PDA

View Full Version : Should the disabled be allowed historectomys?


lordrrr
02-21-2008, 08:26 PM
Sorry for the odd title but here is what I mean:
My sister has autism and epilepsy. She's had it all of her life. She cannot speak english and has to communicate with this soundboard program and just noises/sign language (not official sign language however). Relatively recently (for about the past 2-3 years) she has been undergoing pueberty, and started having her first periods last summer. Since it is deadly she should ever have a child, as sex must be consensual and she could never coherently accept it without it being illegal in regards to the offender, and it plausible she could not be physically fit for a baby, there is no point in her keeping her eggs. This is completely obvious and just simple logic.


However, she is denied a historectomy (spelling?) and just has to have pointless menstrual periods every 28 days. The bleeding is very bad, and she gets into a REALLY nasty attitude undergoing them (she is extremely stubborn), essentially just causing much much more harm than good (in fact I doubt there is even one good in keeping her eggs there). So since a historectomy is "out of the question because it is, most obviously, extremely immoral", we went with option number two, which was having her undergo surgery to make her have less periods. Ironically, there were complications with the surgery, and she began having them once every week, or even more frequent than that!!! It was a complete nightmare for both her and us because of her absolutely pissy mood swings.



That was a long time ago and now she her periods seem to be getting less frequent, but still, my mother continues to fight the state to allow my sister to have a damn historectomy already. Do any of you find this absolutely ridiculous as well?

iamnotspock
02-22-2008, 01:06 AM
I feel that you were wrong to give her a surgery to which she could not consent and could have complications. But I understand your intentions were good and it must be a great burden to deal with so who am I to judge (even though I _am_ an INT*J*)

narusmummy
02-22-2008, 03:04 AM
Hey, Lordrrr, thought you might like to have a look at this...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The case has still not been resolved as yet.

The ethics in such cases are so blurred, it will never be a simple decision, or process. If your mum truely believes that this is the right thing for your sister then she should fight it or what's a voice for?

Just in quick reply to what iamnotspock said; all surgery comes with complications and I understand your view on consent but becuse this girl cannot give consent, her mother has a legal right to; she is her primary carer and is bound by an obligation to consent where her daughter cannot. It's like being given power of attourney of an elderly or ill relative, where you are legally responsible for all their finances and social care.

yondyr
02-22-2008, 05:25 AM
Logically, her case should be assessed and legal guardianship rest with the mother/carer.