's parents. We on the outside are not in their shoes...

But still, it seems very radical treatment.